# Host: localhost (MySQL 5.1.54-log)
# Database: bap
# Generation Time: 2011-11-15 11:34:52 +0200
# ************************************************************

/*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT=@@CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS=@@CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_COLLATION_CONNECTION=@@COLLATION_CONNECTION */;
/*!40101 SET NAMES utf8 */;
/*!40014 SET @OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS=@@UNIQUE_CHECKS, UNIQUE_CHECKS=0 */;
/*!40014 SET @OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@@FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS, FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0 */;
/*!40101 SET @OLD_SQL_MODE=@@SQL_MODE, SQL_MODE='NO_AUTO_VALUE_ON_ZERO' */;
/*!40111 SET @OLD_SQL_NOTES=@@SQL_NOTES, SQL_NOTES=0 */;


# Dump of table 01Header
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `01Header`;

CREATE TABLE `01Header` (
  `Country` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  `PrefilledName` text,
  `PrefilledVerifiedCOName` text,
  `PrefilledVerifiedCODate` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PrefilledVerifiedECName` text,
  `PrefilledVerifiedECDate` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DataEntryMSName` text,
  `DataEntryCOName` text,
  `VerifiedMSName` text,
  `VerifiedMSDate` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `VerifiedCOName` text,
  `VerifiedCODate` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `VerifiedECName` text,
  `VerifiedECDate` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `Country` (`Country`),
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `01Header` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `01Header` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `01Header` (`Country`,`CountryCode`,`PrefilledName`,`PrefilledVerifiedCOName`,`PrefilledVerifiedCODate`,`PrefilledVerifiedECName`,`PrefilledVerifiedECDate`,`DataEntryMSName`,`DataEntryCOName`,`VerifiedMSName`,`VerifiedMSDate`,`VerifiedCOName`,`VerifiedCODate`,`VerifiedECName`,`VerifiedECDate`)
VALUES
	('Austria','AT','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees,Sonja Gantioler,','10/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','Edda-Maria Bertel 03/03/2010; Anja Puchta 16/02/2010, 23/02/2010, 12/03/2010; Franz Meier 23/02/2010, 12/03/2010; Mathias Janko 03/03/2010; Alfred Lenauer 17/02/2010, 04/03/2010; Andrea Spanischberger 23/02/2010; Ernst Überreiter 25/02/2010; Karl-Maria Maitz 05/03/2010; Martin Kriech 08/03/2010; Doris Frank 04/03/2010; Gottfried Lamers 03/03/2010; Franz Essl 08/03/2010; Ursula Platzer 03/03/2010; Alfred Engl 03/03/2010; Rainer Spitaler 25/01/2010; Barbara Kronberger-Kießwetter 25/01/2010; Elfriede Fuhrmann 25/01/2010, 08/03/2010; Ingeborg Fiala 09/02/2010; Gabriele Obermayr 08/03/2010, 09/03/2010, 18/03/2010; Albert Knieling 15/03/2010','Draft final: Stephanie GoodCharlotte TindallCarole White, Nicolas Fournier, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','Edda-Maria Bertel 03/03/2010; Anja Puchta 16/02/2010, 23/02/2010, 12/03/2010; Franz Meier 23/02/2010, 12/03/2010; Mathias Janko 03/03/2010; Alfred Lenauer 17/02/2010, 04/03/2010; Andrea Spanischberger 23/02/2010; Ernst Überreiter 25/02/2010; Karl-Maria Maitz 05/03/2010; Martin Kriech 08/03/2010; Doris Frank 04/03/2010; Gottfried Lamers 03/03/2010; Franz Essl 08/03/2010; Ursula Platzer 03/03/2010; Alfred Engl 03/03/2010; Rainer Spitaler 25/01/2010; Barbara Kronberger-Kießwetter 25/01/2010; Elfriede Fuhrmann 25/01/2010, 08/03/2010; Ingeborg Fiala 09/02/2010; Gabriele Obermayr 08/03/2010, 09/03/2010, 18/03/2010; Albert Knieling 15/03/2010','Edda-Maria Bertel 22/03/2010','Draft final:Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler ','','Marco Fritz: Note that figures could not be verified ','25/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','BE','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Nicolas Fournier, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler','10/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','Van Dingenen, William (Walloon region - W), Machteld Gryseels (Brussels Capital region - BHG), Geert Raymaekers (Federal), Ludo Holsbeek & Els Martens (Flemish region - FL)','Stephanie GoodCharlotte TindallCarole White, Nicolas Fournier, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','Van Dingenen, William (Walloon region - W), Machteld Gryseels (Brussels Capital region - BHG), Geert Raymaekers (Federal), Els Martens (Flemish region - FL)','08/03/2010','Final DraftChris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler','','Anne TellerA legend is needed at the top of the whole report (BHG= Brussels Capital Region, FOD= Federal government; Fl= Flemish region; W= Walloon region) and spell check needed as well','27/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','BG','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler, Fournier Nicolas, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler, Abisha Mapendembe','10/12/2009, 11/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','',' N/A – no Member State data provided but some prefilled data was updated by the above where new data has become available since 14 January 2010','','','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler, Peter Herkenrath, (12/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Cyprus','CY','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','10/12/2009; 11/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','Marina Xenophontos, Environment Officer, Department of Environment','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Christina Pantazi, Environment Officer A\', Department of Environment','4/5/2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (13/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','CZ','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','10/12/2009; 11/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','Vlastimil Zedek','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','Dagmar Zíková','02/04/2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (11/05/2010)','','Ctibor Kocman',''),
	('Germany','DE','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','13/01/2010','','','Christa Ratte26/03/2010','Fournier Nicolas, Abisha Mapendembe Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','','','Draft final: Krolopp Andras, Peter Herkenrath,  Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler (13/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Denmark','DK','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','11/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','','','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (13/05/2010)','','Susanne Wegefelt','25/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','EE','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','10/12/2009, 11/12/09, 14/01/2010','          ','','Liina Eek Kadri Alasi Lilika Käis Siiri Kerge Marina Bantsenko Merike Linnamägi Jüri Truusa Mari Moora Piret Palm Katri Teesalu Indrek Laas Jaanus Tanilsoo Rein Kaarli Herdis Fridolin Kadri Möller Rene Reisner Lauri Klein Madli Karjatse Lehti Veeväli Mai Talvik Külli Kaare Merje Põlma Anneli Härmson Madli Karjatse Mart Laugis Merjan Savila Vahur Mõttus Marika Erikson Riina Martverk Riho Marja Karin Radiko Eda Andresmaa Aivar Küttim Külli Kaare 1/03/2010 until 09/03/2010 ','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner, Abisha Mapendembe ','Hanno Zingel',' 11/03/2010','Draft final: Krolopp Andras,  Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler, Peter Herkenrath (13/05/2010)   ','','Olli Ojala     ','26/05/2010     '),
	('Greece','EL','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','10/12/2009, 11/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','','Abisha Mapendembe N/A – no Member State data provided but some prefilled data was updated by the above where new data has become available since 14 January 2010','','','Draft Profile: Krolopp Andras, Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler, Peter Herkenrath (13/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Spain','ES','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','13/01/2010','','','Isabel Lorenzo','Fournier Nicolas, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner,  ','Tania Lopez-PiñeiroMarta García Pérez','','Draft final: Krolopp Andras,Chris Mees , Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (14/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Finland','FI','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Fournier Nicolas, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy, Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler','10/12/2009; 11/12/2009, 14/01/2010','','','','Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White Fournier Nicolas,Abisha Mapende, Peter Herkenrath','','','Draft FinalSonja Gantioler Krolopp Andras,Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees (13/05/10)','11/05/2010','Olli Ojala','26/05/2010'),
	('France','FR','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler10/12/2009, 11/12/2009, 14/01/2010',NULL,'','','Cécile BLANC',' Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapande, Peter Herkenrath','Paul DELDUC','25/02/2010','Draft FinalAndras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath (14/05/10)','','Aude Neuville(with contribution from Joseph van der Stegen)','31/05/2010)'),
	('Hungary','HU','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, CharlotteTindall, Carole White, Nicolas Fournier, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler','13/01/2010','','','Pomozi Virág, Balczó Bertalan, Kováts Dávid, Szalai András, Greguss Ditta, Baktay Borbála, Galbavy Emese, Kuti László, Anton Attila, Török Katalin, Koczka Krisztina, Varga Ildikó, Schmidt András, Bakó Botond, Bata Kinga, Csörgits Gábor, Dancza István','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Haraszthy László, Érdiné dr. Szekeres Rozália, Pokorni Flóra, Varga Ildikó, Schmidt András, Gáspár Vera, Balczó Bertalan, Greguss Ditta, Szalai András, Kováts Dávid, Nagyné Sós Ida, Adamovics Orsolya, Varga Judit, Peti Erzsébet, Dancza István, Baktay Borbála, Ádám Szilvia, Hasznos Erika','26/02/2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler ','  ','Szilvia Bősze','23/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','IE','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/201014/01/2010','','','Naomi Kingston, Deirdre Lynn, Ferdia Marnell, Peter Carvill, Andy Bleasdale, David Tierney, Emer Connolly, Liam Lysaght, Mark Maguire, Willie Roche, Noel Collins, Mark Maguire, Elizabeth Sides, Ciaran O\'Keeffe, Orla Fahy, Karen Gaynor, Gerard Cahalane','Fournier Nicolas, Abisha Mapendembe Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Ciaran O\'Keeffe','23/04/2010','Draft profile: Krolopp Andras, Peter Herkenrath Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler (13/05/10)','','',''),
	('Italy','IT','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010','','','Marina Andreella, Stella Biliotti, Eugenio Dupré','Nicoas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','Eugenio Dupré','26/03/2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (13/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Lithuania','LT','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, 14/01/2010','','','Dalius SungailaKristina KlovaitėLaima VaitonytėVytautas Naruševičius',' Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapende, Peter Herkenrath','Dalius SungailaKristina Klovaitė','Dalius SungailaKristina Klovaitė 23/04/2010','Draft Profile: Sonja Gantioler Krolopp Andras, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath (13/05/10)','','',''),
	('Luxembourg','LU','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, 14/01/2010','','','Frank Wolff, Sandra Cellina','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Frank Wolff, Sandra Cellina','26/02/2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (11/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Latvia','LV','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, 14/01/2010','','','Ms. Inese Gmizo-Larmane','Fournier Nicolas, Abisha Mapendembe Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','Ms. Ilona Mendzina','11/03/2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Peter Herkenrath Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler (11/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Malta','MT','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010','','','Duncan Borg, Environment Protection OfficerLisa Schembri Gambin, Environment Protection OfficerMarie Therese Gambin, Environment Protection OfficerDarrin T Stevens, Unit Manager Ecosystems Management','Fournier Nicolas, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Darrin T Stevens, Unit Manager Ecosystems ManagementMartin Seychell, Director of Environment','','Draft final: Krolopp Andras,Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (13/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Netherlands','NL','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, 14/01/2010','','','Annemiek Adams, ',' Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapende, Peter Herkenrath','','','Draft FinalKrolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath (14/05/10)','','',''),
	('Poland','PL','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, 14/01/2010','','','','Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','','','Draft Final: Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (11/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Portugal','PT','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, 14/01/2010','','','Pedro Ivo Arriegas','Fournier Nicolas, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Glória AraújoMário SilvaElisa OliveiraAnabela Trindade','22/04/2010','Draft final:Krolopp Andras,Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (13/5/10)','','',''),
	('Romania','RO','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Fournier Nicolas, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Krolopp Andras, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010, ','','','','Fournier Nicolas,Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White , Abisha Mapendembe, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner ','','','Final draft: Krolopp Andras, Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler (13/5/2010)','','',''),
	('Sweden','SE','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Nicolas Fournier, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010','','','Ann Wahlström, Swedish  Environmental Protection Agency','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Ruona Burman and Michael Löfroth, Ministry of the Environment','Karin Rappsjö Emanuelli11-03-2010','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (11/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Slovenia','SI','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Nicolas Fournier, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010','','','Damjan Vrček (ZRSVN), Tomaž Džuban, Boštjan Kos, Polona Bunič, Dušan Bravničar, Aleksander Golob (all MKGP), Gabriel Mezang Nkodo (SVLR), Darja Stanič Racman, Helena Matoz, Irena Rejec Brancelj, Nataša Vodopivec, Gabrijela Grčar, Andrej Bibič, Branka Tavzes, Vesna Kolar Planinšič, Katarina Groznik Zeiler, Alenka Fritzel (all MOP), Tanja Dolenc, Mojca Dobnikar Tehovnik, Inga Turk, Melanija Lešnjak, Jože Roth, Tajda Mekinda Majaron, Martina Logar (all ARSO), Jože Ileršič (FURS), Igor Šalamun (MG), Peter Skoberne, Breda Ogorelec','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good,Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe','23/03/2010',NULL,'Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath (11/05/2010)','','',''),
	('Slovakia','SK','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Nicolas Fournier, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler','13/01/2010','','','','Abisha Mapendembe N/A – no Member State data provided but some prefilled data was updated by the above where new data has become available since 14 January 2010','','','Draft profile: Andras Krolopp,Chris Mees, Sonja Gantioler, Peter Herkenrath (12/05/2010)','','',''),
	('United Kingdom','UK','Peter Herkenrath, Abisha Mapendembe, Anna Chenery, Stephanie Good, Charlotte Tindall, Carole White, Nicolas Fournier, Sonja Gantioler, Katherine McCoy ','Peter Herkenrath, Chris Mees, Andras Krolopp, Sonja Gantioler ','13/01/2010','','',' Various','Nicolas Fournier, Stephanie Good, Charlotte, Tindall, Carole White, Abisha Mapendembe, Sonja Gantioler,Kaley Hart, Marianne Kettunen, Graham Tucker, Sarah Gardner','Jean Smyth, Andy Williams, Defra','No, partial verification only (see individual sections for details)','Draft final: Andras Krolopp, Chris Mees, Peter Herkenrath, Sonja Gantioler (14/05/2010)','','','');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `01Header` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat` (
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  `HabitatSites` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatTerraArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatMarineSites` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatMarineArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdSites` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdTerraArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdMarineSites` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdMarineArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat` (`CountryCode`,`HabitatSites`,`HabitatArea`,`HabitatTerraArea`,`HabitatMarineSites`,`HabitatMarineArea`,`BirdSites`,`BirdArea`,`BirdTerraArea`,`BirdMarineSites`,`BirdMarineArea`)
VALUES
	('AT','168','8978','10.7','','','96','9867','11.8','',NULL),
	('BE','280','3269','10.1','1','5.23','234','3282','8.7','3',NULL),
	('BG','228','33,429','29.6','14','','114','23,217','20.4','14',NULL),
	('CY','40','883','13.1','5','','29','1593','25.9','3',NULL),
	('CZ','1087','7857','9.96','0','0','41','7037','8.92','0',NULL),
	('DE','4622','54,343','9.9','53','','738','59,556','12.2','15',NULL),
	('DK','261','19,300','12.8','118','','113','14,709','5.9','59',NULL),
	('EE','531','11,321','16.8','36','','66','12,592','13.1','26',NULL),
	('EL','241','28,076','16.3','134','5.4','202','29,534','20.9','120',NULL),
	('ES','1435','126,132','22.9','95','','594','103,216','20.18','33',NULL),
	('FI','1715','48,552','12.7','98','','468','30,838','7.5','66',NULL),
	('FR','1365','72,417','8.5','94','','380','70,140','7.9','72',NULL),
	('HU','467','13,973','15.0','','','55','13,512','14.5','',NULL),
	('IE','423','13,553','10.7','96','','131','2815','2.9','66',NULL),
	('IT','2284','45,236','14.3','287','1.5','591','43,670','13.6','55',NULL),
	('LT','267','6664','9.9','2','','77','5435','8.1','1',NULL),
	('LU','48','399','15.4','','','12','139','5.4','',NULL),
	('LV','331','7663','11.0','6','','98','6766','9.7','4',NULL),
	('MT','28','50','13.3','1','0.18','13','16','4.5','0',NULL),
	('NL','467','13,973','15.0','','','55','13,512','14.5','',NULL),
	('PL','364','28,884','8.1','6','-','141','55,118','15.6','4',NULL),
	('PT','96','16,788','17.4','30','-','59','10,475','10.7','10',NULL),
	('RO','273','32,833','13.2','6','-','108','29,890','12.6','1',NULL),
	('SE','3983','64,468','15.7','334','9.2','531','29,873','6.2','108',NULL),
	('SI','260','6397','31.6','0','0','26','4618','22.8','0',NULL),
	('SK','382','5739','11.8','','','38','12,236','25.1','',NULL),
	('UK','623','29,066','6.8','49','','268','16,253','6.3','4',NULL);

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_1_1_Natura2000Compleat` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan` (
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  `Compleat` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Preperation` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `None` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan` (`CountryCode`,`Compleat`,`Preperation`,`None`)
VALUES
	('AT','','',''),
	('BE','3.5',' 84.5','12'),
	('BG','','',''),
	('CY','69.4 ','19.4 ','11.1 '),
	('CZ','0.27','99.63','0'),
	('DE','20.9','30.4','48.7'),
	('DK','0','100','0'),
	('EE','3.5','20','76.5'),
	('EL','0.2','40.4','59.4'),
	('ES','','',''),
	('FI','','',''),
	('FR','52','29','19'),
	('HU','9.5','28.5','62'),
	('IE','18',' 58','24'),
	('IT','12.4','11.2','76.4'),
	('LT','16','20','36'),
	('LU','29','6','65'),
	('LV','46','4','50'),
	('MT','3.6%','10.7%','85.7%'),
	('NL','9.5','28.5','62'),
	('PL','0','7.63','92.37'),
	('PT','51','3','49'),
	('RO','20','80',''),
	('SE','>95','<5','<1'),
	('SI','Forestry 28%, Fisheries 0%, Hunting 100%, Protected areas 11%','100% covered by Natura 2000 Management Programme','0%'),
	('SK','','',''),
	('UK','  83   ','3','14');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_1_1_Natura2000Plan` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_1_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_1_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_1_3` (
  `Y2004` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Y2005` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Y2006` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Y2009` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_1_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_1_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_1_3` (`Y2004`,`Y2005`,`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Y2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','1','','','','AT'),
	('','','1','','','','BE'),
	('','','','','2','2','BG'),
	('','','','','','','CY'),
	('','','2','2','','','CZ'),
	('','','','1','','','DE'),
	('1','','1','','','','DK'),
	('','','','','','','EE'),
	('1','','1','1','1','','EL'),
	('3','','4','','5','1','ES'),
	('','','','1','','','FI'),
	('','1','','','1','','FR'),
	('','','','','2','','HU'),
	('3','','','1','','','IE'),
	('1','1','','1','2','','IT'),
	('','','','','','','LT'),
	('','','','','','','LU'),
	('','','1','','','','LV'),
	('','','','','','','MT'),
	('','','','','2','','NL'),
	('','','1','','3','2','PL'),
	('1','','','','1','1','PT'),
	('','','','','1','','RO'),
	('','','','','','','SE'),
	('','','','','','','SI'),
	('','','2','','','','SK'),
	('','','','','1','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_1_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_2_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_2_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_2_3` (
  `ToolInPlace` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `ToolInDev` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_2_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_2_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_2_3` (`ToolInPlace`,`ToolInDev`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','AT'),
	('Y','Y','BE'),
	('','','BG'),
	('','Y','CY'),
	('Y','N','CZ'),
	('Y','Y','DE'),
	('(Y)','','DK'),
	('Y','N','EE'),
	('','','EL'),
	('N','Y','ES'),
	('Y','','FI'),
	('N','Y','FR'),
	('Y','','HU'),
	('N','N','IE'),
	('Y','Y','IT'),
	('Y','','LT'),
	('Y','Y','LU'),
	('N','','LV'),
	('Y','N','MT'),
	('Y','','NL'),
	('N','Y','PL'),
	('Y','','PT'),
	('Y','','RO'),
	('Y','','SE'),
	('N','','SI'),
	('','','SK'),
	('Y','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_2_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_3` (
  `BirdGrn` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdAmd` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdRed` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_3` (`BirdGrn`,`BirdAmd`,`BirdRed`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('94.1','2.9','2.9','AT'),
	('97.7','1.9','0.4','BE'),
	('92.2','3','4.2','BG'),
	('93.2','5','1.8','CY'),
	('94.5','3.5','2.1','CZ'),
	('95.5','2.9','1.6','DE'),
	('96.4','2.9','0.7','DK'),
	('96.5','2.4','1.2','EE'),
	('91.9','4.9','3.2','EL'),
	('91.4','4.4','4.2','ES'),
	('96.2','2.3','1.5','FI'),
	('94.3','4','1.7','FR'),
	('93.3','3.5','3.2','HU'),
	('97.6','1.4','1','IE'),
	('93.8','4','2.2','IT'),
	('95.5','2.9','1.7','LT'),
	('97.8','2.2','0','LU'),
	('95.2','3.3','1.5','LV'),
	('94.1','4.4','1.5','MT'),
	('93.3','3.5','3.2','NL'),
	('94.8','3.1','2.1','PL'),
	('93.2','4.2','2.6','PT'),
	('92.6','3.7','3.7','RO'),
	('96.8','2.5','0.7','SE'),
	('95','3.7','1.3','SI'),
	('94.3','3.4','2.4','SK'),
	('96.6','2.3','1.1','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_3_1_ActionPlan
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_3_1_ActionPlan`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_3_1_ActionPlan` (
  `BirdComp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MammalComp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AmphibComp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FishComp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `InvertComp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlantsComp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BirdPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MammalPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AmphibPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FishPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `InvertPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlantsPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanDataSource` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_3_1_ActionPlan` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_ActionPlan` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_3_1_ActionPlan` (`BirdComp`,`MammalComp`,`AmphibComp`,`FishComp`,`InvertComp`,`PlantsComp`,`BirdPlan`,`MammalPlan`,`AmphibPlan`,`FishPlan`,`InvertPlan`,`PlantsPlan`,`PlanDataSource`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','AT'),
	('Fl: 2','Fl: 3W: 2','Fl: 4W: 2','Fl: 5','Fl: 3','','BHG: 5','Fl: 1W: 1BHG: 4','Fl: 1W: 2BHG: 2','','BHG: 3W: 3','Fl: 3','Reference or title:Weblink: Fl: http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Publicaties.aspx ','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','N','Y','','','','','','','','CY'),
	('0','1',NULL,'0','1','4','0','2','0','0','1','1','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.zachranneprogramy.cz/index.php?docId=6204','CZ'),
	('235','57','43','24','380','475','41','16','24','4','47','112','','DE'),
	('5','6','0','2','1','1','0','19','0','0','0','0','http://www.skovognatur.dk/Naturprojekter/Projekttyper/Handlingsplaner/','DK'),
	('10','5','2','0','0','7','1','0','0','0','1','5','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('30','10','6','5','2','43','','','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:General Direction of Nature and ForestPolicy, Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs of Spain','ES'),
	('5','5','1','0','10','65','1','2','0','0','0','2','Reference or title:Weblink:','FI'),
	('16','6','2','1','0','0','4','2','9','0','5','11','Reference or title:Weblink:- Circulaire DEB/PVEM n  08/07 du 3 octobre 2008 relative aux éléments de cadrage, d’organisation et de méthodologie  pour la conduite des plans nationaux d’action pour les espèces menacées- Circulaire DEB/PEVM no 09-04 du 8 septembre 2009 relative au programme de réalisation de nouveaux plans nationaux d’actions en 2010 et compléments méthodologiques à la circulaire du 3 octobre 2008- Plan national d’action Vison d’Europe- Plan national d’action Chiroptères- Plan national d’action Hamster commun- Plan national d’action Ours- Plan d‘action Loup- Stratégie nationale Bouquetin- Plan national d’action Outarde canepetière- Plan national d’action Râle des genêts- Plan national d’action Butor étoilé- Plan national d’action Balbuzard pêcheur- Plan national d’action Vautour percnoptère- Plan national d’action Milan royal- Plan national d’action Aigle de Bonelli- Plan national d’action Faucon crécerellette- Plan national d’action Chouette chevêche- Plan national d’action Autour des palombes- Plan national d’action Goéland d’Audouin- Plan national d’action Sitelle corse- Plan national d’action Pies-grièches- Plan national d’action Vautour moine- Plan national d’action Ganga cata et Alouette calandre- Plan national d’action Pétrel de Bourbon (Pseudobulweria aterrima)- Plan national d’action Vipère d’Orsini- Plan national d’action Tortues marines- Plan national d’action Esturgeon d’Europehttp://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/-Plans-nationaux-de-restauration-.html (website currently being restructured)','FR'),
	('2','4','3','1','10','20','0','2','0','0','0','0','Reference or title:Weblink:A publication is under preparation by BirdLife Hungary on the Monitoring of Our Common Birds Scheme. More information on the methodology (in Hungarian) at: http://www.mme-monitoring.hu/prog.php?datid=56','HU'),
	('','13','1','1','','2','','','','','1','','http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','IE'),
	('5','3','','1','','','2','3','1','1','','','http://minambiente.it','IT'),
	('','','','','','','9','5','0','1','3','4','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.am.lt/VI/index.php#a/9101','LT'),
	('5','3','6','0','3','11','4','0','0','0','1','3','http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/Plans_d_actions/index.html','LU'),
	('3','3','3','0','3','0','','','','','','','http://www.daba.gov.lv/index.php?objid=288','LV'),
	('0','0','0','0','0','0','0','1','1','0','0','0','','MT'),
	('2','4','3','1','10','20','0','2','0','0','0','0','Reference or title:Weblink:A publication is under preparation by BirdLife Hungary on the Monitoring of Our Common Birds Scheme. More information on the methodology (in Hungarian) at: http://www.mme-monitoring.hu/prog.php?datid=56','NL'),
	('','1','','','','','2','5','1','','2','5','','PL'),
	('3','8','','','1','','1','','','1','1','1','Plano de Acção para a Conservação do Lince-ibérico (Lynx pardinus) em Portugal (Despacho n.º 12697/2008, de 6 de Maio): http://dre.pt/pdf2sdip/2008/05/087000000/2017520180.pdf); (http://www.gppaa.min-agricultura.pt/RI/InstrumentosBilaterais/Docs/Espanha/MEAguiaRealLinceIberico.pdf); http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/10/20300/0746007465.PDF; Plano de Acção para a Salvaguarda e Monitorização da População de Roazes do Estuário do Sado (Despacho n.º 21997/2009, de 2 de Outubro); Palmeirim, JM & Rodrigues L 1992 – Plano Nacional de Conservação dos Morcegos Cavernícolas Estudos de Biologia e Conservação da Natureza 8; Teodósio J., R. Ceia & L. Costa (2009). Action plan for the Azores Bulfinch Pyrrhula murina in the European Union, (…)p. ISSN (…);Ramos, J. A. 1996. Action plan for the Azores bullfinch (Pyrrhula murina). Pag. 347-352. In Globally threatened birds in Europe - Action plans (B. Heredia, L. Rose & M. Painter, Eds.). Council of Europe Publishing, Estrasburgo. http://linceiberico.icnb.pt; http://dre.pt/pdf2sdip/2009/10/192000000/4006840070.pdf; http://www.spea.pt/ms_priolo/; http://www.sosfreiradobugio.com/; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/pyrrhula_murina.pdf; http://www.pnm.pt/; http://www.cetaceos-madeira.com/; http://www.emecetus.com/; http://www.macetus.museudabaleia.org/;   http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/golfinicho/paginas/Golfinicho.html','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('8 (8)','7(7)','7 (2)','4 (1)','34 (7)','30 (9)','5 (5)','4 (3)','2','6 (2)','43 (4)','10 (3)','Swedish EPA: Swedish list of action plans for threatened species (Åtgärdsprogram för hotade arter) http://www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Arbete-med-naturvard/Skydd-och-atgarder-for-djur-och-vaxter/Atgardsprogram-for-hotade-arter/ (in Swedish)','SE'),
	('2','1','0','0','0','','','2','0','0','0','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/okolje/pdf/zveri/akcijski_nacrt_medved_predlog_apr07.pdf','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Reference or title:Weblink: See http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=54 and http://www.ukbap.org.uk/species.aspx for details of the 382 species which have had an action plan written for them.  In 2007, following a significant review, a new list of 1150 species was adopted.  See http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3408 for a downloadable spreadsheet of conservation designations for UK fauna and flora, including new priority listing after a recent review.  Not all species now identified as a priority have an action plan.  ','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_ActionPlan` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_3_1_BirdIndicator
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_3_1_BirdIndicator`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_3_1_BirdIndicator` (
  `IndicatorDev` varchar(5) DEFAULT NULL,
  `IndicatorDesc` text,
  `DataSource` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_3_1_BirdIndicator` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_BirdIndicator` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_3_1_BirdIndicator` (`IndicatorDev`,`IndicatorDesc`,`DataSource`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y',NULL,';','AT'),
	('Y','Flanders (FL):The existing action plans are listed on the above website per species group.There are no specific indicators deriving from common bird monitoring schemes. Wallonia (W):In Wallonia, action plans are completed for the following species. Mammals : Cricetus cricetus and Rhinolophus hipposideros. Amphibians & reptiles : Lacerta agilis and Bombina variegata. Action plans are being prepared for mammals:  Lutra lutra ; amphibians : Epidalea calamita; reptiles: Vipera berus and invertebrates : Euphydryas aurinia, Lycanea helle and Lycanea dispar.Population trends of common bird species are computerized in Wallonia since 1990. The method consists of \"listening points\" of five minutes to repeat from year to year in similar conditions of time and weather. It is easy to apply and it combines a relatively high informal input with methodical observation. Indices are given for 79 species with some basic statistics, test results for regional or habitats variations and a short comment on the quality of observation. The final discussion also tackles the question of data quality and representativeness.Brussels Capital Region (BHG): Since 1992, 49 bird common species are monitored in the Brussels Capital Region by the help of listening points. The index of global health of common avifauna shows a moderate increase (+1,2  %/an  ±  0,23 ; p<0,01)','W: http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/organisations/OFFH/progISB/oiseaux/survois/HOME.HTM http://www.aves.be/coa/','BE'),
	('','','','BG'),
	('Y',' BirdLife Cyprus have a common census on (a) Cyprus birds (population, breeds and trends), (b) Autumn Raptor Migratory Birds, (c) Farmland Birds and (d) Water Birds. Results will be published by autumn 2010.','','CY'),
	('Y','The indicator is built on the common bird monitoring scheme and the data have been collected for approximatelly 30 years. The baseline comes from the monitoring activity in 1982. The indicator is a population trend of the selected common bird species (divided into farmland species and woodland species).','Reference or title:Weblink:http://jpsp.birds.cz/','CZ'),
	('Y','Data from common bird monitoring are used to report the national state indicator ‘Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity’ (SISD). The SISD is part of the German Biodiversity Strategy and of the National Sustainability Strategy. The SISD is a highly aggregated state indicator for the quality of nature and the landscape in Germany. To calculate the indicator, population trends of 59 selected bird species are monitored that represent the main landscape and habitat types and land use practices in Germany. This allows for conclusions about the state of the ‘normal’ landscape. Population sizes of the selected bird species directly reflect the sustainability of the landscape as a habitat for these species. As not only birds but many other species rely on a richly structured landscape with intact, sustainably managed habitats, the indicator also provides an indirect insight into the development of species diversity and the sustainability of current land use practices.','Reference or title:Weblink:References concerning national ‘Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity’ (SISD):1) Achtziger, R., Stickroth, H. & Zieschank, R. (2004) Nachhaltigkeitsindikator für die Artenvielfalt – ein Indikator für den Zustand von Natur und Landwirtschaft in Deutschland. – Angew. Landschaftsökol. 63: 1-137.2) Droeschmeister, R. & Sukopp, U. (in prep.): Indicators and Conservation Policy: the German Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity as an Example. – Avocetta Suppl. (Manuscript accepted). ','DE'),
	('Y','Among others index on farmland birds, woodland birds, and other common birds.','http://www.blst.dk/Biodiversitet/Indikatorer/DK/Alm_fugle/','DK'),
	('Y','The Farmland Bird Index has been developed and is used.','Reference or title:Weblink:Adopted species action plans (see at the bottom of the page): http://www.envir.ee/1688 ','EE'),
	('','','','EL'),
	('Y','','www.seo.org','ES'),
	('','','Reference or title:Weblink:','FI'),
	('Y','1. Indicators based on growth ratesa. Habitat specialist indicators (French Research Centre on Bird Population Biology - CRBPO)4 multi-species indicators are produced each year aggregating abundance indices of species depending on their specialisation to a given habitat. 4 species groups are defined, including 65 species: specialists of forests (18 species), farmlands (20), human settlement (13) and generalists (14) .The degree of specialisation of each species is calculated via the distribution of the species among the three types of habitat (French breeding bird survey, STOC) compared to their availability. When a species is more present in an habitat than expected if its distribution were homogeneous, it is considered as a specialist of this habitat. When a species does not show any bias in its distribution, it is considered as a generalist. The results show that specialist species decline more than average, whereas generalist species tend to spread.b. Indicator of climate change impact (French Research Centre on Bird Population Biology - CRBPO)This indicator estimates the impact of climate change on common breeding bird species, using data from the French breeding bird survey (STOC). It is calculated using the concept of “thermal maximum”. The thermal maximum in Europe for a species is the maximal temperature at which a species breeds in Europe. Its value is estimated using the average temperature between March and August in all the squares of the European breeding bird atlas (Hagemeijer & Blair, 1997). It is defined as the 5% atlas cases of the species where the average temperature is the highest. The average growth rate of the group of 15 species with the lower “thermal maximum” (most vulnerable to climate change) is compared to the average growth rate of the group of 15 species with the higher “thermal maximum” (least vulnerable to climate change). The difference between the two trends gives an estimation of global warming impact on common breeding bird species. Since 1989, this difference has grown by 1.86% approximately each year.A similar indicator has been developed at a European level with the contribution of the French bird monitoring team (STOC program) (Gregory et al, 2009).2. Indicators based on community traits The methods described below are applicable to any taxa with large-scale survey data, using either abundance or occurrence data. a. Community Specialisation Index (French Research Centre on Bird Population Biology - CRBPO)Functional homogenisation of a community can be estimated as the average specialisation of the species present in that community (Julliard et al, 2006). Species habitat specialisation is quantified with the species specialisation index (SSI), defined as the coefficient of variation (standard deviation/ mean) of the species density across habitats Then, the community specialisation index (CSI) is calculated as the average specific specialisation index of all individuals detected in a given plot. Using data from the French breeding bird survey, Devictor et al (2007) showed that CSI is very sensitive to landscape fragmentation and recent landscape disturbance, which are two measures of environmental degradation.b. Community Temperature Index (French Research Centre on Bird Population Biology - CRBPO)Change in community composition in response to climate warming can be estimated via a framework based on a community temperature index (CTI) that directly reflects, for a given species assemblage, the balance between low- and high-temperature dwelling species. First, for a given species, one can estimate the long term average temperature experienced by individuals of that species over its range (species temperature index, STI).  Then, any local species assemblage can be characterised by a community temperature index (CTI) calculated as the average of each individual’s STI present in the assemblage. High CTI would thus reflect a large proportion of species with high STI, i.e. of more high-temperature dwelling species. The CTI can then be used to measure local changes in species composition. Using data from the French breeding bird survey, Devictor et al (2008) found a strong increase in CTI over the last two decades revealing that birds are rapidly tracking climate warming, but that change in community composition is insufficient to keep up with temperature increase: birds are lagging approximately 182 km behind climate warming (91 km northward shift in bird community composition compared to 273 km northward shift in temperature).','Reference or title:Weblink:1.a. Developing indicators for European birds. (Gregory et al, 2005, Phil. Trans. of the R. soc. B.)1.b.  An Indicator of the Impact of Climatic Change on European Bird Populations (Gregory et al, 2009, PlosOne)2.a. - Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities (Julliard et al. 2006, ecology letters)- Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes. (Devictor et al, 2007, Global Ecology and Biogeography)2.b. Birds are tracking climate warming, but not fast enough (Devictor, et al 2008 Proc. R. Soc)1.b. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004678','FR'),
	('Y','A biodiversity indicator for agricultural habitats and a biodiversity indicator for forest habitats have been derived from the Monitoring of Our Common Birds Scheme. The species groupings follow the 2008 recommendations of EBCC. The Farmland Bird Index derived  from this scheme is used by the European Commission as an indicator of sustainable development.  ','','HU'),
	('Y','The Countryside Bird Survey (CBS) is undertaken between April and June each year and provides scientific data on the abundance and distribution of Ireland’s breeding bird populations. It is conducted by BirdWatchIreland, National Parks & Wildlife Service and the Heritage Council.','http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/other/indicators/','IE'),
	('Y','Common farmland bird index, mainly developed from the common bird monitoring scheme Monitoraggio ITaliano Ornitologico (MITO)','','IT'),
	('','','Reference or title:Weblink:','LT'),
	('N','European common bird index not yet available but monitoring began 2009','','LU'),
	('Y','There are two Farmland Bird indexes used in Latvia differing in number and content of species. Latvian Farmland Bird Index (LFBI, 12 species) does not contain several index species included in Europe Farmland Bird Index (EFBI), but typically related to populated areas in Latvia (e.g. Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica, Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris, and Tree Sparrow Passer montanus). Whereas EFBI (13 species according to list as of 2006) does not contain several bird species typical to the Latvian rural landscape and therefore included in LFBI, such as European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Common Rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus, Marsh Warbler Acrocephalus palustris and Common Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia.','','LV'),
	('N','','','MT'),
	('Y','A biodiversity indicator for agricultural habitats and a biodiversity indicator for forest habitats have been derived from the Monitoring of Our Common Birds Scheme. The species groupings follow the 2008 recommendations of EBCC. The Farmland Bird Index derived  from this scheme is used by the European Commission as an indicator of sustainable development.  ','','NL'),
	('Y','Level of bird populations or population trends as an indicator for Conservation Status.','','PL'),
	('Y','O Índice de Aves Comuns é adoptado por Portugal, assim como na União Europeia, como um indicador estrutural de desenvolvimento sustentável e desenvolvimento rural. A recolha da informação necessária a este índice é efectuada pela organização não governamental SPEA – Birdlife Portugal, no âmbito do projecto europeu coordenado pela BirdLife International. Dados deste Censo em Portugal Continental estão disponíveis através do Esquema Pan-Europeu de Monitorização de Aves Comuns (PECBMS) desde 2004.','Censo de Aves Comuns; http://www.spea.pt/index.php?op=censo_aves; http://www.ebcc.info/pecbm-portugal.html','PT'),
	('','','','RO'),
	('Y','Common Bird Index, Farmland Bird Index, Breeding birds of the mountains, Breeding birds in farmland, Breeding birds of the forest, Breeding birds of the wetlands, and Breeding birds in lake and river areas.','Reference or title:Weblink:Swedish Bird Survey www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/birdmonitoring/Eng/index.htmThe indicators are published at the Swedish Environmental Objectives Portal www.miljomal.se/16-Ett-rikt-vaxt--och-djurliv/ (in Swedish only). ','SE'),
	('Y','The Rural Development Plan 2007-13 includes indicators, derived from the Farmland Bird Index (part of Common bird monitoring scheme)','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.mkgp.gov.si/fileadmin/mkgp.gov.si/pageuploads/saSSo/javna_narocila/jun07/FBI_koncno_porocilo_DOPPS.pdf','SI'),
	('','','','SK'),
	('Y','The UK uses trends in populations of selected species (wild birds):  breeding farmland birds, breeding woodland birds, breeding water and wetland birds, breeding seabirds and wintering water birds. See http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4235.','http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4235 ','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_BirdIndicator` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring` (
  `active` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring` (`active`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','AT'),
	('Y','BE'),
	('Y','BG'),
	('Y','CY'),
	('Y','CZ'),
	('Y','DE'),
	('Y','DK'),
	('Y','EE'),
	('Y','EL'),
	('Y','ES'),
	('Y','FI'),
	('Y','FR'),
	('Y','IE'),
	('Y','IT'),
	('Y','LT'),
	('Y','LU'),
	('Y','LV'),
	('N','MT'),
	('Y','NL'),
	('Y','PL'),
	('Y','PT'),
	('Y','RO'),
	('Y','SE'),
	('Y','SI'),
	('Y','SK'),
	('Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_BirdMonitoring` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A1_3_1_RedList
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A1_3_1_RedList`;

CREATE TABLE `A1_3_1_RedList` (
  `Bird` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mammal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Amphib` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Fish` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Invert` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Plants` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A1_3_1_RedList` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_RedList` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A1_3_1_RedList` (`Bird`,`Mammal`,`Amphib`,`Fish`,`Invert`,`Plants`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','AT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','BE'),
	('','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','N','N','N','N','Y','CY'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','CZ'),
	('y','y','y','y','y²','y³','DE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','DK'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','EE'),
	('','','','','','','EL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','ES'),
	('y','y','y','y','y','y','FI'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','N','Y','FR'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','N','Y','HU'),
	('','y','','','y','y','IE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','N','Y','IT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','LT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','LU'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','LV'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','MT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','N','Y','NL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','PL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','PT'),
	('y','y','y','y','y','y','RO'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','SE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','SI'),
	('','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','N','N','N','Y','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A1_3_1_RedList` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A10_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A10_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A10_1` (
  `Programme` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ProgrammeDetail` text,
  `Research` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ResearchDetail` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A10_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A10_1` (`Programme`,`ProgrammeDetail`,`Research`,`ResearchDetail`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','','Y','Although no national-wide biodiversity research programmes exist, various research programmes of a number of Federal Ministries include biodiversity related research. A National Biodiversity Platform has been established providing a network for communication and cooperation on biodiversity research in Austria. The Research Programme PFEIL 10 under the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Water Management www.dafne.at covers research in biodiversity. The Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung - FWF, Austria, is partner in the ERA-Net BiodivERsA www.biodivers.org. Research programms of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Global change programme, MaB), ProVision research initiative of the Ministry of Science (www.provision-research.at/cms/scripts/active.asp ), and climate change research programme ACRP (www.public-consulting.at/de/portal/.../acrp)','AT'),
	('N','Reference to regional research programmes are included in the National Biodiversity Strategy - most research programmes are developed and carried out on regional level.','Y','Biodiversity is a priority research area of the Science for a Sustainable Development programme  (SSD) http://www.belspo.be/belspo/ssd/science/pr_biodiversity_en.stm Biodiversity research is incorporated in other framework programs such as the framework program on forestry research, or into research project linked to different environmental sectors such as forests, hunting & fishing, Biodiversity & nature, Water.','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('N','','Y','','CY'),
	('N','-','Y','Biodiversity research programmes are usually incorporated into other funding programmes connected to biology or containing sub-programmes devoted directly to biological research. For more information on different types of projects and their annotations please consult the website of the national institution - Council of the Research, Development and Innovations. The weblinks are provided in the space below.','CZ'),
	('Y','The research programme “Biodiversity and Global Change (BIOLOG)“, (2000-2010, funding sum nearly 75 million) of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research addresses the questions: Which species live in an ecological system? How do the species function within the ecological system? How is the ecological system developing? How can the ecological system be used sustainably? (www.biolog-online.info). The research-program is subdivided into a German branch “BIOLOG-Europa“ (http://www.biolog-europe.org/) and an African branch “BIOdiversity Monitoring Transect Analysis in Africa (BIOTA)” (http://www.biota-africa.org/). Measures are presently underway to handover research results and instruments to the full ownership of the cooperating countriesThe  research-programme “Sustainable Land Management” (to commence in 2010) is a framework programme with three modules at present. Biodiversity-research is a component in all modules and is focussed in the module “Interaction between Land Management  and Ecosystem functions and services”. Under the roof of a European funded ERA-Net, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research together with further European funding institutions will start  biodiversity research projects, to which Germany will contributes approx. 2 Million Euro.','Y','There are several sectoral research programmes run by different Federal Ministries which include biodiversity:The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety funds each year a range of biodiversity research and development (R&D) projects under the “Umweltforschungsplan” (http://www.bfn.de/0201_ufoplan_fue.html ). In addition, several dialog fora have been organized with relevant stakeholders in order to develop a research strategy to support the implementation of the German National Biodiversity Strategy (http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/downloads/doc/43155.php ). The Federal Ministry of Education and Research research programmes are incorporated into the BMBF framework programme “Research for Sustainable Developments” (http://www.fona.de/en/index.php)','DE'),
	('N','','Y','national strategic research program (www.fi.dk), Pesticide research program (www.mst.dk), organic farming research program (www.icrofs.dk), Wildlife research program (ww.sns.dk)The Danish Council for Strategic Research - Programme Commission on Sustainable Energy and Environment and The Danish Council for Independent Research - Research Council for Natural Sciences.The Programme under the Danish Council for Strategic Research encompasses environmental technology and hence includes biodiversity. The overall budget of the programme of 2010 is approx. 1.1 billion DKK. The Danish Council for Independent Research addresses all aspects of natural sciences including biodiversity. The overall budget of the research council of 2010 is approx. 1.4 billion DKK','DK'),
	('N','     ','Y','The majority of biodiversity research in Estonia is funded by Ministry of Education and Research as well as by its subsidiary agency Estonian Science Foundation. Research can also be funded by Environmental Investment Fund (species inventories, monitoring, research, birds survey) and by Environmental Board (monitoring). The Environment Investment Fund is operating on the funds that are generated from environment usage taxes (see B.1.1.8). The National Programme on Environmental Technology and Research which is currently under preparation, will include biodiversity research. With regards to research in agriculture, The Estonian Agricultural Research Development Plan 2007 – 2013 foresees the preservation of the following fields of research in the institutions belonging to the governance of the Ministry of Agriculture: plant breeding; developing environmentally friendly and effective plant breeding technologies; rural economy and its sustainable development; research on the protection and monitoring of the agricultural environment; food safety and biological diversity. There is National Programme \"Applied Research and Development in Agriculture 2004-2008\" and \"Applied Research and Development in Agriculture 2009-2013\". In 2009 scientific centre FIBIR (Frontiers in Biodiversity Research) at Tartu University was created, which exclusively concentrates on biodiversity research and disseminating its results. It also aims to create partnerships between biodiversity and business sector and as well as biodiversity and policy making. See p B.1.1.8 for info on funding. ','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('N','','Y','During 2006 and 2007, the National Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation Plan (R+D+i National Plan) for 2004-2007 was still working. In this Plan it was established a “National Program of Biodiversity, earth science and climate change”. The report for these two years could be found in the web page of the Ministry of Science and Innovation: Activities Memories of 2006 and 2007. In 2006, 457 projects were supported, and in 2007, 419, (http://www.micinn.es/portal/site/MICINN/menuitem.7eeac5cd345b4f34f09dfd1001432ea0/? vgnextoid=888f66e17aa73210VgnVCM1000001d04140aRCRD). From 2008 till 2011 a new R+D+i National Plan is being implemented. In this new Plan there is not a national programme exclusively dedicated to Biodiversity Research. This issue is included in The Subprogram of fundamental non-oriented research (http://www.plannacionalidi.es/plan-idi-public/mostrarModelo.do?idContentValue=396&version=4&idContent=397&tipoModelo=2), which is based on instruments more than in thematic areas of research. For these years the data related to budget support to biodiversity should be higher, since it is not included, not having a specific program for Biodiversity, possible actuations in other Subprograms.','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('Y','From 2006 to 2009, the French National Research Agency (ANR) has supported a yearly call for research proposals on biodiversity, with the support of the French Institute of Biodiversity from 2006 to 2008','','Other ministries in charge of environment or in charge of agriculture may support research actions on biodiversity','FR'),
	('N','','Y','Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA), started in 1986, was established with the object of supporting the high quality fundamental research. One from the three main disciplines is the life science, covering botany, zoology, conservation biology, evolutionary biology, hydrobiology, ecology, anthropology. http://www.otka.hu/?akt_menu=991&set_lang=991 The Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System is a national programme aiming at the long-term surveillance of the status and trends of biological diversity. http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/hbms Research and Technology Innovation Fund supports Research&Development (R&D) programmes related to the national strategic aims, enhances the international cooperation and facilitates the Hungarian participation in the EU R&D programmes.  http://www.nkth.gov.hu/english Several further application/support possibilities also may include biodiversity research, but their proportion is not significant (for example operative programmes).  ','HU'),
	('N','','Y','NPWS Research programme - research on species and habitats listed under the Habitats and Birds Directives, including monitoring and conservation management; impacts of site designation; red listing; ecoinformaticsAG-BIOTA – monitoring, functional significance and management for the maintenance and economic utilisation of biodiversity in the intensively farmed landscape; http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/biodiversity/name,25860,en.htmlSimbiosys - quantify impacts of key sectoral activities on biodiversity; http://www.simbiosys.ie/Biochange - research to support biodiversity policy; http://www.biochange.ie/BIOFOREST - biodiversity in Irish plantation forests; http://bioforest.ucc.ie/PLANFORBIO - forest biodiversity; http://www.ucc.ie/en/planforbio/Sea Change - marine biodiversity research agenda; http://www.marine.ie/home/research/SeaChange/','IE'),
	('N','','Y','The Ministry for Education, University and Research is carrying out:- the National Research Programme (PNR) 2010/2013;- The Strategy for the Internationalization of Italian Research (SIRit).These documents are going to include guidelines specifically aimed to environment conservation through research coordination, both at national and international level. In the PNR, section \"R&D Interventions of main priority for the Country\", sub-section \"Environment: terrestrial and marine systems and climate\", biodiversity is pointed out as one of the issues on which it\'s fundamental to concentrate social-economical research, in order to achieve sustainable development. Among the objectives of research is the development of techniques for determination of the economic value of biodiversity through a careful analysis of ecosystemic services and their subsequent quantification. Within SIRit all the international policies of Italian research for biodiversity are going to be stressed from the viewpoint of achieving sustainable development.','IT'),
	('','','','','LT'),
	('Y','Biodiversity research in Luxembourg is being funded through the following programme of the National Research Fund (FNR): Sustainable Resource Management. Understanding Ecosystems and Biodiversity Research in this field will help to reverse the trend of ongoing loss of biodiversity and to ensure the achievement of long-term sustainability goals. Link: http://www.fnr.lu/en/Grants-Activities/Research-Programmes/CORE-Programme','','','LU'),
	('N','','N','','LV'),
	('N','','Y','A dedicated national research programme is not in place. However, research related to biodiversity does take place by national institutions and a number of individuals and experts in this field. Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) has commissioned a series of studies, throughout the years with the aim to increase the understanding on biodiversity on a national scale. These have included a number of studies related to the collation of information on threatened and endemic species (invertebrates; vertebrates, excluding birds and cetaceans), as well as a study on Posidonia meadows in Maltese waters. MEPA also participated in a number of internationally funded projects. MEPA promoted scientific research in Malta, both directly and indirectly. It has contributed financially and otherwise in the promotion of scientific information. MEPA also supports, directly and indirectly, biodiversity research through assistance to students of the University of Malta undertaking studies related to various issues of biodiversity and nature protection, and provides funds for the publication of relevant scientific studies (e.g. the annual publication of Biological Abstracts with the results of the studies carried out by the Department of Biology of the University of Malta) and scientific journals (such as the Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Malta and the Central Mediterranean Naturalist). Various national research institutions also contribute towards the better understanding of Maltese biodiversity and some also participate in regional research projects (apart from academic research at a national level). Amongst such entities one can mention the University of Malta (UoM) through the Department of Biology and its established Institutes (e.g. the International Environment Institute, the Institute for Islands & Small States and the Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics),  where research is also carried out by students who follow or read for degrees at the University of Malta. The Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences (MCFS) under the Veterinary Regulation & Fisheries Conservation and Control (VRFCC) has been actively participating in a number of regional research initiatives, such as the MEDTIS Trawl survey and the MEDLEM, which aim to gather further scientific information to better assist the conservation, sustainability and management of various species. Moreover, the VRFCC also collects data on the catch and fishing effort through the data provided by fishers in the Catch Logbook. Furthermore, data is also collected at the fish market on the species landed. Environmental NGOs also carry out research through various projects. Research findings are fundamental to guide policy development in the field of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Furthermore, EU funds that support research are also available. The Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) is the national advisory body to Government on science and technology policy. MCST’s tasks also inter alia include the responsibility for the National Strategy for Research and Innovation for 2007-2010, entitled ‘Building and Sustaining the Research and Innovation (R&I) Enabling Framework’ and the  responsibility as National Contact Organisation for creating awareness and providing support for EU’s Research and Development Framework Programme (FP7). Malta\'s National Biodiversity Platform was also launched on 27th of October 2003 as part of a European funded project (this is also considered under Action A.10.1.8).','MT'),
	('Y','A new programme is in preparation. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research: www.nwo.nl ','','','NL'),
	('N','','N','','PL'),
	('N','','Y','Research program of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): http://alfa.fct.mctes.pt/apoios/projectos/index.phtml.en','PT'),
	('','','','','RO'),
	('N','','Y','Sweden\'s national environmental quality objectives cover several aspects of biodiversity. Currently, 84 large and small projects subscribe to one or several of the objectives related to biodiversity. They are contained within either The Environmental Research Grant (Miljöforskningsanslaget), or Research for Sustainable Management of Fish and Wildlife (Viltvårdsfonden). The research programme Adaptive Management of Fish and Wildlife Populations will develop sustainable models for fish and wildlife management that are compatible with Sweden’s environmental objectives and with the public interest in fishing and hunting. The Swedish EPA has allocated EUR 4 million for this programme, which will run from 2004 to 2009, http://www.viltochfisk.se/index_eng.cfm. The now completed research programmes \"Naturvårdskedjan\" (\"Nature Conservation Chain\"), AquAliens and MARBIPP were closed in 2006 or 2007 and had budgets of EUR 3-3.5 million, http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/Research/Research-and-results/Resarch-Programmes/.  The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM), jointly operated by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Uppsala University, is Sweden\'s national centre for co-ordinating and initiating research on biodiversity, http://www.cbm.slu.se/eng/index.php.','SE'),
	('N','','Y','No information provided.','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('Y','Public money from UK taxpayers is used to fund biodiversity and environmental research in three ways (ERFF 2007):1.	Funding research in universities and other institutions via the UK Science Budget, administered by the research councils and via block grants to universities, administered by the Higher Education Funding Councils.2.	Research budgets of Government Departments and devolved administrations in the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government, in order to underpin government policy.3.	Research budgets of Government Agencies such as the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and Natural England, as the foundation of operational and regulatory activities.Biodiversity research is also funded by industry and the NGO sector.Research CouncilsThe Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is the UK research council with principal responsibility for biodiversity research. NERC has a series of current and planned themed programmes addressing the role of biodiversity in key ecosystem processes. NERC also supports both responsive and underpinning research that is relevant to biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. Further details are available on their website. •	An overview of biodiversity theme, including current and planned investments: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/themes/biodiversity/ •	Current investments in the terrestrial and freshwater science area: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/areas/terrestrialfreshwater/progs.asp •	Current investments in the marine science area: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/areas/marine/progs.asp•	Research grant and fellowship awards relevant to biodiversity: http://gotw.nerc.ac.uk/list_short.asp?classtype=ENRIs&classification=Biodiversity  Government DepartmentsThe Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the UK Government Department with principal responsibility for biodiversity policy and research. It has a dedicated biodiversity research programme as well as agricultural and marine environment research programmes with significant biodiversity components. http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/science/index.htm. The Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government have also developed biodiversity research programmes. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/02/10676/File-1  http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/environmentresearch/?lang=en Government AgenciesA number of Government Agencies also have biodiversity as the principal or significant component of their research programmes: The Environment Agency for England and Wales, the Environment Agency for Northern Ireland, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, the Forestry Commission, Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage.Other public expenditure on biodiversity researchThe UK Government also supports a number of other world-renowned centres of excellence in biodiversity research and management:Natural History Museum http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/ Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.kew.org/science/index.html Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh http://www.rbge.org.uk/ National Botanic Garden of Wales http://www.gardenofwales.org.uk/','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A10_1_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A10_1_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A10_1_2` (
  `NatFollow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `WideFollow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FollowDetails` text,
  `Local` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SubNat` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Nat` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Stakeholder` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Valuation` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CaseStudies` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Access` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Standards` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MAInPlans` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ValuationUsed` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A10_1_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A10_1_2` (`NatFollow`,`WideFollow`,`FollowDetails`,`Local`,`SubNat`,`Nat`,`Stakeholder`,`Valuation`,`CaseStudies`,`Access`,`Standards`,`MAInPlans`,`ValuationUsed`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','Y','N','AT'),
	('Y','Y','Initiatives are taken on regional level. Flanders: A number of government agencies (INBO, AMS, MIRA, VLIZ, etc) are planning to produce an ecosystem services assessment report for Flanders region.  Modalities still need to be discussed.  Tentative date for publication is 2012 or 2013. Exchange of information between INBO and EURECA exists.','Y','Y','','Y','Y','','Y','Y','Y','Y','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','N','','','','x','x','x','x','x','x','Y','N','CY'),
	('N  ','Y','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','Y','N','CZ'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','Y','N','DE'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','','','DK'),
	('N   ','N','     ','     ','     ','     ','     ','     ','     ','     ','     ','N','N','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('Y','','','','','Y','Y','',' ','','','','','ES'),
	('  ','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('Y  ','N','France conducted in 2009 a study aiming at describing ecosystems and the services they provide in France. With existing data, France produced a typology of terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems (based on land use and land cover) and of ecosystem services, indicators to assess the state of ecosystems and the quality of the services, and a methodology to assess the link between ecosystems’ state and services. This study will be used next year to launch a second part of the French MA which will probably consist in a large mobilization of French expertise on biodiversity to assess more precisely qualitatively and quantitatively the state of ecosystems and the services they provide. The results were presented to the EEA and the EURECA project team.','','','Y','','Y','','','','Y','N','FR'),
	('Y','Y','Parallel to MA activities, from 2003 site-based ecological research in the Kiskunság region, a 7500 km2 heterogeneous cultural landscape  in central Hungary, was expanded into a broad-scale research framework by (1) covering all major land-use/habitat types occurring in the region; (2) reaching regional representativeness by having multiple sites; (3) integrating socio-economic research with ecological research; and thus (4) addressing significant environmental and socioeconomic questions of the region. The research program is linked to the International Long-Term Research Network (ILTER) through a joint project on ecosystem services (see web link below). The research program is now also considered as a national MA follow-up activity.','Y','Y','N','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','HU'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','N','Y','IE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','Y','','IT'),
	('N  ','N','','','','','','','','','','','','LT'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','N','N','LU'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','','','LV'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','','','MT'),
	('Y  ','','In preparation: National Millennium Evaluation and assessment  www. alterra.wur.nl','','','','','','','','','Y','Y','NL'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','','','','','','PL'),
	('Y','Y','Members of the Portuguese evaluation team have been involved in various international activities post-MA, including through participation in a meeting of EURECA and meetings on sub-global assessments consistent.','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('N','Y','Possibly a part of ERA-net BIODIVERSA?','','','','','','','','','Y','Y','SE'),
	('N  ','N','','','','','','','','','','Y','N','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','Y','The UK is undertaking a National Ecosystem Assessment, assessing the terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems across the country in terms of the value that they provide to society and the economy.  This will follow the general approach of the Millennium Assessment and will report fully in the spring of 2011, with interim results being available ahead of that time.  This has been developed in consultation with the EURECA programme. The UK has also conducted a range of research and case studies looking at the provision and management of ecosystem services at different spatial scales and in different policy contexts.','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A10_1_8
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A10_1_8`;

CREATE TABLE `A10_1_8` (
  `Platform` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlatfromUpdated` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlatfromDevPlans` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlatfromLink` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A10_1_8` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1_8` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A10_1_8` (`Platform`,`PlatfromUpdated`,`PlatfromDevPlans`,`PlatfromLink`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','','http://www.biodiv-forschung.at ','AT'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.biodiversity.be/ ','BE'),
	('','','','www.bioplatform-bg.org is the link to the Bulgarian biodiversity platform given on EPBRS website, but the link does not connect to a website and a ‘address not found’ error message appears','BG'),
	('Y','N','','http://www.cybioplatform.intercol.edu/index.htm ','CY'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.ibot.cas.cz/biop/','CZ'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.biodiv-chm.de/','DE'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.dmu.dk/ ','DK'),
	('Y','Y','','http://eelis.ic.envir.ee/w5/index.php?option=loadarticle&contid=-684935027&Itemid=32','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('N','','Y','','ES'),
	('Y','N','','Not current, but EPBRS directs to http://fibre.utu.fi/bitumi/ ','FI'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.gis-ifb.org/en/','FR'),
	('Y','N','','http://www.biodiverzitas.hu/english/index.shtml ','HU'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.biodiversityresearch.ie/index.html','IE'),
	('N','','N','','IT'),
	('Y','N','','http://www.ekoi.lt/info/bioplatform/LBTF.htm ','LT'),
	('Y','Y','','Observatoire de l\'environnement naturelhttp://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/Observatoire/index.html','LU'),
	('Y','N','','http://bioplatforma.daba.lv/ ','LV'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.maltabioplatform.org/','MT'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.biodiversiteit.nl/samenwerking-voor-biodiversiteit/netwerken-nederland/nederlandse-biodiversiteitsplatform ','NL'),
	('','','',NULL,'PL'),
	('N','','Y','','PT'),
	('','','','','RO'),
	('Y','Y','','The Swedish Scientific Council on Biological Diversity: www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Arbete-med-naturvard/Detta-ar-naturvard/Biologisk-mangfald/Vetenskapliga-radet-for-biologisk-mangfald/ (in Swedish)The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM): www.cbm.slu.se/eng/index.php','SE'),
	('Y','N','','http://www.rtd.si/eng/era/aktivnost/snb/','SI'),
	('Y','N','','http://www.uke.sav.sk/bioplatform/index.htm ','SK'),
	('Y','Y','','http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3900','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1_8` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A10_1_9
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A10_1_9`;

CREATE TABLE `A10_1_9` (
  `MoU` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Associate` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NonMember` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GBIFDetails` text,
  `GBIFLink` text,
  `Gov` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Public` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotMember` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ENBIDetails` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A10_1_9` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1_9` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A10_1_9` (`MoU`,`Associate`,`NonMember`,`GBIFDetails`,`GBIFLink`,`Gov`,`Public`,`NotMember`,`ENBIDetails`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','Y','','Austria has been an Associate Participant of GBIF since September 2001. GBIF Austria is Austria’s ‘Participant Node’, involved in promoting, coordinating and facilitating the publication, sharing and use of biodiversity data amongst relevant people and organisations within the Participant’s domain. GBIF Austria has a portal available at: http://www.biodiv.at/gbif/, which provides more than 2.8million records on the distribution of over 40,000 native species of plants (including lichens) and fungal species available.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/GBIF_org/participationGBIF Austria, http://www.biodiv.at/gbif/','Y','','','In Austria, the Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum, Vienna (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) and the Biology Centre of the Upper Austrian State Museum (Biologiezentrum des OÖ Landesmuseums) are both ENBI partners. The Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum, Vienna is involved as a Member of ENBI work package 10. This Work Package comes under the ‘Data integration, interoperability and analysis cluster’, and WP10 specifically is the ‘general analysis tools and data mining’. The Biology Centre at the Upper Austrian State Museum is the Work Package leader. The general objectives under this Work Package are to 1)  Explore and select potential applications of generic analysis tools that can be used with the common access interoperable system defined under WP8 and WP9; 2) To ensure that these tools are able to analyse a variety of biodiversity data and combine or plot these data with a-biotic information (weather, geology, etc.); 3) Explore the application of selected analysis tools in a web environment; and 4) Design description of the integration of these functional analysis tools with the common access system for interoperability of databases as provided by WP 8 and 9 and to provide a demonstrator system. The Biology Centre at the Upper Austrian State Museum was also involved in WP7: Observational data, WP8: Data management in large distributed biodiversity database systems, and WP9: Interoperability and common access. ','AT'),
	('Y','','','Belgium became a voting member of GBIF in Feb 2001. The Belgium Biodiversity Information Facility (BeBIF) is Belgium’s GBIF ‘Participant Node’.  As such, one of their main tasks is to promote publication of Belgian datasets holding biodiversity data through the GBIF network. This is mainly achieved through contacts with various scientific institutions around the country, the Platform\'s dedicated digitisation projects call and by supporting international thematic initiatives. BeBIF’s website (http://www.biodiversity.be/) includes a national data portal, where data providers can contribute to the global effort.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/voting-participants/, BeBIF, http://www.biodiversity.be/','Y','','','There are four institutions from Belgium that are ENBI consortium members. These are: the Belgian Biodiversity Information Facility (BeBIF), made up of a network of federal and regional research institutions; the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS); the National Botanic Garden of Belgium (NGGB); and the Royal Museum for Central Africa, Department of African Zoology. ','BE'),
	('','Y','','Bulgaria has been an Associate Country Participant of GBIF since Aug 2001. They have sent a letter of intent but have not yet signed the MOU 2007-2011 to become a full Participant.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/voting-participants/,','','','Y','n/a','BG'),
	('','','Y','non members GBIF','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/Cyprus is not listed on the GBIF website as a Participant or Associate Member.','Y','','','The Agricultural Research Institute of Cyprus, including the National Herbarium and National Genebank, is a member of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI forums.','CY'),
	('','','Y','-','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/The Czech Republic is not listed on the GBIF website as a Participatn or Associate Member.','Y','Y','','The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Botany and Institute of Entomology are members of the ENBI Consortium as is the University Karlovy Department of Botany. Both of these organisations participate as members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','CZ'),
	('Y','','','Germany has been a voting participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since February 2001. Germany’s ‘Participant node’ is GBIF Germany (http://www.gbif.de). As one of the founders of the GBIF, Germany makes a substantial annual contribution to support the running of the international GBIF Secretariat and the GBIF work programme. Eight Nodes from different regions form GBIF-Germany, each responsible for a range of taxonomic groups. With a total of 50 different institutions in more than 65 individual projects, nearly all substantial natural history institutes with biological collections and research facilities are involved in the build up of this structure. Germany has already contributed more than 7 million specimen and observation records to the GBIF network promotion and expansion of national structures (currently GBIF soil zoologie  for 3 years with approx. 2,9 million €), financing and data mobilization in ongoing research projects, delegation of participants to annual GB conferences.','GBIF Data http://www.gbif.org/participation/data-publishers/who-is-publishing/  GBIF Participants http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/  Weblink GBIF http://www.gbif.org GBIF Germany, http://www.gbif.de/ ','Y','Y','','There are 11 German organisations involved in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI).  A list of organisations and their participation in ENBI are provided below:Institut für Meereskunde (now Leibniz-Institute of Marine Sciences), Universitaet Kiel (IMUK): Contractor WP11-Multilingual accessVerlag fuer interaktive Medien GbR (VIM): Contractor WP12-Info services on European data, Contributor WP2,4,10Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem. Freie Universität Berlin (FUBE.BMB): Contributor WP9, member WP6Botanische Staatssammlung Muenchen, Department of Mycology (BSMD.MYC): Member WP2Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (DSMZ): Member WP6Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung (IPKFH.GB): Member WP5Humboldt- Universitaet Berlin,  Institut fuer Systematische Zoologie (UBER.SZ): Member WP2Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart (SMNS),  Dept. of Entomology: Member WP6Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und information, Information Centre for Genetic Res (ZADI.IGR): Member WP12 Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen (ZSM): Member WP2 Kolleg fuer Management und Gestaltung nachhaltiger Entwicklung gGmbH (KMGE): Member WP12','DE'),
	('Y','','','Denmark has been a GBIF voting Participant since January 2001. The Danish Biodiversity Information Facility (DanBIF) is Denmark’s national node for GBIF. DanBIF carries out the work on making Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic biodiversity data and resources accessible. DanBIF is a also a communication forum for a Danish Network of biodiversity researchers.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/DanBIF, http://www.dk.gbif.net/','','Y','','The Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen is a member of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). They are a lead contractor of Work Package 13 (Non European Data Globally Available) and Contributors to Work Packages 4 (IPR, Copyrights & Financial issues),10 (Generic analysis tools and data mining) and 12 (Info Services on European Data).','DK'),
	('Y','','','Estonia became a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in September 2003. Estonia currently hosts 34,561 records for the country shared on GBIF.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/GBIF-Data sharing by country of origin, Estonia http://secretariat.mirror.gbif.org/countries/datasharing?view=full&host=EE&country=EE ','','Y','','The Institute of Zoology and Botany of the Estonian Agricultural University (renamed The Estonian University of Life Sciences in 2005) is the Estonian organisation participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). They are members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums, which provide other ENBI Work Packages and the ENBI Community at large with a communication space and also consolidates outcomes of the communications as an open access information resource.','EE'),
	('','','Y','Greece is not a member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) at either the Participant of Associate levels.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/The GBIF website does not show that Greece is a participant or associate member in GBIF.','','Y','','There are 5 Greek organisations involved in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI).  A list of organisations and their participation in ENBI are provided below:Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Department of Natural Products: Contractor WP3-DisseminationInstitute of Marine Biology of Crete: Member WP11-Multilingual AccessNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Biology: Member WP2-ENBI ForumsThe Goulandris Natural History Museum - Greek Biotope / Wetland Centre: Member WP12-Info services on European data University of Patras, Dept. of Biology - Laboratory of Zoology: Member WP12- Info services on European data ','EL'),
	('Y','','','Spain has been a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since February 2001. Spain’s ‘Participant node’ is GBIF Spain. One of its fundamental tasks is to support collections, centres and projects relating to participation in GBIF. This includes providing technical support, information, training, standards, software and advice; enduring coherence between national initiatives and GBIF information architecture; investigating how to maximise the value of developing data analysis tools; collecting and disseminating information relevant to the collections; and coordinating the activities of the national centres and international initiatives. ','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/GBIF_org/participationGBIF Spain, http://www.gbif.es/  ','Y','','','Three of the Centres/Research Units under the CSIC participate in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI): Real Jardin Botanico, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, and the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar. Both the Real Jardin Botanico and the Museo Nacional de Ciencias are main contractors of WP2 (ENBI Forums) and also contribute to WP1 (Coordination and continuity). The Instituto de Ceincias del Mar is a member of WP11 (Multilingual access).','ES'),
	('Y','','','Finland has been a voting Participant in GBIF since April 2001. Finland has a national GBIF node, which coordinates the activities for GBIF within the country. The Finnish GBIF node carries out a number of projects, including a project in cooperation with the Environmental Administration, an update of the metadatabase of Finnish collections, biodiversity surveys, databases and datasets of biodiversity data. A project currently underway is developing a joint Nordic e-infrastructure for organism names to facilitate data sharing, in collaboration with the other Nordic GBIF nodes.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/GBIF Finland http://www.gbif.fi/','Y','Y','','','FI'),
	('Y','','','France joined the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as a voting Participant in March 2001. The French Participant node is GBIF France. GBIF France’s mission is to collect all data hosted in France, as they related to biodiversity within the French territory and the rest of the world. In addition, GBIF France has the following objectives: to raise awareness of GBIF in France; to offer French researchers the tools developed by GBIF to make their data accessible; to support data providers as they use the central GBIF portal; to enable interoperability of databases on biodiversity; and to enable viewing of multiple datasets using GIS and geo-spatial modelling.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/GBIF France, http://www.gbif.fr/ ','Y','','','The French Museum National D’Histoire Naturelle, Institut de Systématique - Service de Systématique Moléculaire. Laboratoire d’Ichtyologie contributes to WP7 (Observational Data), and 12 (Information services on European data) and is also a member of WP11 (Multilingual access).  ','FR'),
	('','','Y','','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/GBIF website does not show that Hungary is a Participant or Associate Member of GBIF.','Y','','','The Hungarian Natural History Museum, Department of Zoology participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','HU'),
	('Y','','','Ireland became a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in January 2008. Ireland’s ‘Participant node’ is the National Biodiversity Data Centre, which manages national datasets such as invasive species, freshwater fish, water beetles, macro-moths, vegetation, the joint Irish cetacean database and others—many in collaboration with other national organisations. The main role of the National Biodiversity Data Centre with regards to GBIF is to promote, coordinate and facilitate the sharing, publication and use of biodiversity data amongst relevant people and organisations within Ireland.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/National Biodiversity Data Centre, http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/ ','','Y','','','IE'),
	('','','Y','','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/The GBIF website does not show that Italy is a Participant or Associate Member of GBIF.','Y','Y','','Several organisations participate in ENBI in Italy. The Department of Environmental Sciences at the Universita degli Studi della Tuscia and Finsiel Territorio e Ambiente, part of Finsiel Consulenza, a private company, are both members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. The Biotechnology Department at the National Institute for Cancer Research and the Council for Research and Experimentation in Agriculture both are members of Work Package 5: Checklists and species banks. The International Plant Genetic Research Institute is a member of Work Package 6: Collections. The Institute of Research on Maritime Fish at the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche participates as a member of Work Package 11: Multilingual access. Finally, the biotechnology department at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development is a member of Work Package 12: Information services on European data.','IT'),
	('N','N','','','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/ (Lithuania is not listed as a Participant or Associate member of GBIF)','Y','Y','','In Lithuania, the Institute of Ecology, Department of Terrestrial Ecosystems at the University Vilniaus and the state scientific Institute of Botany-Flora, Geobotany lab, Mycology lab are participants of ENBI. The Institute of Ecology is a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums, which aims to provide ENBI work packages and ENBI Community at large with a communication space, and consolidates the outcomes of this communication as an information resource open to everybody. The Institute of Botany is a ‘member’ of Work Package 6: Collections. The objectives of this Work Package are to organize and integrate networks of European natural history specimen databases and develop strategies to update and maintain key European specimen  databases; materially broaden the network of European specimen databases; and  Develop standards and best practice for the archiving and digital imaging of reference (\'type\') specimens.','LT'),
	('','Y','','Luxembourg became an Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility in May 2008.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/','','','Y','','LU'),
	('','','Y','','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/(No info on Latvia being a Participant or Associate member of GBIF on GBIF site)','','','Y','-','LV'),
	('','','Y','','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/No info on Malta being a Participant or Associate member on GBIF website','','','Y','','MT'),
	('Y','','','The Netherlands became voting Participants in GBIF in February 2001. The Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility (NLBIF) is the Dutch national node of the GBIF. The objectives of the Netherlands national GBIF node (NLBIF) are to: act as a national focal point for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF); form a national platform for the sharing of biodiversity data, information and know-how available in The Netherlands; provide access to biodiversity data, information and know-how in other countries, for users in The Netherlands; and stimulate the development and promote the use of ICT tools and methodologies to support data management, exchange, analysis and electronic dissemination of biodiversity information worldwide. ','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/NLBIF website: http://www.nlbif.nl/about_nlbif.php ','Y','Y','','    *    Universiteit van Amsterdam (UAM.ZMA) Coordinator, WP1 contractor          o Zoological Museum          o Institute of Informatics    * Expertisecentrum voor Taxonomische Identificaties (ETI) contractor WP9    * Plant Research International B.V. (PRIBV) member WP6          o Centre for Genetic Resources    * National Herbarium of The Netherlands (NHNL) member WP13    * Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility (NLBIF) Dutch GBIF node: member WP2, WP5, WP6, WP7, WP12, WP13','NL'),
	('','Y','','Poland has been an Associate Member of GBIF since March 2001. The national ‘Participant node’ for Poland is the Polish Biodiversity Information Network (PolBIN). PolBIN was founded in 2003 in order to initiate cooperation of Polish research institutions with GBIF. Currently, PolBIN is the largest organisation collection biodiversity in Poland—with over 1.5million records containing information on biodiversity in Poland and globally.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/PolBIN, http://www.ksib.pl/ ','Y','Y','','The Museum and Institute of Zoology at the Polish Academy of Sciences participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 10: Generic analysis tools and data mining. The Faculty of Biology at the University of Warsaw participate as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','PL'),
	('Y','','','Portugal has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since June 2001. Portugal host over 26,000 records on national biodiversity on GBIF.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/','Y','','','The Guia Marine Laboratory, Institute of Marine Research (IMAR) in Portugal is a non-profit private organisation with the aim of contributing the scientific basis of policy support through research. IMAR is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 11: Multi-lingual access to European Biodiversity sites.','PT'),
	('','','Y','not a member','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/(No info on GBIF site about Romania being a Participant or Associate member)','','','','','RO'),
	('Y','','','Sweden has been a voting Participant in GBIF since Feb 2001. The national ‘Participant node’ for Sweden is GBIF-Sweden, set up by the Swedish Research council and extended to the Museum of Natural History, who host a portal where you can search for over 24million records with information on animals, plants and fungi in the Swedish museum collections and observational databases.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/','Y','','','The Swedish Museum of Natural History is a government agency that reports to the Ministry of Culture. The Research Division of the Museum is a research institute that participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','SE'),
	('Y','','','Slovenia became a voting Participant of GBIF in February 2001. Slovenia hosts over 258,000 GBIF records on national biodiversity in addition to records held on global biodiversity.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/Data hosted by Slovenia, GBIF: http://secretariat.mirror.gbif.org/countries/datasharing?view=full&host=SI&country=SI ','Y','','','The Jovan Hadzi Institute of Biology at the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','SI'),
	('Y','','','Slovakia became a voting Participant of GBIF in April 2007. From August 2001-March 2007, Slovakia was an Associate Member.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/','Y','','','The Department of Vascular Plant Systematics at the Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','SK'),
	('Y','','','The UK has been a voting Participant of GBIF since August 2001. The ‘Participant node’ for the UK is the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), who host the NBN Gateway. The NBN Gateway acts as a ‘data warehouse’ for biodiversity information in the UK and currently holds over 40million records.','Reference or title: GBIF websiteWeblink: http://www.gbif.org/governance/governing-board/current-participants/National Biodiversity Network: http://www.nbn.org.uk/ ','Y','Y','','Several organisations from the United Kingdom participate in ENBI.   The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew  are the main contractors for WP4: IPR, Copyrights & financial issues. The University of Reading, Centre for Plant Diversity & Systematics - School of Plant Sciences is the main contractor for WP5: Check lists and species banks. The Natural History Museum, Department of Entomology is the main contractor for WP6: Collections. The University of Wales, Cardiff, Dept. of Computer Science is both a contributor to WP8: Data management and a member of WP9: Interoperability and common access. The Species 2000 Secretariat is a contributor to WP5 Check lists and species banks and also a member of WP 11: Multilingual access. In addition, the following organisations participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of specific Work Packages:Natural Environment Research Council, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (member WP12: Info services on European data)Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh (RBGE) (member WP2: ENBI Forums)Freshwaterlife. Freshwater Biological Association (member WP12: Info services on European data)University of Essex, Dept. of Electronic Systems Engineering (member WP6: Collections)CAB International. Biosystematics & Molecular Biology (member WP5: Check lists and species banks)','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A10_1_9` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_1` (
  `EAFRDTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EAFRDAxis2` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EAFRDAxis2Percent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicAxis2` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicAxis2Percent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ForestEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ForestEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ForestPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ForestPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_1` (`EAFRDTotal`,`EAFRDAxis2`,`EAFRDAxis2Percent`,`PublicTotal`,`PublicAxis2`,`PublicAxis2Percent`,`AgriEAFRD`,`AgriEAFRDPercent`,`AgriPublic`,`AgriPublicPercent`,`NaturaAgriEAFRD`,`NaturaAgriEAFRDPercent`,`NaturaAgriPublic`,`NaturaAgriPublicPercent`,`NaturaForestEAFRD`,`NaturaForestEAFRDPercent`,`NaturaForestPublic`,`NaturaForestPublicPercent`,`ForestEAFRD`,`ForestEAFRDPercent`,`ForestPublic`,`ForestPublicPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('4025.575992','2918.533411','72.49%',' 8018.944389',' 5817.858883','72.55%','1823.693753','45.3%',' 3635.385108','45.33%',' 1.808963','0.04%',' 3.606020','0.04%',' 2.177165','0.05%',' 4.340001','0.05%',' 7.444497','0.18%',' 14.839999','0.19%','AT'),
	('448.307416','159.234597','35.51%','1190.466382','318.469194','26.75%','132.587319','29.58%','265.174638','22.27%','4.306531','0.96%','8.613062','0.72%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','BE'),
	('2609.098596','637.463170','24.43%','3241.938392','777.394109','24.0%','356.979375','13.68%','435.340701','13.43%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','BG'),
	('164.563574','71.7017','43.57%','329.127148','143.4034','43.57%','40.63','24.69%','81.26','24.69%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0.5','0.3%','1','0.3%','CY'),
	(' 2815.506354',' 1554.159507','55.20%',' 3614.068291',' 1945.738850','53.84%','841.010695','29.87%',' 1052.908131','29.13%','47.692269','1.69%',' 59.708607','1.65%','9.790792','0.35%',' 12.257637','0.34%','10.588795','0.38%',' 13.256702','0.37%','CZ'),
	('8751.061454','3659.447096','41.82%','14181.871966','6070.334984','39.42%','2176.639430','24.87%','3553.486739','25.06%','98.452455','1.13%','154.417481','1.09%','13.993599','0.16%','27.286944','0.19%','28.614469','0.33%','51.337214','0.36%','DE'),
	(' 577.918796',' 320.729413','55.49%',' 1020.912148',' 537.318470','52.63%','180.033338','31.15%',' 301.610123','29.54%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%',' 6.985635','1.21%',' 11.703044','1.15%','DK'),
	(' 723.736855','267.568275','36.97%',' 934.950512',' 334.460343','35.77%','168.709578 ','23.31%','210.886972','22.56%','6.922237','0.96%','8.652796','0.93%','25.151418','3.48%','31.439272','3.36%','0','0%','0','0%','EE'),
	('3707.304424','1296.518','34.97%','4420.45444','1484.471528','33.58%','674.340662','18.19%','772.098311','17.47%','6.047898','0.16%','6.924648','0.16%','7.559873','0.2%','8.65581','0.2%','0','0%','0','0%','EL'),
	('7508.654249','2923.646967','40.02%','14266.298182','5275.348199','37.09%','1146.226432','15.27%','2079.919222','14.58%','10.144989','0.14%','14.285882','0.10%','0','0%','0','0%','50.524539','0.67%','82.767573','0.58%','ES'),
	('2154.430909','1550.086848','71.95%','6823.500348','5498.195445','80.58%','682.206144','31.67%','2420.238309','35.47%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','FI'),
	('7557.063109','4233.181914','56.01%','13665.897012','7324.594575','53.60%','1876.944761','24.84%','3249.750248','23.78%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0.055','<0.01%','0.1','<0.01%','FR'),
	('3805.843392','1250.219555','32.85%','4535.00132','1437.218206','22.96%','873.903468',NULL,'1004.615525','22.15%','38.38174','1.01%','44.122598','0.97%','0','0%','0','0%','68.637054','1.8%','78.90328','1.74%','HU'),
	('2339.91459','1861.91434','79.57%','4298.7538','3385.2988','78.75%','1149.11434','49.11%','2089.2988','48.6%','220.55','9.43%','401','9.33%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','IE'),
	('8658.239883','3713.249288','41.37%','17269.836198','7183.223763','42.27%','1991.492920','23.00%','3845.489773','22.27%','17.284549','0.2%','33.080232','0.19%','4.064196','0.05%','9.057023','0.05%','22.449788','0.26%','43.868222','0.25%','IT'),
	('1765.794093','659.672324','37.35%','2285.301176','824.590405','36.08%','291.933043','16.53%','364.916303','15.97%','6','0.34%','7.5','0.33%','20.4','1.16%','25.5','1.12%','8','0.45%','10','0.44%','LT'),
	('94.957826','53.003625','51.82%','393.057902','212.0145','53.94%','26.779625','28.2%','107.1185','27.25%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0.162','0.17%','0.648','0.16%','LU'),
	('1054.373504','406.994805','51.82%','1211.270616','452.21645','53.94%','180.054923','17.08%','200.061025','16.52%','10.3026','0.98%','11.447333','0.95%','12.057876','1.14%','13.39764','1.11%','0','0%','0','0%','LV'),
	('77.653355','20.02','25.78%','101.61114','25.025','24.63%','8.42','10.84%','10.525','10.36%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','MT'),
	(NULL,'183.365','30.91%','1121.343667','346.28','30.88%','130.445','21.99%','246.341966','21.97%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','NL'),
	('13398.928156','4446.801216','33.19%','17405.472995','5557.112631','31.93%','1853','13.83%','2315.671244','13.3%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','PL'),
	('4035.023028','1641.229631','40.79%','5117.043656','2005.622785','39.38%','433.234624','10.74%','528.934930','10.34%','1','0.02%','1.17647','0.02%','1.0425','0.03%','1.22647','0.02%','11.680625','0.29%','14.325293','0.28%','PT'),
	('8124.198745','1907.802112','23.48%','10097.083732','2326.587941','23.04%','817.054711','10.06%','996.408184','9.87%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','RO'),
	('1825.647954','1260.812293','69.06%','3917.170024','2702.126645','68.98%','982.80104','53.83%','2106.303129','53.77%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','SE'),
	('915.992729','474.312675','51.78%','1176.985582','592.890843','50.37%','248.401725','27.12%','310.502156',NULL,'0','26.38%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','SI'),
	('1969.418078','984.709039','50%','2562.27455','1242.076173','48.47%','268.153334','13.62%','338.238864','13.2%','2.734875','0.14%','3.449671','0.13%','5.742','0.29%','7.242749','0.28%','19.927144','1.01%','25.135374','0.98%','SK'),
	('4604.60504','3333.832757','72.40%','8244.752944','6344.561629','76.95%','2417.463221','52.5%','4463.181519','54.13%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','0','0%','32.1292','0.7%','61.153759','0.74%','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_11_NatStrats
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_11_NatStrats`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_11_NatStrats` (
  `NatStratNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatStratDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatStratImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatStratDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDesc` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatStratCrop` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatStratLivestock` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatStratTree` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionCrop` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionLivestock` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionTree` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDescIn` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherCropIn` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherLivestockIn` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherTreeIn` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CropNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CropValue` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `LivestockNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `LivestockValue` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TreeNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TreeValue` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `KeyAims` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_11_NatStrats` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_11_NatStrats` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_11_NatStrats` (`NatStratNo`,`NatStratDev`,`NatStratImp`,`NatStratDontKnow`,`ActionNo`,`ActionDev`,`ActionImp`,`ActionDontKnow`,`OtherDesc`,`OtherNo`,`OtherDev`,`OtherImp`,`OtherDontKnow`,`NatStratCrop`,`NatStratLivestock`,`NatStratTree`,`ActionCrop`,`ActionLivestock`,`ActionTree`,`OtherDescIn`,`OtherCropIn`,`OtherLivestockIn`,`OtherTreeIn`,`CropNum`,`CropValue`,`LivestockNum`,`LivestockValue`,`TreeNum`,`TreeValue`,`KeyAims`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','Y','','','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','','','Measure: Cultivation of \"rare agricultural crops\"','Measure: Cultivation of \"rare agricultural breeds and races\"','','70','average 1.5 million € /year','31','','','','See narrative summary below.','AT'),
	('','','Y*','','','','Y*','','','','','','','N','N','N','N','N','N','','Y','Y','Y','','','','','3,88 ha of forests stands authorized as reproductive forest materials*','194 €/y*','See narrative summary below','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','N','N','N','N','N','','N','N','N','','','','','','','According to the Member State, no national strategy has been developed and adopted that specifically addresses the conservation of genetic resources. In addition, no national biodiversity strategy and action plan specifically promote the in-situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds or commercial tree species. No projects have been undertaken in this regard.','CY'),
	('-','-','Y','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','(1) launched (2)  just starting and (2) under preparation ','24,000* ','15-20','500,000 – 700,000','-','-','See narrative summary below.','CZ'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','','Sektorstrategie Agrobiodiversität','','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','15','3.545.855','12','1.615.246','12','671.777','See English narrative summary belowDetails are provided in German only. This includes information on specific measures and programmes. ','DE'),
	('','Y','','','','','','','','','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','1','estimated 100,000 (1995-2010)','See narrative summary below.','DK'),
	('N','','     ','     ','N','','     ','     ',' ','N','     ','     ','     ','Y','Y','','Y','Y','','Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013','Y','Y','','1','1,350,000 (2007 to 2013)','     ','     ','1','10,000','See narrative summary below.','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('','','            ','','','','            ','','','','','            ','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('','','Y','','','Y','Y* ','','See ** and ***','','Y**','Y***','','','','','','','','','','','','12','','Unknown','','Conservation of 10 main or endangered forest tree species + Inventory of forest tree species in French Guyana (nearly 1600 according to the latest results, 2009)','€ 80 000 (2009)','See narrative summary below.','FR'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','see narrative summary','Y','Y','','','','Y','','','','','HU'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','Advisory Committee - see below ','','','Y','','N','N','Y','Y','Y','N','National Strategy for Plant Conservation','Y','N','Y','77 Apple varieties','','Kerry Cattle Scheme. Rare breed option in REPS/AEOS, for Irish Draught Horse, Connemara Pony, Kerry Bob Pony, Irish Moiled, Dexter and Kerry Cattle and Galway Sheep','','Oak, Ash, Alder, Birch','','See narrative summary below.','IE'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','','','','Y','Y','Y','','','','','N','N','N','N','N','N','N/A','IT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','Y','N','Y','Y','','N','','','','','','','','','','','LT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','Rural Development Programme','','','','','N','N','N','N','N','N','','','','N','','','1','27,000','','','See narrative summary below.','LU'),
	('','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','LV'),
	('Y','','','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','Y','Y','','','','','','','','','MT'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','See narrative summary below.','NL'),
	('','','','','','','','','National biodiversity strategy and action plan','','','Y','','Y','Y','N','Y','Y','N','','','','','','','','','','','','PL'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','Y','N','N','N','N','','N','N','N','3','276486','3','380610','2','178198','','PT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('N','','','','','Y','','','EQO*','','','Y','','','','','','','','','','','','1','830,000','3','1,420,000','4+6**','?','See narrative summary below.','SE'),
	('','Y*','','','','','Y** ','','','N','','','','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','RDP','Y','N','N','0','0','1','25,154.00','','','See narrative summary below.','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('','','','','Y','Y','Y*','','','','','','','','','','','','','Y','','','Forest Reporoductive Material Regulations','','','','','17','84,000','See narrative summary below','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_11_NatStrats` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_11_RDPPayments
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_11_RDPPayments`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_11_RDPPayments` (
  `EAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Public` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_11_RDPPayments` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_11_RDPPayments` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_11_RDPPayments` (`EAFRD`,`EAFRDPercent`,`Public`,`PublicPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('0','0','0','0','AT'),
	('0','0','0','0','BE'),
	('0','0','0','0','BG'),
	('0','0','0','0','CY'),
	('-','-','-','-','CZ'),
	('0','0','0','0','DE'),
	('0','0','0','0','DK'),
	('0','0','0','0','EE'),
	('0','0','0','0','EL'),
	('0.352','0.187 %','0.705','0.189 %','ES'),
	('0','0','0','0','FI'),
	('0','0',NULL,'0','FR'),
	('-','-','-','-','HU'),
	('0.5484','0.16','0.88	','0.14','IE'),
	('0','0','0','0','IT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LU'),
	('0','0','0','0','LV'),
	('0','0','0','0','MT'),
	('0','0','0','0','NL'),
	('0','0','0','0','PL'),
	('8.98','5.88','8.98','5.79','PT'),
	('0','0','0','0','RO'),
	('0.79766','0.041%','0.99708','0.042%','SE'),
	('0.79766','2.445%','0.99708','2.445%','SI'),
	('-','-','-','-','SK'),
	('0','0','0','0','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_11_RDPPayments` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_12
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_12`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_12` (
  `EAFRDTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EAFRDAxis2` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EAFRDAxis2Percent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicAxis2` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PublicAxis2Percent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AgriPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaAgriPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestEAFRD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestEAFRDPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NaturaForestPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ForestPublic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ForestPublicPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_12` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_12` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_12` (`EAFRDTotal`,`EAFRDAxis2`,`EAFRDAxis2Percent`,`PublicTotal`,`PublicAxis2`,`PublicAxis2Percent`,`AgriEAFRD`,`AgriEAFRDPercent`,`AgriPublic`,`AgriPublicPercent`,`NaturaAgriEAFRD`,`NaturaAgriEAFRDPercent`,`NaturaAgriPublic`,`NaturaAgriPublicPercent`,`NaturaForestEAFRD`,`NaturaForestEAFRDPercent`,`NaturaForestPublic`,`NaturaForestPublicPercent`,`ForestPublic`,`ForestPublicPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','ES'),
	('651.1','116.1','17.8%','1002.7','146.6','14.5%','45.8','7','56.2','5.6','0','0','0','0','18.6','2.9','0','0','24.7','2.5','FR'),
	('449.46','166.146','36.96%','528.84 ','195.464 ','36.96%','54.739 ','12.18%','64.399 ','12.18%','1','0.22 %','1.18 ','0.22%','1.042 ','0.23 %','1.226 ','0.23 %','0.212 ','0.04%','PT');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_12` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_15
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_15`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_15` (
  `Afforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Deforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AfforestDetails` text,
  `DeforestDetails` text,
  `EIAAfforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EIAAfforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EIADeforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EIADeforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SEAAfforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SEAAfforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SEADeforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SEADeforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioAfforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioAfforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioDeforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioDeforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherAfforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherAfforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDeforest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDeforestLimits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_15` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_15` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_15` (`Afforest`,`Deforest`,`AfforestDetails`,`DeforestDetails`,`EIAAfforest`,`EIAAfforestLimits`,`EIADeforest`,`EIADeforestLimits`,`SEAAfforest`,`SEAAfforestLimits`,`SEADeforest`,`SEADeforestLimits`,`BioAfforest`,`BioAfforestLimits`,`BioDeforest`,`BioDeforestLimits`,`OtherAfforest`,`OtherAfforestLimits`,`OtherDeforest`,`OtherDeforestLimits`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','See narrative summary below.','N','N','N','N','N',NULL,'N','N','Y','N','N','N','N','N','N','N','AT'),
	('Y','Y','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account.In Flanders, the use of exotic tree species is prohibited in sensitive/fragile areas (eg, the Flemish Ecological Network VEN as well as nature and forest reserves), unless the decision to afforest with non-native tree species is foreseen in an approved management plan. In certain sensitive areas it is prohibited to change the actual vegetation by means of afforestation. Exemptions can be given by the Agency for Nature and Forests.In the Walloon region, the new Forestry Code entered in force at the end of 2008. The aim of the new code is to safeguard the regeneration and sustainable use of forests, as well as guarantee an optimum and dynamic balance between its economic, ecological and social roles. Certain objectives are imposed on both public and private land owners (eg, choice of species appropriate to local conditions, diversification, measures favouring biodiversity, restricting clear cutting, drainage and input, reasonable opening up to the public, etc.). Article 40 of the new forestry code prohibits artificial regeneration of plots greater than 50 ha contiguous with species that are not in optimal conditions or tolerated as defined in the “ecological species file” approved by the Walloon government. In addition, Article 452/31 of the ‘Code Walloon de l\'aménagement du territoire, de l\'urbanisme et du patrimoine’ (CWATUP) refers to afforestation. Afforestation is only permitted for a period which exceeds twelve years on a property or part of a property non-covered with trees before, and activities of intensive cultivation of tree species for a period which not exceeds twelve years. In addition, the project must meet several conditions: requiring no modification of the relief nor soil drainage; being adjacent to a forest area unless the area to be afforested is greater than three hectare; covering an area of 0.5 ha minimum; used tree species meeting the criteria of the “ecological species file”; and plantations must be at least 10% hardwood species.','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account.In Flanders a specific legislation is in place concerning deforestation. In sensitive areas, deforestation is in principle prohibited and can only be allowed after a specific exemption given by the minister responsible for environment and nature, and subsequently a specific license must be obtained from the responsible authority for building and urban development. In addition, the deforestation must be compensated. For the judgement concerning the licensing of the deforestation, as well as for the approval of the forest compensation, biodiversity and landscape concerns are taken into account in the guidelines. In the Walloon region, in 2006 a new ‘Plan de progrès pour la gestion forestière wallonne’ (2007-2011) was drawn up by a task group that included all stakeholders. It contains 11 objectives organised into 27 actions. Out of its 11 objectives, the 8th one is refers to the enhancement of biodiversity considerations in forests management practices. Objective 7 asks to identify conservation objectives for all forests ecosystems. Objective 5 is on the monitoring of forest health and its improvement, particularly with regards to climate change. Objective 4 is on the equilibrium between games species and the forest ecosystems.','Y',' 20ha*10ha** ','Y','20ha*3ha**','Y',NULL,'Y','3ha**','Y','20ha*','Y','20ha*','N','N','N','N','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','N','N/A','N/A','Y','','Y','','Y',NULL,'Y','','Y','','Y','','','','','','CY'),
	('N','N','N/A','N/A','Y','25','Y','5','-','-','-','-','Y',NULL,'-','-','Y','0.5','Y','0.5','CZ'),
	('Y*','Y*','','','Y','','Y','','Y',NULL,'Y','','','','','','','','','','DE'),
	('Y','Y','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. No more details were provided.','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. No more details were provided.','Y','N','Y','Y','Y',NULL,'Y','N','Y','N','Y','N','Y','','','','DK'),
	('Y','N ','See narrative summary below.','See narrative summary below.','N','','N','     ','N','     ','N','     ','N','     ','N','     ','Y','     ','Y','     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('N','N','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. ','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. ','Y','50','Y','20','Y',NULL,'Y','N','N','','N','','','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','See narrative summary below.','N','','Y','>25 ha or >10 ha if departemental rate of afforestation <10%','N','','N','','','','','','','','','','FR'),
	('Y','Y','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. The country has introduced rate of naturalness (Law No. XXXVII 2009 on forests, protection of forests and forestry). According to the law, it is not allowed on protected areas to plant or to renew a forest with non-native tree species. Efforts have to be taken on non-protected areas to use native tree species. Consequently, subsidies on native tree species are higher.  ','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. Deforestation without afforestation is not allowed (the percentage of forest cover cannot be decreased) Once forested land was deforested, afforestation must take place in the area with the same rate of naturalness (tree species) and the same territory. An Afforestation Implementation Plan must be implemented.','Y','30 ha','Y','10-50 ha','N',NULL,'N','','N','','N','','','','','','HU'),
	('Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','See narrative summary below.','Y','N','Y','N','N',NULL,'N','N','Y','N','Y','N','Y','N','Y','N','IE'),
	('Y','N','See narrative summary below','','N','','','','N',NULL,'','','Y','','','','Y','','','','IT'),
	('N','N','N/A','N/A','Y','1 ha in city areas10 ha in rural areas      ','Y','1 ha in city areas10 ha in rural areas      ','Y','> 10 ha    ','Y','> 10 ha     ','Y','If needed','Y','If needed','','','','','LT'),
	('Y','Y','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. 1. Point 6.9 of FSC-Luxembourg certification standard prohibits afforestation with non-native trees.2. Point 4.2.b of PEFC-Luxembourg standard specifies that for afforestation, origins of native species and local provenances that are well adapted to site conditions should be preferred, where appropriate. 3. The country’s forest service has published two major studies with recommendations on afforestation with native species.4. Management plans of public forests contain special provisions for afforestation with native trees.','1. Deforestation is prohibited by law. It can be authorized by the minister responsible for Environment in case of public reason. A national compensation system has been set up to take into account biodiversity loss due to landuse change by deforestation.2. Specific deforestation projects along riversides are only permitted to create new biotops with richer biodiversity.','Y','N','Y','N','Y',NULL,'Y','N','Y','N','Y','N','','','','','LU'),
	('N','N','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. ','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. ','Y','50','Y','50','Y',NULL,'Y','N','','','','','','','','','LV'),
	('N','N','N/A',' N/A','Y','>5 ha','Y','>3 ha','Y',NULL,'Y','N','','','','','','','','','MT'),
	('Y','Y','','','N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','','','','NL'),
	('Y','N','See narrative summary below.','N/A','Y','≥20','Y','≥1','Y',NULL,'Y','≥1','N','N','N','N','N','N','N','N','PL'),
	('Y','Y','See narratives umarry and details below.','See narratives umarry and details below.','Y','N','Y','N','N',NULL,'N','','N','','Y','N','Y','N','N','','PT'),
	('N','N','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('Y','Y','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. According to the Forestry Act concerning afforestation, new forest must be planted or naturally generated after felling when the land’s capacity to produce timber is not fully exploited. Planting or measures for natural regeneration must have been completed by the end of the third year after felling.The Swedish Forestry Act, Section 7, and associated ordinances, regulate the use of e.g. non-native species: \"Where required for silvicultural reasons, the Government, or public authority designated by the Government, may issue regulations prohibiting, or conditions regulating (i) the use of forest reproductive material of indigenous or foreign origin, in establishing new forest stands; and (ii) trading with such material. The Government, or public authority designated by the Government, may also issue regulations in order to promote, assure and verify authenticity and quality with respect to production and trade with forest reproductive material. Forest reproductive material refers to seeds, seedlings, transplants, and other forms of regenerative material intended to be used for the establishment of new forest stands.\"','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. According to the Forestry Act concerning deforestation, regeneration felling must not be carried out until the forest has reached a certain age. For predominantly coniferous forests, the age varies between 45 and 100 years. Thinning must encourage forest development. Timber stocks after thinning must be large enough to utilize the production capacity of the land. After thinning the trees must be evenly distributed on the area. Damage to trees and the ground must be avoided as far as possible. Despite any measure undertaken, biological diversity in the forests must always be preserved. At the same time, the cultural heritage must be safeguarded and social aspects must also be taken into consideration. Therefore, it is important that due care and attention is paid to all forestry measures.Permanent or very long term loss of forest cover only occurs as a result of urban settlements, infrastructure (such as roads, railways etc) and industrial activities. In those cases legal provisions apply to control and mitigate impacts.The Swedish Forestry Act, Section 30, and associated ordinances, regulate environmental consideration in forestry:\"The Government, or public authority designated by the Government, may issue regulations on the degree of respect to be extended to nature conservation and cultural heritage preservation interests in connection with forest management, as regards the form and size of felling areas, regeneration methods, the retention of individual trees and groups of trees, fertilisation, drainage, and the routing of forest roads.To satisfy these interests, the Government, or public authority designated by the Government, may issue regulations prohibiting felling and other forestry measures on forest wasteland. The Government, or public authority designated by the Government may also issue regulations regarding measures to be taken in the event of non-compliance with regulations referred to in the first paragraph. The powers granted in paragraphs one and three of this section do not permit the issuing of regulations, which are so extensive as to severely handicap current land-use.\"','N','','N','','Y',NULL,'Y','','N','','N','','N','','Y','0.5','SE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','Y',' ','','Y','5','Y','1','Y',NULL,'Y','N','Y','0','Y','0','','','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_15` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_3_ForestCert
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_3_ForestCert`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_3_ForestCert` (
  `FSCArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FSCPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PECFArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PECFPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherCert` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherCertArea` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherCertPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_3_ForestCert` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_3_ForestCert` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_3_ForestCert` (`FSCArea`,`FSCPercent`,`PECFArea`,`PECFPercent`,`OtherCert`,`OtherCertArea`,`OtherCertPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('5086','0.13%','1955799   ','50.64%','','','','AT'),
	(' 13262','1.99%',' 281052','42.14%','','','','BE'),
	(' 114462','3.16%','0','0%','','','','BG'),
	('0','0%','0','0%','','','','CY'),
	('53282','2.01%','71.12%',NULL,'','0','0','CZ'),
	('431989','3.9%','7284168','65.77%','','','','DE'),
	('192147','38.43%','224067','44.81%','','','','DK'),
	('1082915','47.41%','0','0%','','','','EE'),
	('36626','0.98%','0','0%','','','','EL'),
	('127356','0.71%','1119939','6.25%','','','','ES'),
	('9706','0.04%','20806165','92.47%','','','','FI'),
	('16851','0.11%','5114484','32.88%','','','','FR'),
	('251906','12.75%','0','0','','','','HU'),
	('446124','66.69%','0','0%','','','','IE'),
	('48766','0.49%','717102','7.19%','','','','IT'),
	('1020602','48.62%','0','0%','','','','LT'),
	('18835','21.65%','26505','30.47%','','','','LU'),
	('1620915','55.11%','0','0%','','','','LV'),
	('','','','','','','','MT'),
	('181538','49.74%','0','0','-','','','NL'),
	('6995720','76.11%','0','0','-','','','PL'),
	('192819','5.1%','168186','4.45%','-','','','PT'),
	('917473','14.4%','0','0','-','','','RO'),
	('9736011','35.37%','7507130','27.27%','-','','','SE'),
	('212104','16.78%','0','0','-','-','-','SI'),
	('174083','9.02%','1220576','63.28%','','','','SK'),
	('1,283,000','45.1%','0','0','-','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_3_ForestCert` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_3_HNV
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_3_HNV`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_3_HNV` (
  `Area` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Share` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NoMapped` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mapped` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_3_HNV` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_3_HNV` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_3_HNV` (`Area`,`Share`,`NoMapped`,`Mapped`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('2,447,292','68.4%',NULL,NULL,'AT'),
	('347,960','19.5%',NULL,NULL,'BE'),
	('2,509,989','37.3%',NULL,NULL,'BG'),
	('342,045','53.7%',NULL,NULL,'CY'),
	('1,043,973','21.1%',NULL,NULL,'CZ'),
	('3,162,699','14.6%',NULL,NULL,'DE'),
	('172,267','5.0%',NULL,NULL,'DK'),
	('380,879','22.5%',NULL,NULL,'EE'),
	('5,349,572','58.6%',NULL,NULL,'EL'),
	('18,986,960','55.8%',NULL,NULL,'ES'),
	('1,330,797','44.9%',NULL,NULL,'FI'),
	('7,797,145','22.1%',NULL,NULL,'FR'),
	('1,906,124','27.9%',NULL,NULL,'HU'),
	('1,162,594','20.1%',NULL,NULL,'IE'),
	('6,127,030','33.4%',NULL,NULL,'IT'),
	('627,202','15.1%',NULL,NULL,'LT'),
	('12,871','9.0%',NULL,NULL,'LU'),
	('568,400','19.9%',NULL,NULL,'LV'),
	('','',NULL,NULL,'MT'),
	('368,788','14.1%',NULL,NULL,'NL'),
	('4,813,243','23.8%',NULL,NULL,'PL'),
	('2,900,462','57.6%',NULL,NULL,'PT'),
	('4,860,372','33.7%',NULL,NULL,'RO'),
	('1,136,030','23.9%',NULL,NULL,'SE'),
	('591,314','78.4%',NULL,NULL,'SI'),
	(NULL,'22.0%',NULL,NULL,'SK'),
	('5,165,466','26.7%',NULL,NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_3_HNV` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_4`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_4` (
  `Livestock` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Pasture` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Landscape` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Habitat` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GAEC` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GAECDetails` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_4` (`Livestock`,`Pasture`,`Landscape`,`Habitat`,`GAEC`,`GAECDetails`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','Y','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','AT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','BE'),
	('','','','','','','BG'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','CY'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','CZ'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','DE'),
	('Y','Y','Y*','N','','N/A','DK'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','N','N/A     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','EL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','','N/A','ES'),
	('','','','','','','FI'),
	('N','Y','N','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','FR'),
	('Y','Y','N','N','N','','HU'),
	('Y','Y','Y*','Y**','Y**','See narrative summary below.','IE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','IT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','','','LT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','LU'),
	('Y','Y','N','N','','','LV'),
	('N','N','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','MT'),
	('N','Y','Y','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','NL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','PL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','PT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','','See narrative summary below.','RO'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','SE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below','SI'),
	('','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_6
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_6`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_6` (
  `Training` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TrainingAmount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TrainingPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_6` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_6` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_6` (`Training`,`TrainingAmount`,`TrainingPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'AT'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'BE'),
	('',NULL,NULL,'BG'),
	('N',NULL,NULL,'CY'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'CZ'),
	('N',NULL,NULL,'DE'),
	('N',NULL,NULL,'DK'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'EE'),
	('',NULL,NULL,'EL'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'ES'),
	('',NULL,NULL,'FI'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'FR'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'HU'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'IE'),
	('N',NULL,NULL,'IT'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'LT'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'LU'),
	('N',NULL,NULL,'LV'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'MT'),
	('',NULL,NULL,'NL'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'PL'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'PT'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'RO'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'SE'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'SI'),
	('',NULL,NULL,'SK'),
	('Y',NULL,NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_6` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_8
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_8`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_8` (
  `RegBirds` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RegFarming` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RegForestry` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RegTree` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatBirds` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatFarming` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatForestry` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatTree` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioIndicators` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioIndicatorsDetails` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_8` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_8` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_8` (`RegBirds`,`RegFarming`,`RegForestry`,`RegTree`,`NatBirds`,`NatFarming`,`NatForestry`,`NatTree`,`BioIndicators`,`BioIndicatorsDetails`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','N','N/A','AT'),
	('Y','N','Y','Y','N',' N','N','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('Y','N','N','Y','Y','N','N','Y','N','N/A','CY'),
	('N','N','N','N','Y','N','N','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','CZ'),
	('(Y, P)','(Y, P)','(Y)','','Y','Y','','','(Y, P)','See narrative summary below.','DE'),
	('','','','','N','P[2011] ','(Y)','(Y)','Y  ','See narrative summary below','DK'),
	('     ','     ','     ','     ','Y','Y',' N    ','  N   ','Y','See narrative summary below.','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('N','P','P','Y','Y','P','P','Y','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('','','','','N','N','N','N','','','FR'),
	('N','N','N','N','Y','Y','Y','Y','P[2010]','No further information provided.','HU'),
	('Y','N','N','N','Y','N','N','N','Y','See narrative summary below.','IE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','N','N/A','IT'),
	('N','','N','N','N','','N','N','N','N/A','LT'),
	('','','','','P [2011]','P [2010]','N','Y','N','N/A','LU'),
	('','','','','Y','N','N','N','N','N/A','LV'),
	('N','N','N','N','N','N','N','N','','','MT'),
	('Y','N','N','Y','Y','N','N','Y','','','NL'),
	('N','N','N','N','Y','P 2011','N','N','N','N/A','PL'),
	('Y','N','N','Y','Y','P','P','Y','Y','See narrative summary and details below.','PT'),
	('','','','','P [2010]','P [2011]','N','N','See narrative summary below.',NULL,'RO'),
	('Y','Y','N','N','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','See narrative summary below.','SE'),
	('','','','','Y','Y','Y','','Y','See narrative summary below.','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('','N','','N','','N','Y','N','','See narrative summary below.','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_8` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_1_9
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_1_9`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_1_9` (
  `Amount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percentage` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_1_9` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_9` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_1_9` (`Amount`,`Percentage`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('21','22','AT'),
	('12','17 %','BE'),
	('0','0','BG'),
	('1','55','CY'),
	('0','0','CZ'),
	('264','28%','DE'),
	('34','27 %','DK'),
	('0','0','EE'),
	('0','0','EL'),
	('243','42 %','ES'),
	('1','2%','FI'),
	('468','47%','FR'),
	('0','0','HU'),
	('89','61%','IE'),
	('86','18%','IT'),
	('0','0','LT'),
	('0','0','LU'),
	('0','0','LV'),
	('0','0','MT'),
	('23','23%','NL'),
	('10','6 %','PL'),
	('1','1%','PT'),
	('14','13','RO'),
	('31','26','SE'),
	('0','0','SI'),
	('11','38%','SK'),
	('235','49%','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_1_9` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_2_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_2_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_2_1` (
  `NatMonitor` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatMonitorDetails` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MandatoryParam` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Projects` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_2_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_2_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_2_1` (`NatMonitor`,`NatMonitorDetails`,`MandatoryParam`,`Projects`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','AT'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','Y','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','CY'),
	('N','N/A','-','N','CZ'),
	('Y','Details are provided in reference No 2.','N','Y','DE'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','DK'),
	('Y','See narrative summary below.','Y','Y','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('Y','See narrative summary below.','Y','Y','FR'),
	('Y','See below for further information.','Y','','HU'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','IE'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','Y','IT'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','LT'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','LU'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','LV'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','Y','MT'),
	('','','','Y','NL'),
	('N','N/A','','N','PL'),
	('Y','See narrative summary below.','Y','','PT'),
	('Y','See narrative summary.','N','N','RO'),
	('Y','See below for detailed information.','Y','','SE'),
	('N','N/A','N/A','N','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('Y','See narrative summary below.','Y','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_2_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_3_1_BioAsses
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_3_1_BioAsses`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_3_1_BioAsses` (
  `GrnRiverPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnRiverMP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnRiverBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnRiverFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnLakePP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnLakeMP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnLakeBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnLakeFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnTransPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnTransMA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnTransBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnTransFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnCostalPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnCostalMA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GrnCostalBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelRiverPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelRiverMP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelRiverBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelRiverFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelLakePP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelLakeMP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelLakeBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelLakeFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelTransPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelTransMA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelTransBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelTransFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelCostalPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelCostalMA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `YelCostalBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedRiverPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedRiverMP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedRiverBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedRiverFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedLakePP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedLakeMP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedLakeBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedLakeFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedTransPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedTransMA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedTransBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedTransFI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedCostalPP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedCostalMA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RedCostalBI` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_3_1_BioAsses` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_1_BioAsses` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_3_1_BioAsses` (`GrnRiverPP`,`GrnRiverMP`,`GrnRiverBI`,`GrnRiverFI`,`GrnLakePP`,`GrnLakeMP`,`GrnLakeBI`,`GrnLakeFI`,`GrnTransPP`,`GrnTransMA`,`GrnTransBI`,`GrnTransFI`,`GrnCostalPP`,`GrnCostalMA`,`GrnCostalBI`,`YelRiverPP`,`YelRiverMP`,`YelRiverBI`,`YelRiverFI`,`YelLakePP`,`YelLakeMP`,`YelLakeBI`,`YelLakeFI`,`YelTransPP`,`YelTransMA`,`YelTransBI`,`YelTransFI`,`YelCostalPP`,`YelCostalMA`,`YelCostalBI`,`RedRiverPP`,`RedRiverMP`,`RedRiverBI`,`RedRiverFI`,`RedLakePP`,`RedLakeMP`,`RedLakeBI`,`RedLakeFI`,`RedTransPP`,`RedTransMA`,`RedTransBI`,`RedTransFI`,`RedCostalPP`,`RedCostalMA`,`RedCostalBI`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','x','x','x','x','x','','x','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','','','','','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','x','','',NULL,'','','x','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','AT'),
	('x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','x','x','x','','x','','x','x','x','','','','','','x',NULL,'','','','','x','','',NULL,'','','','','','','',NULL,'','x','','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','-','-','-','-','','','','x','','x','','x','','','','-','-','-','-','x','x','x','','x','',NULL,'','x','x','x','-','-','-','-','','','','BG'),
	('','','','','','-','','','-','-','-','-','','','x','','x','x','','x','-','','','-','-','-','-','x','x','','x','','',NULL,'','-','x','x','-','-','-','-','','','','CY'),
	('x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','','','','','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','','','','','','','-','-',NULL,'-','-','-','-','CZ'),
	('x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','','x','x','x','x','','','','','','','','','','x','x','','','','','x','x','x',NULL,'x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','DE'),
	('','','x','x','x','x','x','x','-','-','-','-','x','x','x','','x','','','','','','','-','-','-','-','','','','x','','',NULL,'','','','','-','-','-','-','','','','DK'),
	('','','','','x','x','x','','-','-','-','-','','','','x','x','x','x','','','','','-','-','-','-','x','x','x','','','','','','','','x','-','-','-','-','','','','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','EL'),
	('x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','x','x','x',NULL,'x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','ES'),
	('x','','x','','x','x','x','','-','-','-','-','x','x','x','','x','','x','','','','x','-','-','-','-','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','-','-','-','-','','','','FI'),
	('','','x','x','x','','x','','x','','','','x','','','','x','','x','','x','','','','x','x','x','','x','','x','','','','','','','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','FR'),
	('x','x','','','x','x','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','x','x','','','x','x','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','',NULL,'','','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','HU'),
	('','','x','','','','','','x','x','x','','x','x','x','','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','','','x','','','','x','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','','IE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','x','x','x',NULL,'x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','IT'),
	('','','x','','','','','','','','','','','','','x','x','','x','x','x','x','x','x',NULL,'x','x','x','x','x','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','','LT'),
	('','','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','x','x','x','x','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','',NULL,'-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','LU'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,NULL,'','','','','','','','x','x','x',NULL,'x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','LV'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','MT'),
	('x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','',NULL,'','',NULL,'NL'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','x','x','x','x','','x','','',NULL,'','','','','','x','','','','','','PL'),
	('','x','x','x','x','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','',NULL,'','x','x','','','','','','','','','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','x','','',NULL,'','','','','','','','','','','','SE'),
	('','','','','','','','','-','-','-','-','','','','','X','X','X','X','X',NULL,'','-','-','-','-','X','X','X','x','','','','','','','X','-','-','-','-','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','x','x','x','x','x','x','x','','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','','','',NULL,'','','','x','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','SK'),
	('','','x','','x','x','x','x','x','','x','x','x','x','x','','x','','x','x','','','','','x','','','','x','','x','','',NULL,'','','','x','','','','','','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_1_BioAsses` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_3_1_Stations
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_3_1_Stations`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_3_1_Stations` (
  `num` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_3_1_Stations` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_1_Stations` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_3_1_Stations` (`num`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('105','AT'),
	('161','BE'),
	('261','BG'),
	('13','CY'),
	('-','CZ'),
	('2184','DE'),
	('-','DK'),
	('-','EE'),
	('-','EL'),
	('1116','ES'),
	('112','FI'),
	('581','FR'),
	('115','HU'),
	('950','IE'),
	('2234','IT'),
	('-','LT'),
	('4','LU'),
	('261','LV'),
	('-','MT'),
	('-','NL'),
	('514','PL'),
	('77','PT'),
	('249','RO'),
	('-','SE'),
	('-','SI'),
	('','SK'),
	('1560','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_1_Stations` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_3_FWHabitatStatus
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_3_FWHabitatStatus`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_3_FWHabitatStatus` (
  `FVNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FVPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `UNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `UPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `XXNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `XXPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NANum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NAPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_3_FWHabitatStatus` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_FWHabitatStatus` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_3_FWHabitatStatus` (`FVNum`,`FVPercent`,`UNum`,`UPercent`,`XXNum`,`XXPercent`,`NANum`,`NAPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'AT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'BE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'BG'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'CY'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'CZ'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'DE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'DK'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'EE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'EL'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'ES'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'FI'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'FR'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'HU'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'IE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'IT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'LT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'LU'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'LV'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'MT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'NL'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'PL'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'PT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'RO'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'SE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'SI'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'SK'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_FWHabitatStatus` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_3_FWQuality
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_3_FWQuality`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_3_FWQuality` (
  `BOD2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BOD2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BOD2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BOD2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ammonium2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ammonium2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ammonium2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ammonium2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3River2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3River2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3River2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3River2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Lake2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Lake2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Lake2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Lake2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Ground2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Ground2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Ground2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO3Ground2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OPRiver2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OPRiver2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OPRiver2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OPRiver2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TPLake2002` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TPLake2003` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TPLake2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TPLake2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y1992To2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_3_FWQuality` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_FWQuality` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_3_FWQuality` (`BOD2002`,`BOD2003`,`BOD2004`,`BOD2005`,`Ammonium2002`,`Ammonium2003`,`Ammonium2004`,`Ammonium2005`,`NO3River2002`,`NO3River2003`,`NO3River2004`,`NO3River2005`,`NO3Lake2002`,`NO3Lake2003`,`NO3Lake2004`,`NO3Lake2005`,`NO3Ground2002`,`NO3Ground2003`,`NO3Ground2004`,`NO3Ground2005`,`OPRiver2002`,`OPRiver2003`,`OPRiver2004`,`OPRiver2005`,`TPLake2002`,`TPLake2003`,`TPLake2004`,`TPLake2005`,`Y1992To2005`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('1.22','1.25','1.26','1.23','0.07','0.06','0.06','0.06','1.37','1.27','1.40','1.31',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'27.9','28.6','27.2','27.7','0.026','0.028','0.024','0.021','0.009','0.025','0.025',NULL,NULL,'AT'),
	('2.69','2.89','2.69','2.36','1.06','1.37','1.32','1.26','3.89','3.39','3.80','3.94',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'27.8','35.4','33.6','32.5','0.306','0.386','0.354','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'BE'),
	('4.25','3.47','3.50','3.64','0.71','0.55','0.40','0.33','1.69','1.87','1.90','1.85',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'24.9','22.8','22.3','23.0','0.205','0.196','0.200','','','','',NULL,NULL,'BG'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'11.7','18.1','16.8','12.6','','','','','','','',NULL,NULL,'CY'),
	('3.38','3.84','3.50','3.18','-','-','-','-','3.32','2.97','3.15','3.04',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'14.8','15.2','14.9','15.2','0.112','0.146','0.124','0.087','-','-','-','-',NULL,'CZ'),
	('-','-','-','-','0.13','0.15','0.16','0.12','3.59','3.26','3.38','3.25',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'17.7','24.8','27.7','26.7','0.070','0.069','0.072','0.022','0.022','0.33','0.028',NULL,NULL,'DE'),
	('1.68','1.72','1.51','1.49','0.13','0.14','0.11','','4.65','4.26','5.05','4.76',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'24.7','25.2','25.6','37.0','0.063','0.063','0.064','0.107','0.113','0.112','0.107',NULL,NULL,'DK'),
	('1.66','1.58','1.55','1.52','0.08','0.11','0.07','0.08','1.32','1.30','1.47','1.29',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'6.6','7.1','4.4','4.8','0.034','0.044','0.030','0.047','0.057','0.057','0.043',NULL,NULL,'EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'','','15.6','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'EL'),
	('3.35','2.258','2.38','2.73','0.81','0.61','0.59','0.92','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'','31.1','45.0','39.7','','','','','','','',NULL,NULL,'ES'),
	('1.56','1.70','1,53','1.69','0.06','0.09','0.07','0.06','0.33','0.5','0.51','0.44',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'1.2','1.4','1.5','-','0.013','0.015','0.015','0.016','0.022','0.021','0.019','0.022',NULL,'FI'),
	('2.88','2.30','2.03','1.84','0.36','0.34','0.24','0.33','2.60','2.50','2.81','2.57',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'-','18.1','21.0','19.9','0.106','0.106','0.099','0.111','-','-','-','-',NULL,'FR'),
	('3.72','3.80','3.48','3.38','0.42','0.47','0.39','0.41','2.25','2.39','2.54','2.44',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'1.5','1.4','2.2','1.3','0.271','0.291','0.251','0.058','0.087','0.088','0.073',NULL,NULL,'HU'),
	('1.03','1.35','1.11','1.00','0.04','0.06','0.03','0.03','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13.2','13.0','13.6','13.0','-','-','-','0.018','0.02','0.018','0.018',NULL,NULL,'IE'),
	('-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'IT'),
	('2.51','2.55','2.44','2.56','0.34','0.43','0.27','0.45','1.53','1.45','1.95','1.69',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'1.6','2.8','1.4','2.2','0.168','0.166','0.118','0.111','0.03','0.038','0.028','0.038',NULL,'LT'),
	('4.66','-','2.19','1.47','0.36','','0.28','0.43','5.08','4.90','5.29','4.67',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'','24.2','22.7','23.8','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'LU'),
	('1.98','2.41','1.94','1.72','0.10','0.15','0.10','0.11','1.09','0.96','1.08','1.00',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'0.5','0.8','1.2','2.1','0.036','0.047','0.037','0.057','0.055','0.062','0.079',NULL,NULL,'LV'),
	('-','-','-','-','-','--','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'58.8','49.2','54','54.6','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'MT'),
	('','','','','0.58','','','','3.16','2.79','3.02','3.13',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'21.1','28.5','20.5','22.2','-','-','--','-','0.135','0.129','0.168','0.105',NULL,'NL'),
	('4.34','4.25','4.29','3.95','0.46','0.58','0.44','0.56','2.00','1.84','1.96','1.86',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'10.9','8.9','8.6','8.7','0.126','0.140','0.138','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'PL'),
	('-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'24.8','36.8','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'PT'),
	('-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'RO'),
	('','','','','0.05','0.07','0.06','0.06','0.55','0.53','0.56','0.47',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'0.6','0.6','1.0','0.4','0.013','0.013','0.016','0.015','0.014','0.013','0.013',NULL,NULL,'SE'),
	('3.84','5.25','4.86','1.64','0.30','0.28','0.19','0.19','1.10','1.19','1.18','1.23',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'29.7','34.2','37.2','34.6','0.053','0.079','0.044','0.048','-','-','-','-',NULL,'SI'),
	('3.10','3.23','2.93','2.71','','','','','1.94','1.82','1.47','1.62',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'12.2','12.1','12.9','12.9','0.100','0.084','0.080','','','','',NULL,NULL,'SK'),
	('1.78','1.55','1.43','1.45','0.17','0.07','0.08','0.08','5.03','5.03','5.41','4.91',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'27.6','29.0','29.1','18.5','0.325','0.282','0.239','-','-','-','-',NULL,NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_FWQuality` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_3_InlandBathing
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_3_InlandBathing`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_3_InlandBathing` (
  `Total2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Comply2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Comply2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Comply2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Comply2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_3_InlandBathing` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_InlandBathing` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_3_InlandBathing` (`Total2005`,`Total2006`,`Total2007`,`Total2008`,`Comply2005`,`Comply2006`,`Comply2007`,`Comply2008`,`Percent2005`,`Percent2006`,`Percent2007`,`Percent2008`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'81.7%','77.2%','72.8%','71.6%','AT'),
	('73','75','75','76','35','33','33','27','47.9%','44.0%','44.0%','35.5%','BE'),
	('','','3','4','','','3','3','','','100%','50%','BG'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','CY'),
	('176','188','188','188','76','100','102','97','43.2%','53.2%','54.3%','51.6%','CZ'),
	('1553','1564','1588','1890','1275','1238','1217','1547','82.1%','79.2%','76.7%','81.9%','DE'),
	('112','112','113','115','95','101','95','92','84.8%','90.2%','84.1%','80%','DK'),
	('38','38','38','28','22','31','26','21','57.9%','81.6%','68.4%','75%','EE'),
	('4','4','6','6','4','4','3','6','100%','66.7%','50%','100%','EL'),
	('165','171','174','186','75','70','66','68','45.5%','40.9%','37.9%','36.6%','ES'),
	('280','274','266','261','204','187','209','232','72.9%','68.2%','78.6%','88.9%','FI'),
	('1328','1319','1339','1344','832','803','719','1278','62.7%','60.9%','53.7%','95.1%','FR'),
	('259','241','238','256','68','139','128','131','26.3%','57.7%','53.8%','51.2%','HU'),
	('9','9','9','9','7','7','6','4','77.8%','77.8%','66.7%','44.4%','IE'),
	('766','776','777','767','411','408','430','390','53.7%','52.6%','55.3%','50.8%','IT'),
	('56','59','70','84','22','27','33','52','39.3','45.8','47.1','61.9','LT'),
	('20','20','20','20','7','10','9','10','35%','50%','45%','50%','LU'),
	('236','230','232','230','125','161','182','152','53%','70%','78.4%','66.1%','LV'),
	('87','87','87','87','29','73','78','82','33.3%','83.9%','89.7%','94.3%','MT'),
	('550','553','555','556','340','324','324','396','61.8%','58.6%','58.4%','71.2%','NL'),
	('227','253','257','231','14','87','109','103','6.2%','34.4%','42.4%','44.6%','PL'),
	('73','86','92','97','33','50','40','41','45.2%','58.1%','43.5%','42.3%','PT'),
	('','-','35','49','','-','1','1','','-','2.9%','2.0%','RO'),
	('416','444','441','212','326','287','301','187','78.4%','64.6%','68.3%','88.2%','SE'),
	('18','18','18','18','7','8','6','8','38.9%','44.4%','33.3%','44.4%','SI'),
	('39','38','38','38','14','27','29','20','35.9%','71.1%','76.3%','52.6%','SK'),
	('11','11','11','12','3','3','5','3','27.3%','27.3%','45.5%','25.0%','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_3_InlandBathing` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_4_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_4_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_4_1` (
  `NumInstalls` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NumPermits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NumPermitsNotUpdated` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NumPermitsUpdated` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OutstandingPermits` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_4_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_4_1` (`NumInstalls`,`NumPermits`,`NumPermitsNotUpdated`,`NumPermitsUpdated`,`OutstandingPermits`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('572','518',NULL,NULL,'47','AT'),
	('1275','1369',NULL,NULL,'144','BE'),
	('327','208',NULL,NULL,'119','BG'),
	('84','81',NULL,NULL,'0','CY'),
	('1803','1294',NULL,NULL,'35','CZ'),
	('7460','10135',NULL,NULL,'78','DE'),
	('1689','0',NULL,NULL,'23','DK'),
	('112','86',NULL,NULL,'0','EE'),
	('293','104',NULL,NULL,'189','EL'),
	('5061','3694',NULL,NULL,'0','ES'),
	('689','664',NULL,NULL,'25','FI'),
	('6088','6336',NULL,NULL,'0','FR'),
	('979','967',NULL,NULL,'12','HU'),
	('461','360',NULL,NULL,'101','IE'),
	('5562','3989',NULL,NULL,'1588','IT'),
	('151','148',NULL,NULL,'0','LT'),
	('32','42',NULL,NULL,'0','LU'),
	('76','76',NULL,NULL,'1','LV'),
	('8','6',NULL,NULL,'2','MT'),
	('2565','4065',NULL,NULL,'472','NL'),
	('2673','2366',NULL,NULL,'307','PL'),
	('659','426',NULL,NULL,'107','PT'),
	('699','57',NULL,NULL,'1','RO'),
	('1066','926',NULL,NULL,'140','SE'),
	('169','64',NULL,NULL,'110','SI'),
	('500','452',NULL,NULL,'0','SK'),
	('3980','3976',NULL,NULL,'4','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk` (
  `Acid2000` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Acid2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Acid2020` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AcidMFR2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Eutro2000` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Eutro2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Eutro2020` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EutroMFR2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk` (`Acid2000`,`Acid2010`,`Acid2020`,`AcidMFR2010`,`Eutro2000`,`Eutro2010`,`Eutro2020`,`EutroMFR2010`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('2','1','0','0','100','94','78','5','AT'),
	('29','21','19','4','100','99','94','37','BE'),
	('0','0','0','0','94','91','80','18','BG'),
	('0','0','0','0','68','68','68','17','CY'),
	('28','22','20','5','100','100','100','99','CZ'),
	('58','32','24','5','84','67','58','36','DE'),
	('50','42','37','2','100','100','100','99','DK'),
	('0','0','0','0','67','57','47','5','EE'),
	('3','1','1','0','98','97','97','60','EL'),
	('3','0','0','0','95','93','90','48','ES'),
	('3','2','2','0','47','41','36','2','FI'),
	('12','8','6','1','98','95','91','41','FR'),
	('5','3','3','0','100','100','99','81','HU'),
	('23','8','6','2','88','81','77','73','IE'),
	('0','0','0','0','69','61','55','14','IT'),
	('52','32','0','0','100','100','100','92','LT'),
	('15','13','13','0','100','100','99','98','LU'),
	('20','14','12','0','99','99','96','44','LV'),
	('','','','','','','','','MT'),
	(NULL,'71','71','60','94','88','88','76','NL'),
	('77','61','50','3','100','100','99','68','PL'),
	('8','3','3','0','97','83','69','6','PT'),
	('46','22','12','0','19','20','15','0','RO'),
	('17','10','9','2','56','47','43','13','SE'),
	('7','0','0','0','98','92','82','0','SI'),
	('18','9','8','0','100','100','100','83','SK'),
	('39','19','15','7','26','19','17','9','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_2_EcoAtRisk` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_4_2_Emission
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_4_2_Emission`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_4_2_Emission` (
  `NO2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NONECD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NO2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SO2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SO2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SO2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SONECD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SO2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NH2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NH2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NH2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NHNECD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NH2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Volatile2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Volatile2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Volatile2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `VolatileNECD` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Volatile2010` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_4_2_Emission` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_2_Emission` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_4_2_Emission` (`NO2006`,`NO2007`,`NO2008`,`NONECD`,`NO2010`,`SO2006`,`SO2007`,`SO2008`,`SONECD`,`SO2010`,`NH2006`,`NH2007`,`NH2008`,`NHNECD`,`NH2010`,`Volatile2006`,`Volatile2007`,`Volatile2008`,`VolatileNECD`,`Volatile2010`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('168.3','166.61','162.19','103','146.2','28.25','24.67','22.4','39','25.75','62.11','63.08','62.57','66','61.31','172.2','160.88','160.53','159','164.31','AT'),
	('266.42','257.16','239.11','176','252.54','134.85','125.46','103.41','99','90.17','70.16','69.73','69.63','74','68.52','143.25','124.06','118.53','139','134','BE'),
	('245.94','187.85','192.61','247','247','877.30','854.01','736.51','836','380','54.92','58.42','67.8','108','108','159.19','119.68','122.68','175','175','BG'),
	('20.43','20.76','19.58','23','18.6','29.06','26.83','21.68','39','22.79','5.43','5.42','5.46','9','6.2','13.29','13.27','11.92','14','12.07','CY'),
	('-','283.2','260.4','286','272','-','216.5','174','265','207','-','59.9','55.4','80','60','-','173.9','166.8','220','170','CZ'),
	('1520.47','1454.64','1393.31','1051','1112','531.83','506.45','497.62','520','459','577.88','580.98','586.93','550','610','1295.69','1274.05','1267.3','995','987','DE'),
	('177.13','163.29','146.04','127','126','26.25','24.33','19.62','55','20','68.52','68.93','68.31','69','65','115.60','109.52','105.24','85','85','DK'),
	('34.91','38.34','34.87','60','38.58','69.95','88.02','69.38','100','80.4','9.27','9.67','9.27','29','8.87','34.57','36.13','35.38','49','40.69','EE'),
	('','376.17','356.9','344','320','533.59','540.48','447.55','523','408','68.47','65.22','63.1','73','60','210.93','205.88','218.66','261','244','EL'),
	('1315.94','1323.96','1142.64','847','1004.88','1132.67','1128.12','485.8','746','408.85','414.11','422.21','355.88','353','388.18','844.04','834.93','788.03','662','789.36','ES'),
	('192.80','184.41','168.23','170','151','85.10','82.737','68.642','110','97.5','36.38','35.19','35.187','31','31.0','132.59','129.03','117.044','130','130.0','FI'),
	('1414.02','1362.3','1272.5','810','1071','428.51','415.1','358.1','375','337','740.20','740.5','754.3','780','729','1289.18','1179.4','1085.9','1050','1060','FR'),
	('-','191.2','183.74','198','164.7','-','85.4','91.54','500','64.64','-','78.2','68.8','90','78','-','157.2','141.05','137','114.98','HU'),
	('121.55','112.25','105.76','65','95.87','60.26','54.3','44.78','42','28.99','109.81','105.28','103.59','116','102.46','58.39','56.66','56.43','55','54.01','IE'),
	('1087.33','1141.4','1097.6','990','1075','405.99','338.4','315.5','475','269','412.57','418.1','405.8','419','409','1159.3','1195.3','1163.6','1159','941','IT'),
	('61.37','66.72','67.74','110','43.7','42.86','35.6','31.53','145','36.45','34.97','38.09','29.15','84','55.26','77.93','76.5','71.74','92','56.22','LT'),
	('14.43','11.24','9.74','11','8.96','1.32','3.18','3.1','4','2.5','5.27','4.37','4.41','7','4.63','8.53','11.24','9.74','9','8.96','LU'),
	('41.29','41.1','38.13','61','45.14','3.72','3.66','2.83','101','4.04','15.73','16.39','16.48','44','14.33','58.5','56.72','53.99','136','55.47','LV'),
	('11.70','11.57','11.35','8','9.07','16.91','17.23','16.2','9','14.2','1.60','1.69','1.54','3','2.28','3.52','3.27','2.94','12','3.85','MT'),
	('-','299.32','292.74','260','244','-','60.48','51.77','50','41','-','137.12','134.77','128','129','-','164.16','159.81','143',NULL,'NL'),
	('879.48','865','828.26','879','827.14','1202.20','1237','1018.37','1397','','286.75','289','285.29','486','284.26','910.60','567','581.95','800','602.99','PL'),
	('271.08','259.3','248.1','250','242','160.69','156','146.2','160','132.9','56.72','57.6','56.8','90','69.2','204.79','198','198.8','180','194.3','PT'),
	('300.55','292.38','275.69','437','350.39','831.58','570.2','557.6','918','784.5','187.35','202.61','185.95','210','206.03','298.97','413.38','427.31','523','342.84','RO'),
	('169.15','163.97','154.4','148','149','35.51','32.54','30.52','67','33','51.94','50.34','49.71','57','50','178.33','179.67','173.03','241','168','SE'),
	('46.85','44.61','47.38','45','46.4','17.92','14.25','13.61','27','16.3','18.60','18.51','17.52','20','18.13','41.27','39.33','37.76','40','37','SI'),
	('96.54','96.51','94.38','130','108.59','87.77','70.56','69.4','110','75.26','27.17','27.09','25.34','39','26.46','70.57','68.29','68.46','140','69.2','SK'),
	('1596.78','1556.74','1403.34','1167','1210.11','670.52','594.96','512.24','585','390.08','297.25','295.08','281.55','297','289.3','959.80','1012.19','942.19','1200','814.38','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_2_Emission` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A2_4_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A2_4_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A2_4_3` (
  `Y1990_1992` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2002_2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Change` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A2_4_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A2_4_3` (`Y1990_1992`,`Y2002_2004`,`Change`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('66','48','-27%','AT'),
	('255','184','-28%','BE'),
	('','','','BG'),
	('','','','CY'),
	('77','70','-9%','CZ'),
	('145','113','-22%','DE'),
	('178','127','-29%','DK'),
	('-','-','-','EE'),
	('32','15','-52%','EL'),
	('32','33','5','ES'),
	('83','55','-34%','FI'),
	('63','54','-16%','FR'),
	('21','37','74%','HU'),
	('76','83','9%','IE'),
	('33','39','16%','IT'),
	('','','','LT'),
	('229','129','-44%','LU'),
	('-','-','-','LV'),
	('-','-','-','MT'),
	('345','229','-34%','NL'),
	('49','48','-2%','PL'),
	('42','47','13%','PT'),
	('-','-','-','RO'),
	('57','48','-16%','SE'),
	('-','-','-','SI'),
	('80','46','-43%','SK'),
	('56','43','-23%','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A2_4_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3`;

CREATE TABLE `A3` (
  `MeanTrophic` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Change1999_2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Change1984_2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3` (`MeanTrophic`,`Change1999_2004`,`Change1984_2004`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,'AT'),
	('3.27','+0.30','+0.09','BE'),
	('3.03','+0.01','-0.01','BG'),
	('4.06','+0.65','+0.63','CY'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,'CZ'),
	('3.10','-0.11','-0.22','DE'),
	('3.10','-0.05','-0.24','DK'),
	(NULL,'-0.05','-0.46','EE'),
	('3.38','+0.22','-0.04','EL'),
	('3.42','-0.03','+0.09','ES'),
	('3.31','+0.01','-0.37','FI'),
	('3.38','-0.05','+0.05','FR'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,'HU'),
	('3.73','+0.02','+0.17','IE'),
	('2.93','-0.11','-0.36','IT'),
	('3.16','-0.12','-0.57','LT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,'LU'),
	('3.18','-0.06','-0.50','LV'),
	('3.31','-0.95','-0.71','MT'),
	('3.06','+0.08','-0.08','NL'),
	('3.27','-0.02','-0.43','PL'),
	('3.35','-0.07','+0.27','PT'),
	('3.11','-0.05','-0.05','RO'),
	('3.31','-0.05','-0.3','SE'),
	('3.09','-0.02','-0.01','SI'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,'SK'),
	('3.44','+0.03','+0.01','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_1` (
  `MarineFVNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineFVPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineUNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineUPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineXXNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineXXPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineNANum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MarineNAPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalFVNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalFVPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalUNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalUPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalXXNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalXXPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalNANum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalNAPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesFVNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesFVPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesUNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesUPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesXXNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesXXPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesNANum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesNAPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishFVNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishFVPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishUNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishUPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishXXNum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishXXPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishNANum` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotFishNAPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_1` (`MarineFVNum`,`MarineFVPercent`,`MarineUNum`,`MarineUPercent`,`MarineXXNum`,`MarineXXPercent`,`MarineNANum`,`MarineNAPercent`,`CostalFVNum`,`CostalFVPercent`,`CostalUNum`,`CostalUPercent`,`CostalXXNum`,`CostalXXPercent`,`CostalNANum`,`CostalNAPercent`,`SpeciesFVNum`,`SpeciesFVPercent`,`SpeciesUNum`,`SpeciesUPercent`,`SpeciesXXNum`,`SpeciesXXPercent`,`SpeciesNANum`,`SpeciesNAPercent`,`NotFishFVNum`,`NotFishFVPercent`,`NotFishUNum`,`NotFishUPercent`,`NotFishXXNum`,`NotFishXXPercent`,`NotFishNANum`,`NotFishNAPercent`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'BE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'BG'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'CY'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'DE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'DK'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'EE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'EL'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'ES'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'FI'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'FR'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'IE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'IT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'LT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'LV'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'MT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'NL'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'PL'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'PT'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'RO'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'SE'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'SI'),
	(NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_1_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_1_4`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_1_4` (
  `MeasureNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MeasureDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MeasureImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MeasureDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MontitorNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MontitorDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MontitorImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MontitorDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Average` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_1_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_1_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_1_4` (`MeasureNo`,`MeasureDev`,`MeasureImp`,`MeasureDontKnow`,`MontitorNo`,`MontitorDev`,`MontitorImp`,`MontitorDontKnow`,`Average`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','Y','','','','Y','',NULL,'BE'),
	('','','','','','','x','',NULL,'BG'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','',NULL,'CY'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','',NULL,'DE'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','',NULL,'DK'),
	('     ','Y','     ','     ','','','x','',NULL,'EE'),
	('','','','',NULL,'','','Y',NULL,'EL'),
	('',' Y','','','','','Y','',NULL,'ES'),
	('','','','','',' ','Y','',NULL,'FI'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','',NULL,'FR'),
	('','x','','','','x','','',NULL,'IE'),
	('Y','','','','','','Y','',NULL,'IT'),
	('','','','','x','','','',NULL,'LT'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','',NULL,'LV'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','',NULL,'MT'),
	('','','','','','','x ','',NULL,'NL'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','',NULL,'PL'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','',NULL,'PT'),
	('','x','','','','','x ','',NULL,'RO'),
	('','','X','','','','x','',NULL,'SE'),
	('N','Y','N','N','','','Y','',NULL,'SI'),
	('','','Y','','','','X','',NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_1_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_1_5
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_1_5`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_1_5` (
  `NoPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `InDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Adopted` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Link` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_1_5` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_1_5` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_1_5` (`NoPlan`,`InDev`,`Adopted`,`DontKnow`,`Link`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','Y','','','','BE'),
	('','','','','','BG'),
	('','Y','','','http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/All/43A4F5BC7100CEB9C22573F10029E165/$file/ICZM%20Cyprus%20Report-April%202006.pdf','CY'),
	('','','Y','','www.ikzm-strategie.de ','DE'),
	('','','Y','','Not provided','DK'),
	('','Y','     ','     ','Not applicable','EE'),
	('','','','','','EL'),
	('','Y','','','Not applicable','ES'),
	('','','','','','FI'),
	('','Y','','','','FR'),
	('','Y','','','Not available ','IE'),
	('','X','','','','IT'),
	('N','','','','','LT'),
	('','Y','','','','LV'),
	('','','Y','','','MT'),
	(NULL,'','','','','NL'),
	('','Y','','','Not available','PL'),
	('','','Y','','http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2009/09/17400/0605606088.pdf ','PT'),
	('','','','','Not applicable','RO'),
	('Y','','','','Not applicable','SE'),
	('Y','','','','','SI'),
	('','','X','','England: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/iczm/iczm-strategy-england.pdfNorthern Ireland: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/iczm_document-2.pdf Scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/26102543/25444Wales: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/consmanagement/marinefisheries/iczm/welshstrategy/?lang=en','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_1_5` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_2_BathingWater
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_2_BathingWater`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_2_BathingWater` (
  `Guide2006` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Guide2007` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Guide2008` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Mandatory2006` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Mandtory2007` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `Mandtory2008` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `DataLink` text NOT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_2_BathingWater` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_2_BathingWater` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_2_BathingWater` (`Guide2006`,`Guide2007`,`Guide2008`,`Mandatory2006`,`Mandtory2007`,`Mandtory2008`,`DataLink`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('22.5','50.0','15.0','95.0','97.5','100.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html   (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf  (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','BE'),
	('','76.4','78.7','','89.9','93.3','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','BG'),
	('99.0','99.0','98.2','99.0','99.0','100.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','CY'),
	('88.6','80.3','75.6','97.7','93.7','98.7','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','DE'),
	('84.2','80.9','79.9','93.5','92.9','96.4','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','DK'),
	('47.1','41.2','42.9','91.2','91.2','100.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink:2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','EE'),
	('96.9','95.5','97.7','99.7','99.5','99.5','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','EL'),
	('92.7','88.7','83.4','98.9','99.1','99.4','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','ES'),
	('63.6','57.6','76.7','99.0','100.0','98.8','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','FI'),
	('79.0','77.7','97.2','96.4','95.7','97.2','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','FR'),
	('91.0','81.1','80.3','96.7','96.7','95.1','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','IE'),
	('91.1','91.7','91.4','93.4','92.9','92.8','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','IT'),
	('66.7','60.0','100.0','100.0','93.3','100.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','LT'),
	('77.8','84.8','84.8','95.6','100.0','95.7','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','LV'),
	('83.9','89.7','94.3','96.6','95.4','98.9','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','MT'),
	('90.7','90.7','88.4','100.0','100.0','100.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','NL'),
	('38.6','33.7','57.3','85.7','80.9','91.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','PL'),
	('90.3','86.7','89.4','97.6','94.6','98.6','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','PT'),
	('-','2.9','2.0','-','28.6','98.0','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','RO'),
	('81.4','63.1','83.3','96.8','95.1','97.7','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','SE'),
	('84.2','68.4','94.7','100.0','68.4','94.7','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','SI'),
	('80.4','76.4','69.5','99.6','96.5','95.9','Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_2_BathingWater` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_2_Nitrogen
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_2_Nitrogen`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_2_Nitrogen` (
  `CountryRegion` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  `Region` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Decrease` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NoTrend` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Increase` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DataLink` text,
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryRegion` (`CountryRegion`),
  KEY `Region` (`Region`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_2_Nitrogen` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_2_Nitrogen` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_2_Nitrogen` (`CountryRegion`,`CountryCode`,`Region`,`Decrease`,`NoTrend`,`Increase`,`Total`,`DataLink`)
VALUES
	('BE','BE','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('BENorth Sea','BE','North Sea','0','22','0','22','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('BG','BG','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('CY','CY','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('DEBaltic Sea','DE','Baltic Sea','1','20','0','21','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('DENorth Sea','DE','North Sea','4','19','0','23','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('DKBaltic','DK','Baltic','5','41','0','46','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('DKNorth Sea','DK','North Sea','1','19','1','21','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('EEBaltic Sea','EE','Baltic Sea','0','3','0','3','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('EL','EL','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('ELMediterranean','EL','Mediterranean','0','6','0','6','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('ES','ES','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('FIBaltic Sea','FI','Baltic Sea','13','93','5','111','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('FR','FR','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('IE','IE','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('IEAtlantic','IE','Atlantic','1','71','0','71','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('IT','IT','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('ITMediterranean','IT','Mediterranean','1','68','3','72','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('LTBaltic sea','LT','Baltic sea','0','8','0','8','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('MT','MT','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('NLNorth Sea','NL','North Sea','0','29','0','29','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('PLBaltic Sea','PL','Baltic Sea','0','14','0','14','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('PT','PT','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('RO','RO','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('SEBaltic Sea','SE','Baltic Sea','4','33','0','37','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('SENorth Sea','SE','North Sea','0','13','1','14','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('SI','SI','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('UKAtlantic','UK','Atlantic','0','2','0','2','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386'),
	('UKNorth Sea','UK','North Sea','0','2','0','2','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_2_Nitrogen` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_2_Phospate
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_2_Phospate`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_2_Phospate` (
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Region` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Decrease` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NoTrend` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Increase` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DataLink` text,
  `CountryRegion` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`),
  KEY `CountryRegion` (`CountryRegion`),
  KEY `Region` (`Region`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_2_Phospate` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_2_Phospate` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_2_Phospate` (`CountryCode`,`Region`,`Decrease`,`NoTrend`,`Increase`,`Total`,`DataLink`,`CountryRegion`)
VALUES
	('BE','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','BE'),
	('BE','North Sea','7','15','0','22','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','BENorth Sea'),
	('BG','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','BG'),
	('CY','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','CY'),
	('DE','Baltic Sea','11','10','0','21','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','DEBaltic Sea'),
	('DE','North Sea','2','22','0','24','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','DENorth Sea'),
	('DK','Baltic','5','41','0','46','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','DKBaltic'),
	('DK','North Sea','1','19','1','21','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','DKNorth Sea'),
	('EE','Baltic Sea','1','2','0','3','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','EEBaltic Sea'),
	('EL','','',NULL,NULL,'','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','EL'),
	('EL','Mediterranean','0','6','0','6','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','ELMediterranean'),
	('ES','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','ES'),
	('FI','Baltic Sea','6','85','27','118','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','FIBaltic Sea'),
	('FR','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','FR'),
	('IE','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','IE'),
	('IE','Atlantic','1','64','6','71','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','IEAtlantic'),
	('IT','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','IT'),
	('IT','Mediterranean','4','56','3','63','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','ITMediterranean'),
	('LT','Baltic Sea','3','5','0','8','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','LTBaltic Sea'),
	('LV','Baltic Sea','0','1','0','1','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','LVBaltic Sea'),
	('MT','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','MT'),
	('NL','North Sea','21','8','0','29','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','NLNorth Sea'),
	('PL','Baltic Sea','0','14','0','14','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','PLBaltic Sea'),
	('PT','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','PT'),
	('RO','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','RO'),
	('SE','Baltic Sea','5','43','0','48','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','SEBaltic Sea'),
	('SE','North Sea','1','13','0','14','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','SENorth Sea'),
	('SI','','','','','','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','SI'),
	('UK','Atlantic','0','2','0','2','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','UKAtlantic'),
	('UK','North Sea','0','2','0','2','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','UKNorth Sea');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_2_Phospate` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_4`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_4` (
  `Ax12007MS` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax12007EC` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax12007MSTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax22007MS` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax22007EC` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax22007MSTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax32007MS` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax32007EC` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax32007MSTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax42007MS` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax42007EC` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Ax42007MSTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total2007MS` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total2007EC` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total2007MSTotal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Axis1` text,
  `Axis2` text,
  `Axis3` text,
  `Axis4` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_4` (`Ax12007MS`,`Ax12007EC`,`Ax12007MSTotal`,`Ax22007MS`,`Ax22007EC`,`Ax22007MSTotal`,`Ax32007MS`,`Ax32007EC`,`Ax32007MSTotal`,`Ax42007MS`,`Ax42007EC`,`Ax42007MSTotal`,`Total2007MS`,`Total2007EC`,`Total2007MSTotal`,`Axis1`,`Axis2`,`Axis3`,`Axis4`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','5039435','5164318','10203753','50000','50000','100000','','','','5089435','5214318','10303753','n/a','Promote sustainable exploitation of fisheries in inland waters. Promote organic production and sustainable exploitation of aquaculture facilities. ','Measures to avoid overfishing (e.g. through minimum landing sizes, closed areas, other restrictions on catches and permissible baits). ','n/a','AT'),
	('7561648','7561648','15123296','5000000','5000000','10000000','9488352','9488352','18976704','2900000','2900000','5800000','24950000','24950000','49900000','Reduce over-capacity in the fleet and use more environmentally friendly fishing gear and techniques. ','Redevelop aquaculture infrastructure and opt for techniques that reduce impact on the environment.','Develop or maintain the sustainability of fish stocks; restore aquatic habitats and the free movement of migratory species. ','Mediate socio-economic impacts of reducing over-capacity. ','BE'),
	('2666990.27','8000970.8','10667961.07','12001456.2','36004368.6','48005824.8','6667475.67','20002427','26669902.67','4000485.40','12001456.2','16001941.6','25336408','76009223','101345630','Funding equipment for reduction impact of fishing on habitats, the sea bottom and non-commercial species. Support fishermen and vessel owners of small-scale coastal fishing to improve management and control of access. Elaborate recovery and management plans. ','Support sustainable development of Bulgarian aquaculture and reduce negative impacts on the environment within the processing sector. ','Support common actions for sustainable fishing, aquaculture development and resource management. Within resource management the main objective will be to preserve biological diversity, sustainable use of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna as well as renew ecologically degraded systems. This will involve further extension of the National Environmental Network. ','Promote environmentally friendly activities within fisheries development. ','BG'),
	('2200000','2200000','4400000','3250000','3250000','6500000','12924418','12924418','25848836','1000000','1000000','2000000','19374418','19724418','39448836','Promote sustainable fisheries; Contribute to conservation through reducing capacity of the fishing fleet and provide assistance to fishermen and vessel owners for the cessation of fishing activities; and introducing fishing gear that reduces impacts (i.e. reduces discards, increases selectivity). ','Introduce and develop innovative and environmentally friendly aquaculture methods; Enhance environmental protection; Support environmentally sustainable production units and supports compensation for the use of aquaculture production methods that help to protect and improve the environment and conserve nature, such as organic aquaculture ','Support collective action to protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora.  ','Promote the quality of the coastal environment; Diversify jobs outside of the fisheries sector. ','CY'),
	('','','','3975646','11926937','15902583','4608135','13824404','18432539','','','','8583781','25751341','34335122','n/a','Protect and improve natural environment in relation to aquaculture. ','Protect and develop aquatic organisms while enhancing aquatic environment. ','n/a','CZ'),
	('5138334','8145000','13283334','35315409','57560225','92875634','35421247','68687844','104109091','14146000','19438000','33584000','90020990','153831069','243852059','Promote sustainable fisheries. Activities include engine replacement to improve engine efficiency and improve fishing gear selectivity.','Support aqua-environmental measures and organic production. ','Protect and develop aquatic resources such as the rehabilitation of spawning grounds. ','Sustainable development and improve the quality of coastal environments. ','DE'),
	('13365342','40365342','53730684','37649524','37649524','75299048','33815266','36515266','70330532','12461279','12461279','24922558','97291411','126991411','224282822','Contribute to the sustainable exploitation of fishing resources; support for reduction the impact of fishing on the marine environment, reducing discards and un-wanted by-catches. ','Reduce the impact of aquaculture on the natural environment. Continue the development of environmentally friendly technologies and the conversion to organic production. ','Promote profitability of the sector within the framework of biological sustainability. Develop certification systems. ','Make fisheries areas attractive both ecologically and socially for industrial and residential development. ','DK'),
	('5088177','15264531','20352708','8194643','24583929','32778572','7069888','21209664','28279552','6427171','19281513','25708684','26779879','80339637','107119516','Contribute to sustainable development of fishing resources; reduce fishing capacity in the Baltic Sea trawl fishing fleet (through a compensation scheme); and improve selectivity of fishing gear.','Contribute to sustainability of the aquaculture sector.','Manage fishing related environment risks including improving selectivity of fishing gear. Restore fish spawning grounds. ','Promote socio-economic diversification.','EE'),
	('20495146','77272459','97767605','20972000','59689538','80661538','11355760','32320240','43676000','11700000','33300000','45000000','64522906','202582237','267105143','Promote sustainable fisheries; reduce current capacity of the fishing fleet to enable future recovery of fish stocks. ','Develop and introduce innovative and environmentally friendly aquaculture methods. ','No specific environmentally friendly measures but a general objective for sustainable development. ','Sustainable development of fisheries areas and promote quality of the coastal environment. ','EL'),
	('335450131.37','442907459.23','778357590.60','310961706.66','322048246.33','633009952.99','297243501.39','298755661.12','595999162.51','28534674.54','49212448.07','77747122.61','972190013.96','1112923814.75','2085113828.71',' Promote sustainable fisheries in maritime areas. Adapt fleet capacity (using a compensation programme) so that it is matched to the resource in the case of threatened and migratory fisheries. Reduce the negative impacts of fishing activities on the environment; promote the use of fishing gear that respects the environment and improve efficiency of engines. ','Develop and introduce innovative and environmentally friendly aquaculture methods. ','Develop aquatic flora and fauna through the creation of artificial reefs and marine reserves. ','No specific environmentally friendly activities. ','ES'),
	('4540000','3445000','7985000','22530000','16990000','39520000','19690000','14783827','34473827','4806000','3606000','8412000','51566000','38824827','90390827','Promote sustainable fisheries in the marine zone; improve selectivity of fishing gear; and mitigate the fishery/seal conflict. ','Develop and introduce innovative and environmentally friendly aquaculture methods; reduce nutrient loads. ','Disseminate good practice. ','Diversification of activities such as tourism related to fishing. ','FI'),
	('82870774','59621494','142492268','57473347','63029212','120502559','72125330','85049416','157174746','5535936','5699644','11235580','218005387','213399766','431405153','Promote sustainable fisheries in the maritime zone. Reduce fishing capacity of the fishing fleet as a key tool for conservation, including a decommissioning scheme to reduce capacity by 30% by 2012. Improve efficiency of fishing vessels and selectivity of fishing gear. ','Introduce innovative and environmentally friendly aquaculture methods. ','Protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora.','Diversify activities outside of the fishing sector. ','FR'),
	('','','','8360978','24163925','32524903','2598131','8944392','11542523','','','','10959109','33108317','44067426','n/a','Support aqua-environmental measures in aquaculture. ','Enhance natural aquatic habitats and reduce invasive species. ','n/a','HU'),
	('11589000','34766000','46355000','','','','6800000','6000000','12800000','5700000','1500603','7200603','24089000','42266603','66355603','Objective to make fishing sustainable. There is a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels targeting over-fished stocks. Decommissioning of polyvalent and beam trawl fleets over 18m targeting white fish. ','n/a','Focus to environmental management schemes. Objective to encourage industry to adopt an environmentally friendly conscious and responsible approach. Aim for a sustainable, viable and environmentally conscious shellfish industry as part of an inshore management scheme. Actions will include: the adoption of responsible fishing practices to reduce discarding and by-catch of protected species; the adoption of fishing practices with lower benthic impact; the adoption of fuel efficient practices; increased environmental and conservation awareness, promoting local area and coastal zone management.','Sustainable development and improvement of the quality of the coastal environment. This will involve setting up Coastal Action Groups draw up and implement a development strategy for the area.  ','IE'),
	('165493714','165493714','330987428','106085713','106085713','212171426','108207428','108207428','216414856','23338856','23338856','46677712','403125711','403125711','806251422','Aims as promoting sustainable fisheries. Measures include sustaining a balance between resources and fishing capacity through some decommissioning. Actions also to improve gear selectivity and diversification of activities. ','Develop new and innovative environmentally-friendly methods. ','Protect and develop aquatic flora and fauna. ','Promote sustainable development and diversification of activities. ','IT'),
	('2861245','13667647','16528892','7477002','22431005','29908007','3083081','9249241','12332322','2231257','6693770','8925027',NULL,'52041663','67694248','Reduce fishing capacity through decommissioning schemes particularly for cod. Improve engine energy efficiency and fishing gear selectivity to reduce by-catch. ','Promote sustainable aquaculture through aqua-environmental measures. Reduce capacity in inland waters. ','Protect and develop aquatic flora and fauna. ','Diversify activities and promote eco-tourism. ','LT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','LU'),
	('6953648','20860942','27814590','15376250','46128750','61505000','8051000','24153000','32204000','9637159','28911476','38548635','40018057','120054168','160072225','Reduce fishing capacity.','Promote environmentally friendly aquaculture production.','Protect and develop aquatic flora and fauna. ','Diversify economic activities. ','LV'),
	('725000','2175000','2900000','586750','1760250','2347000','1365026','4095079','5460105','','','','2676776','8030329','10707105','Reduce fishing effort particularly for migratory fish stocks such as blue fin tuna and swordfish. Reduce emissions on fishing vessels and improve fishing gear selectivity. ','Contribute to the sustainability of aquaculture. Promote environmentally friendly methods and derive methods to achieve better coastal landscape management. ','Protection and development of aquatic flora and fauna.','n/a','MT'),
	('27700000','16913233','45613233','9800000','7379398','17779398','27100000','16903461','46403461','5000000','4987125','9987125',NULL,'119783217',NULL,'Reduce capacity in the flatfish fleet through decommissioning. Encourage investment in more sustainable fishing techniques. ','Increase sustainability of mollusc cultivation and eels. Make better use of rare species, discards and waste in processing.  ','Promote sustainable management of fish stocks. Increase the share of environmentally certified fish. ','No specific environmental measures. ','NL'),
	('56280431','168841292','225121723','48939505','146818515','195758020','48939505','146818515','195758020','78303208','234909624','313212832','232462649','697387946','929850595','Sustainable fisheries in marine areas through removing fishing capacity, particularly in the cod sector (by 30%). Increase energy efficiency of vessels and improve selectivity of fishing gear. ','Maintain a sustainable level of activity in inland fisheries. Use traditional aquaculture methods to help protect and improve the environment. Support producers to reach high environmental standards, gain environmental certification or use organic production. Implement N2000 sites that overlap aquaculture production. ','Ensure sustainable use of natural resources. ',' Promote eco-tourism and protection/recovery of the coastal environment. ','PL'),
	('13901077','53065134','66966211','27014825','78058495','105073320','28558464','90026820','118585284','6532511','17403406','23935917','76006877','238553855','314560732','Promote sustainable fisheries in marine areas. Reduce fishing capacity through decommissioning. Improve energy efficiency of vessels and selectivity of fishing gear. ','Develop and introduce innovative and environmentally friendly methods. Use marine spatial planning in site selection of aquaculture production and ensure environmental compliance of physical structures.  ','Protection and development of aquatic flora and fauna. ','Diversification of activities and fishing tourism. ','PT'),
	('3325000','9975000','13300000','35000000','105000000','140000000','10000000','30000000','40000000','25000000','75000000','100000000','73325000','219975000','293300000','Promote sustainable fisheries. Reduce fishing capacity particularly for trawlers targeting pelagic species in the Black Sea. Develop conservation measures for Turbot and possibly sprat. Improve energy efficiency of vessels and fishing gear selectivity. ','Develop and introduce new innovative and environmentally friendly aquaculture methods. Promote organic aquaculture (providing up to 2 years of funding). Protect N2000 sites. Management of traditional features of landscape in aquaculture zones: Danube Delta and mountain areas.  ','Rehabilitate sturgeon migration routes in the Danube (provision of fish passes). Habitat improvement and stock enhancement of the Danube salmon. ','No specific environmentally friendly measures. ','RO'),
	('9110800','13666201','22777001','10932961','10932961','21865922','19132681','19132681','38265362','8199720','8199720','16399440','47376162','51931563','99307725','Reduction of fishing capacity particularly for demersal and cod fisheries as well as for pelagic species. An ITQ system for pelagic species is under discussion. Improvements in energy efficiency of vessels and fishing gear selectivity. ','Develop sustainable aquaculture and use aqua-environmental methods. Promote a balance between fishing capacity and fish stocks in inland waters. ','Protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora. ','Develop fishing tourism. Promote the quality of the coastal environment and protect natural and architectural heritage and values. ','SE'),
	('721343','2164029','2885372','2668969','8006907','10675876','2524699','7574097','10098796','721343','2164029','2885372','6636354','19909062','26545416','Promote sustainable fisheries in marine areas. Adjust fishing capacity to fishing possibilities and increase diversification of activities. ','Contribute to sustainable aquaculture production, processing and marketing. Promote environmentally friendly methods of production through investment in aqua-environmental measures.  ','No specific environmentally friendly activities. ','Promote sustainable development of coastal areas and support diversification of activities. ','SI'),
	('','','','4160749','13621490','17782239','845431','3381723','4227154','','','','5006180','17003213','22009393','n/a','Promotion of traditional methods to support conservation.','Reduce negative environmental impacts.','n/a','SK'),
	('34325840','39634805','73960645','23977180','33589711','57566891','38261580','49620896','87882476','9527638','11598450','21126088','106092238','134443862','240536100','Contribute to sustainable development of fishing. Reduce fishing capacity through decommissioning programmes. Make the fleet more efficient and environmentally friendly. Improve gear selectivity and provide compensation for fishermen wanting to diversify out of fisheries.   ','Finance aqua-environmental measures in aquaculture. ','Promote sustainable exploitation of resources and minimise environmental impacts. Protect and develop aquatic flora and fauna. ','Diversification out of fisheries.','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_5
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_5`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_5` (
  `WithinLimit` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OutsideLimit` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_5` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_5` (`WithinLimit`,`OutsideLimit`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(NULL,NULL,'AT'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','BE'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','BG'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','CY'),
	(NULL,NULL,'CZ'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','DE'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','DK'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','EE'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','EL'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','ES'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','FI'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','FR'),
	(NULL,NULL,'HU'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','IE'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','IT'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','LT'),
	(NULL,NULL,'LU'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','LV'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','MT'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','NL'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','PL'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','PT'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','RO'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','SE'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','SI'),
	(NULL,NULL,'SK'),
	('54% (of 158 stocks)','46% (of 158 stocks)','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_5_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_5_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_5_1` (
  `vessels2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Infringe2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `InfringePercent2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Penalties2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AveFine2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MaxFine2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `vessels2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Infringe2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `InfringePercent2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Penalties2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AveFine2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MaxFine2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_5_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_5_1` (`vessels2006`,`Infringe2006`,`InfringePercent2006`,`Penalties2006`,`AveFine2006`,`MaxFine2006`,`vessels2007`,`Infringe2007`,`InfringePercent2007`,`Penalties2007`,`AveFine2007`,`MaxFine2007`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('107','29','27','19','6070','22000','','','','','','','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('872','112','13','76','219','530','','','','','','','CY'),
	('2017','101','5','100','436','6400','','','','','','','DE'),
	('3136','323','10','181','542','2682','','','','','','','DK'),
	('994','32','3.2','','','','','','','','','','EE'),
	('17878','351','2','351','750','20000',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'EL'),
	('13357','2061','15','2061','1995','120000',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'ES'),
	('3196','11','0.3','3','198','360','','','','','','','FI'),
	('7698','1360','18','454','5105','75000','','','','','','','FR'),
	('1843','223','12','1','0','0','','','','','','','IE'),
	('14093','3868','27','3457','1206','20660','','','','','','','IT'),
	('266','4','1.5','4','1231','1593','','','','','','','LT'),
	('897','94','10','94','129','1138','-','-','-','-','-','-','LV'),
	('1412','0','0','0','0','0','1385','2','0.14%','0','0','0','MT'),
	('831','96','12','15','1005','2500','-',NULL,'-','-','-','-','NL'),
	('884','129','15','129','688','6410','-','-','-','-','-','-','PL'),
	('8715','1352','16','829','851','7650','-','-','-','-','-','-','PT'),
	('','','','','','','-','-','-','-','-','-','RO'),
	('1567','80','5','8','484','1079','-','-','-','-','-','-','SE'),
	('179','22','12','22','170','417','-','-','-','-','-','-','SI'),
	('6761','170','2.5','169','5271','26380','-','-','-','-','-','-','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_5_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_5_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_5_2` (
  `SalmonPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SalmonLink` text,
  `TroutPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `TroutLink` text,
  `SturgeonPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SturgeonLink` text,
  `EelPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EelLink` text,
  `OtherDesc` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherPlan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherLink` text,
  `Habitat` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatDetail` text,
  `Barriers` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BarriersDetail` text,
  `Stock` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StockDetail` text,
  `DiaOtherDesc` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DiaOther` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DiaOtherDetail` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_5_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_5_2` (`SalmonPlan`,`SalmonLink`,`TroutPlan`,`TroutLink`,`SturgeonPlan`,`SturgeonLink`,`EelPlan`,`EelLink`,`OtherDesc`,`OtherPlan`,`OtherLink`,`Habitat`,`HabitatDetail`,`Barriers`,`BarriersDetail`,`Stock`,`StockDetail`,`DiaOtherDesc`,`DiaOther`,`DiaOtherDetail`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','','Y','Seeforellenprogramm (Programme for lake trout): www.vorarlberg.at ','N','','N ','','','','','Y','Measures for morphological restructuring of rivers are included within the Programme of measures of the Austrian National River Basin Management Plan under the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC','Y','The removal of migratory barriers in rivers is included within the Programme of measures of the Austrian National River Basin Management Plan under the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC','Y','Stock enhancement measures for lake trout are included within the Programme of measures of the Austrian National River Basin Management Plan under the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. ','','','','AT'),
	(' N','',' N','',' N','',' Y','http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Publicaties/2010/Soortbeschermingsplan_voor_Paling.aspx ','','','','Y','Restoration of river habitats is taking place within a trans-boundary project with the Netherlands for the Grensmaas','Y','More than 500 priority migratory obstacles have been identified within the Eel Management Plan which will be addressed through different steps in time.','Y','Restocking of glass eel is taking place','','','','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','','N','','N','','N','','','','','NA','','NA','','NA','','','','','CY'),
	('Y','http://www.vurh.jcu.cz/en ','Y','http://www.vurh.jcu.cz/en ','Y','http://www.vurh.jcu.cz/en','Y','http://www.vurh.jcu.cz/en','catfish (Silurus glanis), beluga large (Huso huso)','Y',NULL,'Y','Measures to restore inland water bodies including areas for spawning and create new reproduction areas within the river system.','Y','Construction of fish passages for migration.  ','Y','Introduction of eels into the river system and modernisation and enlargement of hatcheries to assist in re-stocking. ','-','Y','Keeping selected populations of the species as a gene bank for future restorations     ','CZ'),
	('yes','','yes','','yes','','yes','http://www.portal-fischerei.de/index.php?id=1240','Alosa spec.','yes','','yes','','yes','','yes','','','yes','','DE'),
	('Y','http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/2004/laks.htm','Y','Realease plans in all Danish streams: http://www.fiskepleje.dk/vandloeb/udsaetning/oerred.aspx','N','','Y','http://fd.fvm.dk/Ål.aspx?ID=34550','Houting','Y','http://www.sns.dk/udgivelser/2004/Forvaltningsplan_for_snaebel_DK1.pdf','Y','Habitat restoration for trout, salmon and houting.','Y','Removal or migratory barriers for trout, salmon, houting and eels','Y','Enhancement for trout, eels and salmon.','','','','DK'),
	('Y','1. IBSFC Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010. 2. State program for reproduction and re-stocking of fish 2002-2010. ','N','     ','N','     ','Y','http://www.envir.ee/1109748','     ','     ','     ','Y','A research project ‘Evaluation of potential production and elaboration of enhancement measures for sea trout spawning in Estonian rivers’ is being conducted from 2008-2011.','N','     ','Y','In the years between 2007 and 2009 salmon was stocked into Estonian rivers by year-classes: 0+ to – 1 (580,000 specimens); 2+ (145,000 specimens). Stocking of sea trout within Estonian rivers also took place with a total of 242,000 specimens. European eel, year-class 2+, were stocked into Estonian lakes with a total of 734,000 specimens.','     ','     ','     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('N','','N','','N','','N','','','','','Y','','Y','','','','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('Y','http://www.ile-de-france.ecologie.gouv.fr/spip.php?rubrique159http://www.drire.gouv.fr/picardie/publications/RA_Drire_2008.pdfhttp://www1.centre.ecologie.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=234http://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/milieux-continentaux/poissons/plan-gestion-2004-2008.phpwww.lorraine.ecologie.gouv.fr/spip.php','Y ','','Y (in progress)','','Y','www.onema.fr/IMG/paf/PAF-adour.pdf','Alosa alosaAlosa falaxLampestra fluviatisPetromyzon marinus','Y','http://www.ile-de-france.ecologie.gouv.fr/spip.php?rubrique159http://www.drire.gouv.fr/picardie/publications/RA_Drire_2008.pdfhttp://www1.centre.ecologie.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=234http://www.rhone-mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/milieux-continentaux/poissons/plan-gestion-2004-2008.phpwww.lorraine.ecologie.gouv.fr/spip.php','Y','','Y','','Y','Breeding stocks in captivity in CEMAGREF, near BordeauxStock enhancement from breeding in captivity is the major component of the national action plan and the major issue for recovering populations of sturgeons. ','','','','FR'),
	('N','','N','','N','','N','','','N','','N','','N','','N','','','N','','HU'),
	('Y','http://www.cfb.ie/fisheries_protection/salmonmanagement.htm','','','','','','','','','','Y','','Y','','','','','','','IE'),
	('N','','N','','N','','Y/N','Plan prepared for Sardinia only. ','','','','N','','N','','N','','','','','IT'),
	('Y','http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=67238','Y','http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=201953','N','','Y','no link available ','','','','Y','Habitat restoration (especially for spawning and juvenile grounds) is part of the trout management plan. ','Y','Removal of migratory barriers is part of the trout management plan (2003- 2011)','Y','Stock enhancement will take place as part of the Eel management plan. ','','','','LT'),
	('N','','N','','N','','Y','Not currently available','','','','Y','Protection of gravel banks, allowing the natural dynamic of rivers, rehabilitation of natural habitats, water quality enhancement','Y','Removal of migratory barriers, transformation to allow rough-ramps and fish-ramps; technical fish passes to allow migration. ','Y','Rearing and stocking of salmon fingerlings.','','Y','\"Trap and truck\" of mature eels (from up river (Sure) to down river (Rhine))','LU'),
	('N','','N','','N','','N','','','','','Y','Occasionally undertaken during diffferent projects.','Y','Negotiations on removal of the Staicele dam (located on the Salaca river which is designated as a national salmon index river) has been ongoing for several years.','Y','Stock enhancement is taking place mainly for salmon, trout, lamprey and vimba within state programmes and private initiatives.  ','','','','LV'),
	('n/a','-','n/a','-','n/a','-','n/a','-','-','-','-','n/a','-','n/a','-','n/a','-','-','-','-','MT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','NL'),
	('N','','N','','N','','Y','http://bip.minrol.gov.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabOrgId=1772&LangId=0','','','','N','','Y','  1) Within the Vistula River Eel Management Unit (EMU) there is an objective to improve  passability of migration routes by 34%; 2) Within the Oder River Eel Management Unit (EMU) –  the objective is to improve passability of migration routes by 29%','Y','The recommended stocking intensity for the Vistula EMU is 7 million individuals (2.33 tons), and for the Oder EMU it is 6 million individuals (2 tons). Stocking can also be performed with an equivalent quantity of different sized farmed elvers measuring not more than 20 cm. It is also assumed that supplementary stocking will also be performed in waters that are free of migratory barriers, including protected areas.','Y','Limiting catch mortality/fishing effort','There are a number of other activities to support the recovery of eel populations. These include: • Establishing closed seasons• Unifying minimum length• Improving fishing gear selectivity • Catch limits on recreational fishing to 2 eel per day• Limiting predatory pressure of black cormorants• Limiting illegal, undocumented, and unregulated catches.','PL'),
	('N','','N','','N','','Y','PLANO DE GESTÃO DA ENGUIA 2009-2012: Resposta do Estado Português ao Regulamento (CE) nº 1100/2007, de 18 de SetembroDezembro de 2008 (Revisão - Março 2010)Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas','','N','','N','','Y','A survey has been carried out of migratory barriers with a detailed characterisation of the type of obstacles, and a methodology for assessing the existing arrangements for fish passes has been developed. ','Y','Restocking of: Lampetra fluviatilis (river lamprey) and Petromyzon marinus (sea lamprey)','','','','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','n','','n','','y','Stocking for sturgeon approved by Ministerial Order since 2006. ','','','','RO'),
	('Y','The plan is currently being revised (see narrative summary). ','N','','n/a','','Y','The National management plan for eel (in Swedish) can be found at: www.fiskeriverket.se/download/18.7c5197de123343f05d280007183/%C3%85l_f%C3%B6rvaltningsplan_bilagor_beslut_20081211.pdf ','Y','Ecosystem-based fisheries management plans','For Sweden, there is no single national fisheries plan, but a number of watercourses have ecosystem-based fisheries management plans. ','Y','25% of valuable rivers and streams will have been restored by 2010. ','Y','Removal of migratory barriers is undertaken as part of the restoration process. ','Y','Stocking of e.g. eel and reared salmon is conducted. However, the Swedish National Board of Fisheries\' strategy stresses that habitat improvement to enhance the natural reproduction should be the priority. ','','','','SE'),
	('N','','N','','N','','N','','','N','','Y','Although not specifically targeted at eels there is ongoing restoration of a brackish bay (Škocjan bay) which may benefit eel populations. ','','','','','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/33965.aspx','N','','N','','Y','http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/freshwater/fishman.htm#EELS','','','','Y','Undertaken as part of the salmon and ell management plans','Y','Removal of migratory barriers for eels has been included in a separate Eels Order. Implementation of Free Passage of Fish Order (for salmon) has been delayed until May 2011.','Y','Achieved through reduction of fishing effort','','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_5_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_5_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_5_3` (
  `Vessel1999` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Vessel2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Vessel2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Vessel2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Tonnage1999` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Tonnage2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Tonnage2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Tonnage2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Power1999` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Power2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Power2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Power2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_5_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_5_3` (`Vessel1999`,`Vessel2004`,`Vessel2006`,`Vessel2007`,`Tonnage1999`,`Tonnage2004`,`Tonnage2006`,`Tonnage2007`,`Power1999`,`Power2004`,`Power2006`,`Power2007`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('128','121','107','102','22838','22752','20035','19292','63453','65567','60190','60620','BE'),
	('','','','2537','','','','8333','','','','63061','BG'),
	('','897','872','867','','11952','5450','4997','','52410','40525','39239','CY'),
	('2313','2163','2017','1873','69656','66293','61859','69081','163743','161987','155619','160886','DE'),
	('4220','3406','3138','2961','104455','96073','85740','76419','387873','335829','306964','276440','DK'),
	('','1053','994','964','','24923','20709','19329','','63322','53119','49118','EE'),
	('19853','18415','17897','17581','107450','95528','92452','90641','629436','548339','528306','517864','EL'),
	('17322','14075','13367','13001','531606','491169','480209','468122','1382805','1153223','1093755','1059940','ES'),
	('3764','3393','3196','3162','21430','18156','16412','15994','203495','179345','169728','169813','FI'),
	('8303','7893','7682','7589','215077','215079','209021','209313','1111282','1067021','1054878','1063956','FR'),
	('1699','1437','1810','1956','68832','86737','84822','70694','208848','213523','215788','206931','IE'),
	('18238','14886','14114','13812','247209','215807','207868','198581','1462332','124503','1200760','1161781','IT'),
	('','293','266','251','','75588','62170','60965','','77721','68628','68968','LT'),
	('','942','897','879','','42137','37250','33694','','70807','61219','57160','LV'),
	('','1312','1412','1385','','15115','15167','15041','','94073','98625','97403','MT'),
	('1118','863','831','840','191792','195364','158364','163725','503639','463462','384025','388800','NL'),
	('','1248','884','867','','45559','31600','29963','','147081','99908','96692','PL'),
	('10807','10018','8717','8634','118667','112468','106853','106702','393762','391450','380061','382068','PT'),
	('','','440','439','','','2607','2426','','','8701','8106','RO'),
	('2073','1605','1572','1530','50431','44892','43949','43325','236296','219480','217351','213930','SE'),
	('','173','179','181','','1068','1070','970','','11450','11284','10351','SI'),
	('7865','7139','6759','6763','267571','229341','218110','215089','974881','903003','879711','866113','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_5_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_6_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_6_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_6_1` (
  `vessel2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Breaches2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Penalties2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AveFine2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `vessel2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Breaches2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Penalties2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AveFine2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MSActions` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_6_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_6_1` (`vessel2006`,`Breaches2006`,`Penalties2006`,`AveFine2006`,`vessel2007`,`Breaches2007`,`Penalties2007`,`AveFine2007`,`MSActions`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('107','10','6','8525','','','','','Additional legal measures have been taken to prevent/reduce porpoise by-catches from shore based nets. Programmes are also in place to encourage the replacement of bottom trawling by more environmentally friendly techniques.','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','No information was provided by Bulgaria on enforcement measures related to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos.','BG'),
	('872','45','41','213','','','','','No information was provided by Cyprus on enforcement of CFP measure related to reducing by-catch and damage to the benthos. ','CY'),
	('2017','23','22','1428','','','','','No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch or damage to the benthos was provided by Germany.','DE'),
	('3136','90','63','587','','','','','Denmark is lead country in a project on discard elimination in the Baltic Sea – see EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Denmark and Sweden have also introduced closed areas in the Kattegat and the northern part of Oresund to protect cod stocks.','DK'),
	('994','0','','','','0','','','In 2009 it was agreed that within cod fishery in the Baltic Sea, the top window codend BACOMA trawl net should be widened in 2010 to decrease the by-catch of juvenile cod (Council Regulation 1226/2009 Annex III B).','EE'),
	('17878','243','243','815',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'No information was provided by Green on enforcement actions to reduce by-catch and damage to benthos. ','EL'),
	('13357','632','632','2442','','','','','Technical studies and an awareness campaign have been undertaken to reduce by-catch of turtles from long-lines. Technical assistance has also been commissioned to reduce the by-catch of seabirds in the Mediterranean due to the use of deep long-lines. ','ES'),
	('3196','6','0','0','','','','','No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures in relation to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by Finland. ','FI'),
	('7698','688','249','1986','','','','','No specific measures beyond implementation of the CFP. ','FR'),
	('1843','39','1','0','','','','','Under the terms of the Technical Control measures specifically introduced under European regulation and adopted at a national level; SFPA Sea Fisheries Protection Officers engage in active inspection of fishing vessel gears and catches to ensure the regulatory requirements related to levels of by-catch are adhered to.In addition there have been specific activities to reduce by-catch and damage to the sea bed: Vessel Gears - The introduction of specific large mesh gears or designed structure gears to facilitate avoidance of capture of particular sizes of given species are particularly common within specific fisheries under regulatory management schemes. The Irish Sea Cod fishery features the use of separator panels, Swedish grid inserts, square mesh panels etc all of which are designed to facilitate reduction in by-catch particularly of juveniles. The SFPA engages with the Naval Service to inspect vessels declaring use of these gears both in port (prior to and on return from fishing trips) and at sea. Specific monitoring programmes and defined action plans are undertaken with other Member States under the auspices of the CFCA Joint Deployment programmes inspecting specifically for the correct fitting and deployment of these particular gears in this fishery.By-Catch Limits - The catch composition limits for gears and geographic areas (EU Council Reg 850/98) remains in force and directs the bycatch limits of any targeted fishery specific to its area and gears in use. Again the SFPA and Naval Service combined inspection efforts – at sea and on shore landings – to quantify catches onboard and validate the catches made against these specific regulatory requirements. In 2009, 7 case file or prosecutions were initiated with the DPP’s office against vessels breaching the bycatch regulatory requirements. For those landings that are not physically inspected, the IFIS system is used into which all fisheries landing and catch data is entered from logsheet and sales records. This is designed to highlight to the Sea Fisheries Protection Officer when catch and landing data from any vessel on any particular trip exceeds the directed bycatch percentages. Any vessel found in breach of designated limits would then be assigned as an inspection target based on a risk assessment.Education -  The SFPA and BIM have cooperated in the production of a user friendly guide for fishermen on the use of the EU logbook. Inherent in this document is specific detail and guidance on the by-catch limits that are in force under EU Regulations.  In this way fishermen have been encouraged to engage with SFPA inspectors and seek to grow their own knowledge of this technical area.By Catches of other fish - The SFPA and NS again – particularly during the summer Tuna fishery – implement the regulatory requirements surrounding the fitting and use of specific deck gears to avoid seabird by-catch. Other collaborative efforts have also been undertaken and are ongoing with IWDG and with NPWS on a cetacean strategy to avoid by-catch without the use of active sonic transmitters. Benthos - The acknowledgement of VME’s (Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems ) and the establishment of areas where bottom trawling is prohibited to protect the benthos  (Hecate Seamount, Altair Seamount, NW Porcupine etc) has been actively monitored and protected by the Naval Service using VMS alerts and investigation of suspect vessels. This is backed up by FMC sea inspection and detentions.In terms of the maintenance of benthos in other fisheries, SFPA would like to interact with Fishermen’s organisations and representative bodies on specific gears e.g. trawl door paravanes which lift gears from the sea bed and prevent gouging. However, without specific regulatory requirement this would operate on a good-will basis only.. ','IE'),
	('14093','1984','1768','903','','','','','Further actions are not expected apart from European provisions under CFP. ','IT'),
	('266','2','2','869','','','','','No information on actions taken to reduce unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos provided by Lithuania. ','LT'),
	('897','14','14','136','-','-','-','-','The regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers (No. 296 ‘Regulation regarding Commercial fishing in Territorial Waters and Economic Zone Waters’ 02/05/2007) sets the timing, allowed methods for fishing as well as allowed size of fish and provisions regarding by-catch. http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=156709&from=off ','LV'),
	('1413','0','0','0','1,385','1','0','0','The Armed Forces of Malta carry out a variety of inspections ranging from verbal challenges over the radio and boarding inspections at sea. In addition the VRFCC (Veterinary Regulation Fisheries Conservation and Control) carries out inspection at major fish markets. In 2006 a number of Fisheries Protection Officers participated in a training course based in the UK where they received training on boarding inspections at sea.','MT'),
	('831','35','10','1167','-','-','-','-','No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures relating to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by the Netherlands. ','NL'),
	('884','55','55','665','-','-','--','-','In autumn 2008 the government purchased deterrent devices in order to minimise by-catch of harbour porpoise.','PL'),
	('8715','978','654','862','-','-','-','-','Actions to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos include: 1) Prohibition of deep-water gears in the coastal zone up to 12nm, except for bottom longlines; 2) Freezing the number of licences for bottom trawling; 3) Prohibiting fishing in several areas for the protection of seamounts, corals and sponges in the waters of the North Atlantic managed by regional fisheries organisations, including NEAFC and NAFO (Community legislation); 4) Mandatory electronic reporting of catches from deep-water fisheries in international waters and transmission of VMS (Vessels Monitoring System) for vessels greater than 15m inside and outside the 12nm zone. Under the National Plan for the collection of data on fisheries (PMN), a separate annual report is prepared on bycatch in the commercial fishing fleet of the Autonomous Region of Madeira. This fleet uses mainly three gears: pole and line (tuna), drifting longlines (black scabbard fish) and purse seines (small pelagics). Monitoring is carried out using on-board observers allowing collection of data. In addition, surveys are carried out at auctions to enable collection of additional data on bycatch. All recommendations are enshrined in the annual report which has been produced since 2001 (available at the Regional Directorate of Fisheries).   ','PT'),
	('','','','','-','-','-','-','No information was provided by Romania on actions to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos.','RO'),
	('1567','14','2','500','-','-','-','-','A bilateral agreement was reached with Denmark in 2009 to close core spawning areas to all fisheries for Kattegat cod permanently, as well as temporarily closure of a zone around core areas, to avoid direct as well as unwanted by-catch of cod. In 2006 a closure to all fisheries was established around the national park Gotska Sandön in the central Baltic Sea. The closure will protect biodiversity and the integrity of the benthos.','SE'),
	('179','5','5','86','-','-','-','-','Slovenia has adopted two national legal acts that use fisheries inspection as a basis for penalizing infringements in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy (see additional clarifications). ','SI'),
	('6761','61','61','570','-','-','-','-','The Scallop Fishing Order 2004 continues to ban the use of fixed tooth dredges and limits the number of dredges permitted per vessel to 8 each side within the 6 mile zone, to reduce impact on the benthic environment. Cetacean by-catch: There are a wide range of laws and regulations which prohibit the harassment, abuse and killing of porpoises, dolphins and whales. Cetaceans are protected under the Bern, Bonn (ASCOBANS), and Biological Diversity Conventions, and the Habitat and Species Directive (92/43/EEC). In the UK, they are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Conservation Regulations, and the Countryside and the Rights of Way Act. The UK has a comprehensive by-catch monitoring scheme which gives us a better understanding of those fisheries that are having a negative impact on cetaceans.  The UK submits annual (retrospective) reports to the European Commission on observed by-catch levels in various UK fisheries, as required by Council Regulation 812/2004. Annual reports are available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/marine/conservation/cetaceans.htm The UK is committed to avoiding the bycatch of cetaceans wherever possible; and have spent over two million pounds to date since the year 2000 on a range of measures to better understand and reduce the incidental by catch of cetaceans. The purpose of this research is to identify those fisheries responsible for high levels of cetacean by-catch and test mitigation measures that are effective at deterring cetaceans over the long-term and are safe and cost-effective for the industry. This research is undertaken by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU).  As part of this research SMRU are testing, on behalf of Defra, a new acoustic deterrent device to address previous pinger problems identified by the fishing industry. We are committed to finding an acoustic deterrent that is both safe for fishermen to use and effective at deterring cetaceans from fishing gear. The EU Commission is fully aware and supportive of the research as well as the deployment difficulties with the existing pingers. Seabird by-catch: For UK vessels mitigation measures are in place to prevent the by catch of seabirds by long line vessels fishing in certain areas of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. UK is working within the Management organisations responsible for these oceans to strengthen the measures both in terms of the mitigation devices that should be used and to broaden the sea areas to which they are applicable.Sharks & Ray by-catch: The UK fully supports the aims of the EC Shark Plan of Action.  We have undertaken the following measures that will help us meet the aims and objectives laid out in the plan :1) Monitoring:  Commercial landings information (to species-level where possible) is collected by the MFA (soon to become the Marine Management Organisation (MMO)), and this organisation also assists with the enforcement of EC regulations, including the non-retention policy for various threatened elasmobranch species. 2) Special fishing permits (Finning) ;The UK has taken the decision to cease issuing special fishing permits issued under Council Regulation 1185/2003 - which means that UK registered vessels will now have to land sharks with their fins naturally attached. The UK has also written to the European Commission to press for a full review of council regulation 1185/2003 to ensure all sharks caught in European waters are landed with their fins attached.The UK\'s decision to stop issuing permits will rule out any possibility of  carcasses being disposed of at sea and fins retained; will send the strongest possible conservation message to countries where controls are less stringent; and enable the UK to lead the proposed review of the Regulation 1185/2003 at a European level. It will also bring easier enforcement of catches (Finned shark species can be difficult to differentiate), which has the added benefit of increased scientific data on catch compositions, that can be used to aid the determination of the state of stocks and therefore further conservation and management measures. As required under Regulation 1185/2003 - the UK submits annual reports in relation to special fishing permits issued to UK vessels.   These are available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/marine/conservation/fstock/sharks.htm 3) Domestic Legislation: The Wildlife and Countryside Act  (1981) consolidates a range of conservation commitments in England and Wales, including the Bern Convention and the EC Habitats Directive.The UK government has given two species of elasmobranch, basking shark (1998) and angel shark (2008), full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Listing of a species under the Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to intentionally kill, injure, take, possess, or trade in that animal.4) Research: Defra, along with a range of other partners has provided the Shark Trust with funding to help develop ID guides to help fishermen fulfil the EU obligations to record landed skates and rays on a species specific basis. We hope that now these accurate guides have been distributed widely by the Governments Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) high quality, species specific data will be collected that will contribute to the possibility of species specific EU quotas being set for these species in the future.Defra has supported various research projects for elasmobranchs, including the Fishery Science Partnership and more recently with projects to examine the discard survival for skates and rays and to examine the movements of spurdog and porbeagle shark. Further research will be undertaken on spurdog and porbeagle to assess the vulnerability of these species, their life history and movements. This will help identify technical measures that could help to minimise bycatch mortality. Such research on skate and rays will provide evidence to assess the discard survivorship of selected skate species, and evaluate the extent to which existing management measures will benefit stocks of concern. In tandem with the additional  data being collected in the form of species specific landings this work will help ICES, the EU and the UK set appropriate, species specific management measures.5) Fisheries management and conservation measures: At the EU and international level the UK has and will continue to work towards the objective of restoring stocks of depleted elasmobranchs and ensuring those faring better are harvested sustainably. Related activities include: a) In recognition of the migratory nature of many elasmobranch species a key aspect of the EC Shark Plan of Action is the Commission and Community’s commitment to work through and with Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.  We are strongly supportive of this and will continue to support the Commission in seeking effective management of shark stocks by RFMOs. b) Setting appropriate TACs for elasmobranchs is an essential part of their management and we support the direction that the EU Commission is taking on this in setting quotas in line with ICES advice.  However, additional and more bespoke measures are likely to be needed to effectively manage these stocks and to ensure those that are caught in non-directed fisheries can be safely returned alive. c) Supporting listing of sharks species on CITES where there is the appropriate scientific justification.A UK-wide report is currently in preparation for publication in July 2010 which will include a section on the current status of benthic habitats as assessed by a combination of the available evidence and expert judgement.  The UK Government will publish a response to the report which will detail any planned courses of action to address the problems highlighted, and may result in adaptation of current measures and/or additional management measures being put in place.','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_6_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_6_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_6_2` (
  `SharkMonitor` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SharkYear1` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SharkNumYears` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeabirdsMonitor` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeabirdsYear1` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeabirdsNumYears` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Links` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_6_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_6_2` (`SharkMonitor`,`SharkYear1`,`SharkNumYears`,`SeabirdsMonitor`,`SeabirdsYear1`,`SeabirdsNumYears`,`Links`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','','','Y',' 1992',' 18','http://www.vliz.be/projects/bwzee/ ','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','','','Y','2004','6','http://www.birdlifecyprus.org/  ','CY'),
	('Y/N','','','Y','1964','45','httphttp://www.uni-kiel.de/ftzwest/ag7/projekte/birds/sas-e.shtmlhttp://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresdaten/Beobachtungen/BLMP-Messprogramm/index.jsphttp://www.habitatmare.de:','DE'),
	('N','','','Y','International: 1965 National: 2004 ','45/6','http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/FR713.pdf','DK'),
	('N','     ','     ','Y','2005','     ','http://www.balticseaportal.net ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','EL'),
	('N','','','Y','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','FI'),
	('N','','','Y','2008','3','CCAMLR (WG-IMAF) http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/sc/imaf/ie-intro.htm ','FR'),
	('Y','1970','40 (ongoing)','Y','2006','2','http://www.cfb.ie/fisheries_research/tagging/index.htmhttp://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/SCRS/SCRS-08-130_Green_et_al.pdf','IE'),
	('Y','','','Y','1984','25','','IT'),
	('N','','','','','','','LT'),
	('N','','','Y','1984','26','http://www.meteo.lv/public/monitoringa_atskaites.html','LV'),
	('Y','2007','3','Y','1965','45','Sharks: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/http://vafd.gov.mt/capture-fisheriesSeabirds: Bird Ringing:http://www.birdlifemalta.org/bird_watchers/birdringing/seabirds/EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project (Garnija Project):http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/en/project/index.aspxPreliminary Study on by-catch of seabirds:http://www.lifeshearwaterproject.org.mt/uploads/items/124.pdf ','MT'),
	('','',NULL,'','','','','NL'),
	('N','','','N','2011','n/a','The wintering seabird monitoring programme is not yet operational. ','PL'),
	('Y','2003','10','Y','2004','9','SPEA/Programa Marinho: http://programamarinho.spea.pt/index.phpProjecto LIFE IBAs Marinhas: http://lifeibasmarinhas.spea.pt/index.php?op=projibasMonitorização RAM: http://programamarinho.spea.pt/index.php?op=ram e http://www.telefonica.net/web2/redavesmarinas/Projecto Arenaria: https://sites.google.com/site/projectoarenaria/HomeSPVS: http://www.socpvs.org/unidades.php?go=6#uiavi','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','RO'),
	('Y/N','Kattegat 1996, Skagerrak 1999','Kattegat 15 (ongoing), Skagerrak 12 (ongoing)','Y','1967','44','http://www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/waterfowl/index.htm ','SE'),
	('N','','','N','','','','SI'),
	('Y','2003','Ongoing','Y','1979','31','www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4461 http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/protect/sharks.htm','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_6_3_Inshore
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_6_3_Inshore`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_6_3_Inshore` (
  `Measures` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Number` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_6_3_Inshore` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_3_Inshore` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_6_3_Inshore` (`Measures`,`Number`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(' Y',' 4','BE'),
	('','','BG'),
	('N','','CY'),
	('Y','3','DE'),
	('N','','DK'),
	('Y/N','>3','EE'),
	('','','EL'),
	('Y','1','ES'),
	('','','FI'),
	('N','','FR'),
	('N','','IE'),
	('N','','IT'),
	('Y','1','LT'),
	('N','','LV'),
	('N','','MT'),
	('Y','3','NL'),
	('N','','PL'),
	('Y','12','PT'),
	('','','RO'),
	('Y','9','SE'),
	('N','','SI'),
	('Y','19','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_3_Inshore` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_6_3_Offshore
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_6_3_Offshore`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_6_3_Offshore` (
  `AllSites` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Requests` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Number` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_6_3_Offshore` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_3_Offshore` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_6_3_Offshore` (`AllSites`,`Requests`,`Number`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('8','N','','BE'),
	('14','','','BG'),
	('5','N','','CY'),
	('183','N','','DE'),
	('88','N','','DK'),
	('63','N','     ','EE'),
	('118','','','EL'),
	('205','Y','1','ES'),
	('84','','','FI'),
	('201','N','','FR'),
	('66','Y','4','IE'),
	('401','N','','IT'),
	('7','','','LT'),
	('31','N','','LV'),
	('4','N','','MT'),
	('13','Y','0','NL'),
	('30','N','','PL'),
	('60','N','','PT'),
	('9','','','RO'),
	('210','N','','SE'),
	('1','N','','SI'),
	('105','Y','1','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_6_3_Offshore` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A3_7_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A3_7_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A3_7_1` (
  `DCF` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A3_7_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_7_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A3_7_1` (`DCF`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(' Y','BE'),
	('N','BG'),
	('Y','CY'),
	('Y','DE'),
	('Y','DK'),
	('Y','EE'),
	('Y','EL'),
	('Y','ES'),
	('Y','FI'),
	('Y','FR'),
	('Y','IE'),
	('Y','IT'),
	('Y','LT'),
	('Y','LV'),
	('Y','MT'),
	('Y','NL'),
	('Y','PL'),
	('Y','PT'),
	('Y','RO'),
	('Y','SE'),
	('Y','SI'),
	('Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A3_7_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A4`;

CREATE TABLE `A4` (
  `spending` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A4` (`spending`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','AT'),
	('N','BE'),
	('Y','BG'),
	('N','CY'),
	('Y','CZ'),
	('Y','DE'),
	('Y','DK'),
	('Y','EE'),
	('N','EL'),
	('N','ES'),
	('N','FI'),
	('Y','FR'),
	('Y','HU'),
	('N','IE'),
	('Y','IT'),
	('Y','LT'),
	('N','LU'),
	('Y','LV'),
	('Y','MT'),
	('Y','NL'),
	('Y','PL'),
	('Y','PT'),
	('Y','RO'),
	('N','SE'),
	('Y','SI'),
	('Y','SK'),
	('N','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A4_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A4_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A4_3` (
  `Planing` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `LawPost2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Monitor` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MonitorReports` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Coordination` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EcoNetwork` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A4_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A4_3` (`Planing`,`LawPost2006`,`Monitor`,`MonitorReports`,`Coordination`,`EcoNetwork`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','','','','','Y','AT'),
	('Y ','N','N','N','Y ','N','BE'),
	('','','','','','','BG'),
	('Y','N  in 2003','Y','N','Y','Not Yet','CY'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','N','Y','CZ'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','N (see below)','N','DE'),
	('Y','N','N','','N','','DK'),
	('Y','N','N','','Y','Y','EE'),
	('','','','','','','EL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','FI'),
	('y','y','n (not yet)','','N','N','FR'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','Y','Y','HU'),
	('N','','','','N','N','IE'),
	('N','','N','','N','N','IT'),
	('Y','N','Y','N','Y','N','LT'),
	('N','','N','','Y','N','LU'),
	('N','','N','','N','N','LV'),
	('N','','N','','N','N','MT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','N','NL'),
	('','','','','','','PL'),
	('Y','N','Y','N','Y','N','PT'),
	('','','','','','','RO'),
	('Y','N','Y','Y','Y','N','SE'),
	('Y','N','','','Y','N','SI'),
	('','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','N','Y','Y','Y','N','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A4_4_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A4_4_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A4_4_1` (
  `TourismGuide` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Plan` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Legal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Reporting` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A4_4_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4_4_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A4_4_1` (`TourismGuide`,`Plan`,`Legal`,`Reporting`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','N','N','AT'),
	('N',' N',' N','N','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('N','N','N','N','CY'),
	('N','N','N','N','CZ'),
	('Y','N','N','N','DE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','DK'),
	('Y/N','Y/N','N','N','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('Y','N','Y','N','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('Y','N','N','N','FR'),
	('Y','N','N','Y','HU'),
	('N','N','N','N','IE'),
	('N','N','N','N','IT'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','LT'),
	('N','N','N','N','LU'),
	('N','N','N','N','LV'),
	('N','N','N','N','MT'),
	('N','N','N','N','NL'),
	('','','','','PL'),
	('N','N','N','N','PT'),
	('','','','','RO'),
	('N','N','N','N','SE'),
	('Y','Y','N','N','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('N','see below clarifications','N','N','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4_4_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A4_5_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A4_5_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A4_5_1` (
  `OutermostRegion` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Minimised` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Compensated` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Measures` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A4_5_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4_5_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A4_5_1` (`OutermostRegion`,`Minimised`,`Compensated`,`Measures`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','Y','','ES'),
	('Y','Y','N','Y','FR'),
	('Y','Y','Y','N','PT');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A4_5_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A5_1_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A5_1_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A5_1_2` (
  `StrategyNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StrategyDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StrategyImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StrategyDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ActionDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDesc` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `IASStrategy` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `IASStrategyDetails` text,
  `IASAction` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `IASActionDetails` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A5_1_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A5_1_2` (`StrategyNo`,`StrategyDev`,`StrategyImp`,`StrategyDontKnow`,`ActionNo`,`ActionDev`,`ActionImp`,`ActionDontKnow`,`OtherDesc`,`OtherNo`,`OtherDev`,`OtherImp`,`OtherDontKnow`,`IASStrategy`,`IASStrategyDetails`,`IASAction`,`IASActionDetails`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','','','','','','Y','','','N','','','','Y','National action plan for IAS part of the Austrian national biodiversity strategy','N','','AT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','Strategic objectives 3 and 5 under the National Biodiversity Strategy are directly related to IAS','N','','BE'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','','N','','','','Y','IAS major threat under National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy','Y','National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan 2006-2010','BG'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','Preparing tender for terms of reference for a biodiversity strategy','N','','CY'),
	(NULL,'','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','','Y','','CZ'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','IAS targets within National Biodiversity Strategy (2007)','N','','DE'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','N','','','','','','','','DK'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','N','','EE'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','N','','EL'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','','','N','','','','','','','','ES'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','','N','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','','Y','Grenelle de l\'environnement','FR'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','','Y','','HU'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','Y','National Biodiversity Action Plan for Ireland (2002-2006) ','IE'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','N','','IT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1998)','Y','Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1998)','LT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','Y','Plan National Protection de la Nature 2007-2011','LU'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','National Programme on Biological Diversity','N','','LV'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','Sustainable Development Strategy for the Maltese Islands 2006-2016','','Y','','','N','-','N','-','MT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','National IAS Policy','','','Y','','-','-','-','-','NL'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','x','N','-','-','-','Y','National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity','Y','National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity Action Plan 2007-2013','PL'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','-','N','-','-','-','Y','National strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (2001)','N','-','PT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','-','N','','','','N','','N','','RO'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','-','','','Y','','','','','','SE'),
	(NULL,'Y','','','','Y','','','-','N','','','','-','-','-','-','SI'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','N','','','','Y','National Biodiversity Strategy (1997)    ','Y','Action Plan for implementing the national strategy (amended in 2002 for the period 2003-2010)    ','SK'),
	('','','Y','','N','','','','','N','','','','','','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A5_1_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A5_1_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A5_1_3` (
  `Ballast` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A5_1_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A5_1_3` (`Ballast`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','AT'),
	('N','BE'),
	('N','BG'),
	('N','CY'),
	('N','CZ'),
	('N','DE'),
	('N','DK'),
	('N','EE'),
	('N','EL'),
	('Y','ES'),
	('N','FI'),
	('Y','FR'),
	('N','HU'),
	('N','IE'),
	('N','IT'),
	('N','LT'),
	('N','LU'),
	('N','LV'),
	('N','MT'),
	('N','NL'),
	('N','PL'),
	('N','PT'),
	('N','RO'),
	('Y','SE'),
	('N','SI'),
	('N','SK'),
	('N','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A5_1_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A5_1_4`;

CREATE TABLE `A5_1_4` (
  `DatabaseNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DatabaseDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DatabaseImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `DatabaseDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EarlyWarnNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EarlyWarnDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EarlyWarnImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EarlyWarnDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Rapid` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Incident` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Focal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Coordination` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A5_1_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A5_1_4` (`DatabaseNo`,`DatabaseDev`,`DatabaseImp`,`DatabaseDontKnow`,`EarlyWarnNo`,`EarlyWarnDev`,`EarlyWarnImp`,`EarlyWarnDontKnow`,`Rapid`,`Incident`,`Focal`,`Coordination`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','Y','','','Y','','','','Y','Y','','AT'),
	('','','Y','','','Y','','','Y','Y','Y','Y','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','CY'),
	('-','Y','-','-','N','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','CZ'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','Y','Y','Y','Y','DE'),
	('','','Y','','N','','','','','','','','DK'),
	('     ','Y','     ','     ','N','     ','     ','     ','N','Y','N','N','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','Y','Y','Y','Y','FR'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','','','','HU'),
	('','','Y','','','Y','','','N','N','Y','Y','IE'),
	('','','Y','','N','','','','','','','','IT'),
	('Nx','','','','Nx','','','','','','','','LT'),
	('','','Y','','N','','','','','','','','LU'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','LV'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','','','','','','','MT'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','','N',NULL,'Y','Y','NL'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','PL'),
	('','','Y','','N','','','','N','N','N','N','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('','','Y','','N','','','','N','Y','Y','Y','SE'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','Y','','Y','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A5_1_AlienLegal
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A5_1_AlienLegal`;

CREATE TABLE `A5_1_AlienLegal` (
  `General` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GenralDetail` text,
  `Specific` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpecificDetail` text,
  `Import` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Trade` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Intro` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Control` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A5_1_AlienLegal` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_AlienLegal` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A5_1_AlienLegal` (`General`,`GenralDetail`,`Specific`,`SpecificDetail`,`Import`,`Trade`,`Intro`,`Control`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	(NULL,' ','Y','Austrian Law on Plant Protection (1995) IAS under regional federal states (Länder) jurisdiction (Lebensministerium (Austria) 2005)','N','N','Y','N','AT'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Arrêté royal portant des mesures relatives à l’importation et au transit de certaines espèces d’oiseaux sauvages non indigènes of 26 October 2001, Art 3 §1 : import, exportRoyal Decree on the protection of species in the marine waters under Belgian jurisdiction, 2001: introduction','Y','N','Y','Y','BE'),
	(NULL,'','Y','The Biological Diversity Law (2002) Article 2.4 (objectives), 67 (introduction, breeding and raising), 9.2 (introduction of alien species into inland, coastal and marine waters)Protected Territories Law 1998 (amended in 2008) covers introduction into protected natural territoriesPlant protection Law (State Gazette of 28th March 2003) (phytosanitary requirements for import, export, transit and production)','Y','N','Y','Y','BG'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Article 30 Law Nº 153(I) 2003 on the protection and management of nature and wildlife: introduction of non-native species. ','N','Y','Y','N','CY'),
	('Y','Ministry of Environment Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Nature and the Landscape Protection as amended: introduction','Y','The Game Management Act No. 449/2001 of 27 November 2001: import, introduction, eradication of non-native animal speciesThe Phytosanitary Act (No. 326/2004): import','Y','N','Y','Y','CZ'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz): Introduction, possession & trade, control & eradication.The Plant Protection Act (Articles 3 and 4): Introduction.','N','Y','Y','Y','DE'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Nature Protection Act (Lovbekendtgørelse no. 749, updated on 21 June 2007): introduction and eradicationFishing Act (828/2004): introductionHunting Act (no.114/1997): introductionStatutory Order on eradication of muskrats (819/1987): eradication','N','N','Y','Y','DK'),
	('N','','Y','Nature Conservation Act (2004, amended 2007): introduction, import, controlFisheries Act (1995, amended 2007): importEnvironmental Surveillance Act (2004): controlEnvironmental Register Act (2003 amended 2005): control','Y','N','Y','Y','EE'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Law 1650/1986 on the Protection of the Environment: controlCITES regulations: import/export, possession/trade','Y','Y','N','Y','EL'),
	(NULL,'Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Act (LawNo.42/2007): possession, trade, import and export (Article 61); control and eradication (Art. 74.2.i); introduction (Art. 62.3.e)','Y','Article 333 Penal Code: introductionLaw 1/1970 of 4 April: import/exportRoyal Decree 1095/1989; Royal Decree 1118/1989 of 15 September: introductionRoyal Decree 1803/1999 of 26 November (corrected in BOE No. 13 of 15 January 2000): introduction, eradication.Law 31/2003 of 27 October on the Conservation of wild fauna in zoological parks: introduction','Y','Y','Y','Y','ES'),
	('N','','Y','Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996): introductionHunting Act (615/1993, 1268/1993): introduction, importPlant Protection Law (1203/1994): introduction, import, control and eradicationLaw for Animal Diseases (551/1980 and subsequent amendments): introduction, eradication','Y','N','Y','Y','FI'),
	('N','','Y','Code de l’environment: Art. L.424-10, L.424-11, Annex Ic (import game bird sp.), Art. L.432-10, Annex Ie (introduction aquatic species), Art. L. 411-3 (introduction, trade, transport, use of listed IAS)Plant Protection legislation – Secondary legislation: control ','Y','Y','Y','Y','FR'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Provisions under the following Laws:Act No. LIII of 1996 on Nature Conservation in Hungary: introduction, control and eradicationAct No. LIV of 1996 on Forests and the Protection of Forests: controlAct No. LV of 1996 on the Protection of Game, Game Management and Hunting: introduction and control and eradicationAct No. XLI of 1997 on Fisheries and Angling: controlAct No. XXXV of 2000 on Plant Protection: introduction and control','N','Y','Y','Y','HU'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Wildlife Act 1976 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000: introduction, control, possessionRegulation on the Control of Importation of Wild Animals and Wild Birds (1989): importation','Y','Y','Y','Y','IE'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Decree of the President of the Republic (DPR No. 357 of 1997) and its amendments (DPR No. 120 of 2003): introductionLaw No. 157/1992: import and controlSome regional laws e.g. Lombardia Region (see detail below)Decree outlining phytosanitary requirements: import','Y','Y','Y','Y','IT'),
	('N','','Y','Law on Wild Flora (1999)Regulation of the Ministry of Environment on import of new plant and fungi species (2000) Law on Protected Plant, Animal, and Fungi Species and Communities (1997, amended 2001) and related regulations: introductionLaw on Plant Protection (1995, amended 2003): import/exportOrder on Introduction, Reintroduction and Relocation; Order on Control and Eradication of Invasive Species; Composition of Committee on Invasive Species Control (Order no. 352): introduction, control and eradication, import, trade','Y','Y','Y','Y','LT'),
	(NULL,'Act of 19 January 2004 on Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (amended): import, introduction, possession, trade     ','N','','Y','Y','Y','N','LU'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Law on Protection of Species and Habitats (16.03.2000): control, introductionLaw on Plant Protection, amendments (2 Nov 2006): introduction, import, control','Y','N','Y','Y','LV'),
	(NULL,' The Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations 2006 (LN 311 of 2006),Part V, Regulation 28:Import, possession, introduction and control&eradication','Y','Environment Protection Act (EPA) (Chapter 435, Act XX of 2001, as amended). Various subsidiary legislation enacted under the EPA addresses import/export, possession/trade, control/eradication and introduction of IAS:Trees and Woodland Protection Regulations 2001 (LN 12 of 2001)Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations 2004 (LN 236 of 2004), Regulation 6(1) and 6(2)Importation Control Regulations (2004), Regulation 3Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations 2006 (LN 311 of 2006) – Part V Introduction and Reintroduction of Species; Regulation 28','Y','Y','Y','Y','MT'),
	('Y','Flora and Fauna Act 1998: introduction, possession, trade, import and/or export (Article 14); control (Article 67)','Y','Hunting Act 1954 (Regulations adopted in 1995): control','Y','Y','Y','Y','NL'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Nature Conservation Act (2004): introduction, importInland Fisheries Act (1985): introductionFisheries Act (2004): introductionHunting Law: introductionOrdinance of the Minister of the Environment on the list of game species and close seasons for those animals (2001, as amended 2005): control','Y','N','Y','Y','PL'),
	(NULL,'Portuguese Framework Environment Act (Lei de Bases do Ambiente (Law 11/87 of 7 April 1987):introduction, controlRegime Jurídico de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008 de 24 de Julho)','Y','Decree Law no. 565/99 of 21 December 1999: introduction, control, possession Madeira: Regional Decree No. 27/99/M: import, controlAzores: Resolution No. 148/98 of June 1998: introduction','Y','Y','Y','Y','PT'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Law 192/19.04.2001: introductionLaw 103/23.09.1996: introductionLaw 137/29.12.1995: introductionOrder 322/16.03.2000: importLaw 58/13.07.1994: introduction, control, eradication','Y','N','Y','Y','RO'),
	(NULL,'','Y','The Environmental Code (Section 6 on the application for establishing an aquaculture facility in a Natura 2000 area, Section 8 on Protection of animal and plant species)The Species Protection Ordinance (SFS 1998: 179): import, introduction and possession Hunting Law (SFS 1987:259)  and Ordinance on Hunting (1987:905): introductionThe Act on the Import of Living Animals (SFS 1994:1830): importThe Fisheries Law  (SFS 1993:787) and The Ordinance on Fishing, Aquaculture and Fishing Industry (SFS 1994:1716): introduction and possessionThe Forestry Law (SFS 1979:429) and the ordinance on forest care (SFS 1993:106): import, introduction and controlLaw on Plant Protection (SFS 1995:681), Ordinance on Plant Protection and Measures Against the Spread of Plant Pests (SFS 1995:94): controlThe Swedish Chemical Inspections regulations on chemical products and biotechnical organisms (KIFS 2004:4): introduction (biological control) ','Y','Y','Y','Y','SE'),
	('N','','Y','Nature Conservation Act (ZON-UPB2; Uradni list RS, No. 96/04): introductionOther relevant legal measures:The Environmental Protection Act (1993,2004)The Forestry Act (Uradni list RS, No. 30/93)Freshwater Fisheries Act (Uradni list RS, No. 61/06): introductionPlant Health Act (Uradni list RS, No. 62/2007)','N','Y','Y','N','SI'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Act No. 543/2002 Coll. on Nature and Landscape Protection: import, possession, growth, reproduction and tradeOrder of the Slovak Government No. 81/2007 Coll: elimination (plants)Order of the Ministry of Environment No. 110/2005 Coll: possession','Y','Y','Y','Y','SK'),
	(NULL,'','Y','Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: introductionNatural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (England and Wales) and Nature Conservation Act 2004 (Scotland) added to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: trade and possession for the purpose of tradeNorthern Ireland Wildlife Order 1985 Article 15: introductionImport of Live Fish Act 1980: import, possession and releaseSalmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (section 30): introductionImport of Live Fish Scotland Act 1978 and Prohibition of Keeping of Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) Scotland Orders: import, possession, introductionImported Animals Act 1932: import, possession, control / eradication (mammal species) ','Y','Y','Y','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_AlienLegal` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A5_1_AlienSpecies
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A5_1_AlienSpecies`;

CREATE TABLE `A5_1_AlienSpecies` (
  `TotalAlien` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Num1000km` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A5_1_AlienSpecies` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_AlienSpecies` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A5_1_AlienSpecies` (`TotalAlien`,`Num1000km`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('66','0.7-3.0','AT'),
	('46','0.7-3.0','BE'),
	('34','0.25 - 0.7','BG'),
	('28','< 0.10','CY'),
	('19','0.10 – 0.25','CZ'),
	('44','0.10 – 0.25','DE'),
	('69','0.7 – 3.0','DK'),
	('43','0.7 – 3.0','EE'),
	('30','0.10 – 0.25','EL'),
	('38','<0.10','ES'),
	('48','0.10 – 0.25','FI'),
	('40','< 0.10','FR'),
	('43','0.7 – 3.0','HU'),
	('34','0.25 – 0.7','IE'),
	('67','0.10 – 0.25','IT'),
	('39','0.25 – 0.7','LT'),
	('19','> 3.0','LU'),
	('37','0.25 – 0.7','LV'),
	('17','0.7 – 3.0','MT'),
	('49','0.7 – 3.0','NL'),
	('58','0.10 – 0.25','PL'),
	('34','0.25 – 0.7','PT'),
	('39','0.10 – 0.25','RO'),
	('44','0.10 – 0.25','SE'),
	('35','0.7 - 3.0','SI'),
	('46','0.7 – 3.0','SK'),
	('63','0.25 – 0.7','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_1_AlienSpecies` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A5_2_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A5_2_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A5_2_2` (
  `GMlegalNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GMlegalDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GMlegalImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A5_2_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_2_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A5_2_2` (`GMlegalNo`,`GMlegalDev`,`GMlegalImp`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','Y','AT'),
	('','','Y','BE'),
	('','','','BG'),
	('N','','','CY'),
	('','','Y','CZ'),
	('','','Y','DE'),
	('','','Y','DK'),
	('     ','Y','     ','EE'),
	('','','','EL'),
	('N','','','ES'),
	('','','','FI'),
	('','','Y','FR'),
	('','','Y','HU'),
	('N','','','IE'),
	('N','','','IT'),
	('','','Y','LT'),
	('','','Y','LU'),
	('','','Y','LV'),
	('N','','','MT'),
	('','',NULL,'NL'),
	('','Y','','PL'),
	('','','Y','PT'),
	('','','Y','RO'),
	('','','Y','SE'),
	('N','N','Y','SI'),
	('','','','SK'),
	('','Y','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A5_2_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A6_1_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A6_1_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A6_1_1` (
  `NationalReport4` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NBSAP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NBSAPData` text,
  `CBDYear` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CBDAmount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CMSYear` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CMSAmount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AEWAYear` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AEWAAmount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RamsarYear` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RamsarAmount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `WHCYear` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `WHCAmount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ConventionData` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A6_1_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A6_1_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A6_1_1` (`NationalReport4`,`NBSAP`,`NBSAPData`,`CBDYear`,`CBDAmount`,`CMSYear`,`CMSAmount`,`AEWAYear`,`AEWAAmount`,`RamsarYear`,`RamsarAmount`,`WHCYear`,`WHCAmount`,`ConventionData`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search; www.biologischevielfalt.at  ','2009','78,599','2008','52,133','','','2009','25,106','2008','256',NULL,'AT'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','14,867','2008','58,849','2009','27,166','2009','31,191','2008','9873',NULL,'BE'),
	('N','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','1772','2008','936','2008','518','2009','662','2008','448',NULL,'BG'),
	('N','N','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','0','2008','2147','2008','0','2009','1246','2008','0',NULL,'CY'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','24,900','2008','10,074','2008','3213','2009','7954','2008','6294',NULL,'CZ'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','864,778','2010','380,596','2010','133,539','2009','244,237','2008','205,000',NULL,'DE'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPs; national informationWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search; http://www.fvm.dk/Fakta_om_Grøn_Vækst.aspx?ID=41803  ','2009','65,484','2008','39,526','2008','21,882','2009','20,917','2008','16,551',NULL,'DK'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink:http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2010','1659','2009','635','2009','2000','2009','662','2010','762','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites and from EstoniaWeblink:https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htmhttp://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','EE'),
	('N','N','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','52,813','2008','29,177','0','0','2009','16,869','2008','13,349',NULL,'EL'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','1,500,000','2008','145,000','2008','75,000','2009','84,008','2008','66.498',NULL,'ES'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','49,977','2008','29,342','2008','16,244','2009','15,964','2008','0','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','FI'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','601,347','2008','331,954','2008','153,491','2009','178,346','2008','141,148','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','FR'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','21,621','2008','6936','2008','3840','2009','6906','2008','0',NULL,'HU'),
	('N','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','39,432','2008','19,268','2008','10,666','2009','12,595','2008','0',NULL,'IE'),
	('Y','UD','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','450,058','2008','212,000','2008','86,729','2009','143,758','2008','113,779',NULL,'IT'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','2747','2008','1321','2008','731','2009','878','2008','686','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','LT'),
	('Y','N','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','7532','2008','4239','2008','2347','2009','2406','2008','0',NULL,'LU'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','1595','2008','826','2008','673','2009','662','2008','403',NULL,'LV'),
	('N','UD','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','1506','2009','675','-','-','2009','662','2008','0',NULL,'MT'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','165,970','2008','93,035','2008','51,504','2009','53,014','2008','41,950','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','NL'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','44,394','2008','25,378','-','-','2009','14,181','2008','11,221',NULL,'PL'),
	('N','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2008','32,146','2008','25,874','2008','8,511','2008','20,072','2008','11804',NULL,'PT'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','6203','2008','3303','2008','0','2009','1981','2008','1568',NULL,'RO'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','94,895','2008','54,940','2008','30,415','2009','30,314','2008','23,988',NULL,'SE'),
	('N','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','8507','2008','4514','2008','2499','2009','2717','2008','2150','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','SI'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','5582','2008','2808','2008','1554','2009','1783','2008','1411',NULL,'SK'),
	('Y','Y','Reference or title: List of Parties that have submitted their 4th national reports and CBD list of NBSAPsWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search  ','2009','588,558','2008','337,294','2008','153,491','2009','187,998','2008','148,786',NULL,'UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A6_1_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A7_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A7_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A7_1` (
  `Aid2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Aid2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Aid2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A7_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A7_1` (`Aid2006`,`Aid2007`,`Aid2008`,`Percent2006`,`Percent2007`,`Percent2008`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('0.16','0.07','','0.006','0.002','','AT'),
	('3.5','1.8','','0.02','0.02','','BE'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','BG'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','CY'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','CZ'),
	('3.3','1.8','','0.02','0.01','','DE'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','DK'),
	('0','0',NULL,'0','0','','EE'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','EL'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','ES'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','FI'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','FR'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','HU'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','IE'),
	('0','0.9','','0','0.01','','IT'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LT'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LU'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LV'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','MT'),
	('0.08','0','-','0.00','0','-','NL'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','PL'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','PT'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','RO'),
	('0.24','0.07','','0.00','0.00','','SE'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','SI'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','SK'),
	('0','0.07','','0','0.00','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A7_1_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A7_1_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A7_1_3` (
  `BiAid2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BiAid2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BiAid2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BiPercent2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BiPercent2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BiPercent2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A7_1_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A7_1_3` (`BiAid2006`,`BiAid2007`,`BiAid2008`,`BiPercent2006`,`BiPercent2007`,`BiPercent2008`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('3.2','2.4','','0.004','0.002','','AT'),
	('5.3','7.2','','0.005','0.007','','BE'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','BG'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','CY'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','CZ'),
	('19.6','82.8','','0.003','0.012','','DE'),
	('45.2','3.0','','0.04','0.003','','DK'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','EE'),
	('0.47','0.15','','0.003','0.00','','EL'),
	('40.5','52.8','','0.02','0.02','','ES'),
	('2.5','5.8','','0.006','0.015','','FI'),
	('17.7','57.3','','0.002','0.009','','FR'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','HU'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','IE'),
	('2.7','73.2','','0.001','0.07','','IT'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LT'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LU'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LV'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','MT'),
	('6.4','0','-','0.001','0','-','NL'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','PL'),
	('0.24','0.37','-','0.002','0.001','-','PT'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','RO'),
	('12.3','0','','0.007','0','','SE'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','SI'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','SK'),
	('8.9','1.4','-','0.001','0.000','-','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A7_1_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A7_1_4`;

CREATE TABLE `A7_1_4` (
  `Total3rd` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total4th` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Total5th` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent3rd` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent4th` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent5th` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A7_1_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A7_1_4` (`Total3rd`,`Total4th`,`Total5th`,`Percent3rd`,`Percent4th`,`Percent5th`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('22.81','24.38','','0.94%','1.14%','','AT'),
	('42.49','46.18','','1.74%','2.16%','','BE'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','BG'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','CY'),
	('5.80','5.51','','0.24%','0.26%','','CZ'),
	('293.67','277.46','','11.00','12.89','','DE'),
	('36.03','40.91','','1.48%','1.91%','','DK'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','EE'),
	('5.80','5.73','','0.24','0.27','','EL'),
	('19.49','21.67','','0.80%','1.01%','','ES'),
	('26.99','31.12','','1.11%','1.46%','','FI'),
	('166.07','150.33','','6.81%','7.04%','','FR'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','HU'),
	('5.80','5.73','','0.24','0.27','','IE'),
	('106.97','87.91','','6.81','4.11','','IT'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LT'),
	('5.16','4.79','','0.21%','0.22%','','LU'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','LV'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','MT'),
	('80.42','89.38','-','3.30','4.18','-','NL'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','PL'),
	('5.16','5.73','-','0.21%','0.27%','-','PT'),
	('0','0','-','0','0','-','RO'),
	('84','92','-','3.44','4.88','-','SE'),
	('1.45','5.15','-','0.06','0.24','-','SI'),
	('0','0','','0','0','','SK'),
	('193.23','202.37','','7.93','9.47','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A7_1_6
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A7_1_6`;

CREATE TABLE `A7_1_6` (
  `Aid2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Aid2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Aid2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Percent2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OCT` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Value` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Objectives` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A7_1_6` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1_6` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A7_1_6` (`Aid2006`,`Aid2007`,`Aid2008`,`Percent2006`,`Percent2007`,`Percent2008`,`OCT`,`Value`,`Objectives`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','','','','',' ','','DK'),
	('0.571','0.470','0.358','15','15','15','Y',' 1.8','Ifrecor, the French initiative in relation with the ICRI (International Coral Reef Initiative), a programme of actions for the protection and sustainable management for coral reefs and associated ecosystems OCTs plans for biodiversity (in relation with the national strategy for biodiversity). ','FR'),
	('','','','','','','',' ','','NL'),
	('','','','','','','Y','  €1.7m (in 2009) ear-marked from UK Darwin Initiative','The Darwin Initiative aims to use UK-based expertise together with in-country experts in developing countries and Overseas Territories to achieve biodiversity aspirations. In addition there is a dedicated funding stream – the Challenge Fund – for exclusive use by UK OTs, amounting to up to €280K per annum from 2009-10','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_1_6` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A7_2_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A7_2_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A7_2_2` (
  `MandatorySEA_EIA` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A7_2_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_2_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A7_2_2` (`MandatorySEA_EIA`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','AT'),
	('N','BE'),
	('','BG'),
	('Y','CY'),
	('Y','CZ'),
	('Y','DE'),
	('','DK'),
	('     ','EE'),
	('','EL'),
	('N','ES'),
	('','FI'),
	('','FR'),
	('Y','HU'),
	('Y','IE'),
	('Y','IT'),
	('Y','LT'),
	('N','LU'),
	('Y','LV'),
	('Y','MT'),
	('N','NL'),
	('Y','PL'),
	('N','PT'),
	('','RO'),
	('Y','SE'),
	('Y','SI'),
	('','SK'),
	('Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_2_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A7_2_5
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A7_2_5`;

CREATE TABLE `A7_2_5` (
  `OCTMandatorySEA_EIA` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A7_2_5` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_2_5` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A7_2_5` (`OCTMandatorySEA_EIA`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','DK'),
	('','FR'),
	('','NL'),
	('Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A7_2_5` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A8_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A8_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A8_1` (
  `A8_1_3Imp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_3Partial` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_3Not` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_4Imp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_4Partial` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_4Not` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_8Imp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_8Partial` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `A8_1_8Not` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A8_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A8_1` (`A8_1_3Imp`,`A8_1_3Partial`,`A8_1_3Not`,`A8_1_4Imp`,`A8_1_4Partial`,`A8_1_4Not`,`A8_1_8Imp`,`A8_1_8Partial`,`A8_1_8Not`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','Y','','Y','','','Y','','','AT'),
	('','','Y','','Y','','Y','','','BE'),
	('','','','','','','Y','','','BG'),
	('','Y','','','','','','Y','','CY'),
	('','Y','','Y','','','Y','','','CZ'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','Y','','','DE'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','Y','','','DK'),
	('','Y','','Y','','','Y','','','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','Y','','EL'),
	('Y','','','','','','Y','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','Y','','','FI'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','Y','','','FR'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','','','HU'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','','','IE'),
	('','Y','','','','','','Y','','IT'),
	('','Y','','Y','','','Y','','','LT'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','','','LU'),
	('-','-','Y','','','','Y','','','LV'),
	('','Y','','','','','Y','','','MT'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','Y','','','NL'),
	('-','Y','-','','','','Y','-','-','PL'),
	('','Y','','','','','','Y','','PT'),
	('','','','Y','','','Y','','','RO'),
	('','Y','','Y','','','Y','','','SE'),
	('-','Y','-','Y','','','Y','-','-','SI'),
	('','','','','','','Y','','','SK'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','Y','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A8_1_3_BenefitShare
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A8_1_3_BenefitShare`;

CREATE TABLE `A8_1_3_BenefitShare` (
  `Legal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Aware` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A8_1_3_BenefitShare` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_3_BenefitShare` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A8_1_3_BenefitShare` (`Legal`,`Aware`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','Y','AT'),
	(' N','N','BE'),
	('','','BG'),
	('N','N','CY'),
	('N','N','CZ'),
	('N','Y','DE'),
	('UD','Y','DK'),
	('Y/N','N','EE'),
	('','','EL'),
	('Y','Y','ES'),
	('','','FI'),
	('UD','UD','FR'),
	('N','Y','HU'),
	('N','N','IE'),
	('N','Y','IT'),
	('N','N','LT'),
	('N','N','LU'),
	('N','N','LV'),
	('N','N','MT'),
	('N','N','NL'),
	('N','N','PL'),
	('N','Y','PT'),
	('','','RO'),
	('N','Y','SE'),
	('Y','N','SI'),
	('','','SK'),
	('N','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_3_BenefitShare` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A8_1_3_CBD
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A8_1_3_CBD`;

CREATE TABLE `A8_1_3_CBD` (
  `Y2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A8_1_3_CBD` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_3_CBD` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A8_1_3_CBD` (`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Y2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('0','0','40,000','0','AT'),
	('0','0','0','0','BE'),
	('0','0','0','0','BG'),
	('0','0','0','0','CY'),
	('0','0','10,000','0','CZ'),
	('','28,000','51,100','150,000','DE'),
	('0','0','0','61,742','DK'),
	('0','0','0','0','EE'),
	('0','0','0','0','EL'),
	('203,847','32,971','59,186','676,207','ES'),
	('','','','10,000','FI'),
	('','50,000','','0','FR'),
	('0','0','0','0','HU'),
	('0','','','0','IE'),
	('0','0','0','0','IT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LU'),
	('0','0','0','0','LV'),
	('0','0','0','0','MT'),
	('0','0','','0','NL'),
	('0','0','0','0','PL'),
	('0','0','0','0','PT'),
	('0','0','0','0','RO'),
	('','','180,190','','SE'),
	('0','0','0','0','SI'),
	('0','0','0','0','SK'),
	('0','0','0','0','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_3_CBD` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A8_1_3_GeneticResource
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A8_1_3_GeneticResource`;

CREATE TABLE `A8_1_3_GeneticResource` (
  `Legal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Aware` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A8_1_3_GeneticResource` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_3_GeneticResource` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A8_1_3_GeneticResource` (`Legal`,`Aware`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','Y','AT'),
	('N','N','BE'),
	('','','BG'),
	('Y','Y','CY'),
	('Y','Y','CZ'),
	('N','Y','DE'),
	('N','N','DK'),
	('Y','Y','EE'),
	('','','EL'),
	('N','Y','ES'),
	('','','FI'),
	('UD','N','FR'),
	('UD','Y','HU'),
	('N','N','IE'),
	('Y','Y','IT'),
	('N','N','LT'),
	('Y','Y','LU'),
	('N','N','LV'),
	('N','N','MT'),
	('N','N','NL'),
	('N','Y','PL'),
	('N','N','PT'),
	('','','RO'),
	('UD','Y','SE'),
	('Y','Y','SI'),
	('N','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_3_GeneticResource` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A8_1_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A8_1_4`;

CREATE TABLE `A8_1_4` (
  `Y2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A8_1_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A8_1_4` (`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Y2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('100','100','100','100','AT'),
	('','','','','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('','','','','CY'),
	('','','','','CZ'),
	('','','','','DE'),
	('','','','','DK'),
	('99.85','99.98','99.96','99.8','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('','','','','FR'),
	('','','','','HU'),
	('','','','','IE'),
	('','','','','IT'),
	('nearly 100 %','nearly 100 %','nearly 100 %','nearly 100 %','LT'),
	('','','','','LU'),
	('','','','','LV'),
	('','','','','MT'),
	('13','','30','','NL'),
	('','','','','PL'),
	('','','','','PT'),
	('99.9','99.9','99.9','99.9','RO'),
	('>90','>90','>90','>90','SE'),
	('98','98','98','98','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('67','76','84','88','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A8_1_8
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A8_1_8`;

CREATE TABLE `A8_1_8` (
  `ImportApps` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ImportAppsDenied` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ImportPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ExportApps` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ExportAppsDenied` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ExportPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ReExportApps` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ReExportAppsDenied` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ReExportPercent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeizeP1Year` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeizeP1Num` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeizeP2Year` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SeizeP2Num` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NetChange` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Capacity` text,
  `Finance` text,
  `CITESDataLink` text,
  `Contributions` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Amount` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CITES_COPDataLink` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A8_1_8` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_8` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A8_1_8` (`ImportApps`,`ImportAppsDenied`,`ImportPercent`,`ExportApps`,`ExportAppsDenied`,`ExportPercent`,`ReExportApps`,`ReExportAppsDenied`,`ReExportPercent`,`SeizeP1Year`,`SeizeP1Num`,`SeizeP2Year`,`SeizeP2Num`,`NetChange`,`Capacity`,`Finance`,`CITESDataLink`,`Contributions`,`Amount`,`CITES_COPDataLink`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('4312','0','0','282','0','0','7092','0','0','2007','6597','2008','7178','+581','The national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance for staff of Management Authority, Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities and financial support for the information campaign of the WWF-Austria to traders and the public.','Financial assistance for the CITES-Trust funds for the participation of other countries at the CoP14(€ 10.000).','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports.  Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','29,743','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','AT'),
	('2042','6','0.3','1147','0','0','430','0','0','2007','42','2008','73','+31','National capacity was built through advice/guidance provided to the Management Authority, Scientific Authority, enforcement authorities, traders, public and NGOs and financial assistance to the EU-TWIX programme. Technical assistance was also provided to the Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities.','Support was provided to Tanzania for CITES-related conservation projects. USD24,000 were transferred to Argentina for Boa constrictor occidentalis conservation.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','2008','37,013','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','BE'),
	('292','2','0.7','32','','','5','','','2007','1','2008','3','+2','National capacity was built through oral and written advice/guidance and technical assistance provided to the Scientific Authority, advice/guidance and training to the enforcement authorities as well as advice/guidance traders and the public. In addition, Each year the CITES MA provides training to the staff of the Regional Environment Inspectorates (REW) about the implementation of the Convention. REW are responsible for regulation of the domestic trade with CITES listed species.',NULL,'Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','589','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','BG'),
	('4','0','0','44','0','0','0','0','0','2007','1','2008','0','-1','National capacity was built through oral and written advice/guidance and training that was provided to the Management Authority, Staff of Scientific Authority the enforcement authorities. Traders were provided oral and written advice/guidance.','According to the biennial period for 2007 and 2008, Cyprus has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports. Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','8445','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','CY'),
	('971','','','315','',NULL,'24','','','2007','1057','2008','1588','+531','The national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance to staff of the Management and Scientific Authorities and the enforcement authorities as well as to traders and the public. Staff of the Management and Scientific Authorities and the enforcement authorities also received training.','According to the biennial period for 2007 and 2008, the Czech Republic has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','6336','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','CZ'),
	('13,653','','','2328','','','19,796','','','2007','132,188','2008','115,772','16,416','The national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to staff and stakeholders involved with CITES implementation.','Support has been provided to Tajikistan and Kazakhstan for sustainable natural resources utilisation and biodiversity conservation (GTZ project), which is aimed specifically at CITES-protected ungulates. ','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','299,916','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','DE'),
	('1993','0','0','426','0','0','415','0','0','2007','61','2008','79','+18','The Danish CITES authorities provided oral or written advice/guidance and training to the Management Authority and the enforcement authorities and oral or written advice/guidance to traders and the public.','Denmark has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports  Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2009','27,758','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','DK'),
	('122','0','0','12','0','0','8','0','0','2007','10','2008','11','+1','Training was provided to the enforcement authorities. Oral and written advice/guidance was provided to the public.','Estonia has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2009','609','Reference or title: CITES COP documents; information from EstoniaWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','EE'),
	('1123','0','0','4','0','0','32','0','0','2007','23','2008','0','-23','National capacity was built through hiring of more staff, purchase of technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement and computerisation. In addition, microchip reading devices were purchased and disseminated to all the regional management authorities for facilitating controls. Advice/guidance and training was provided to the Management Authority, training was provided to the public as well as oral and written advice/guidance to Staff of enforcement authorities and traders.','According to the 2007 – 2008 Biennial report, Greece has not provided technical and financial support to another country in relation to CITES. ','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','0','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','EL'),
	('6921','196','2.8','1211','4','0.3','4476','2','0.04','2007','','2008','724','','National capacity was provide through oral and written advice/guidance and training to the Management Authority. Training was provided to the enforcement authorities.','Spain supplied the management programme to issue CITES documents used in Spain to the CITES Management Authority of Portugal.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','122,896','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','ES'),
	('236','0','0','11','0',NULL,'45','0','0','2007','30','2008','','','The national CITES authorities have purchased technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement; computerisation and have provided oral or written advice/guidance for Staff of Management Authority, Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and the public. Training was also provided for staff of enforcement authorities.','Financial assistance to facilitate the participation of developing countries in international CITES meetings. The funds were given to the Secretariat to be used at their discretion.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','18,454','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','FI'),
	('37,855','','','1944','','','64,007','','','2005','51,605','2006','10,820','-40,785','The national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance to Management Authority, Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities; technical assistance to Management Authority and enforcement authorities; training of Management Authority, Scientific Authority, enforcement authorities and traders.','France provided CITES–related technical assistance to Andorra.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','2008','208,784','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','FR'),
	('441','0','0','40','0','0','22','0','0','2007','9071','2008','956','-8115','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training have been provided to inspectorates, customs, police, veterinary and phytosanitary authorities, and universities.','Hungary provided CITES training for enforcement officers in Romania.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','4362','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','HU'),
	('23','0','0','7','0','0','0','0','0','2007','89','2008','','','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and training was provided to the Management and Scientific Authorities, enforcement authorities and the public.','Ireland did make a contribution towards the Seventh dialogue meeting of the African elephant range States in 2007)','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2010','16,024','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','IE'),
	('14,889','0','0','324','0','0','96,118','0','0','2007','284','2008','','','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the staff of enforcement authorities and the Scientific Authority. Technical assistance has been also been provided to the Scientific Authority. ','Italy has not provided CITES related technical or financial assistance. ','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','169,139','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','IT'),
	('175','15','8.6','15','0','0','0','0','0','2007','62','2008','','','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training have been provided to Staff of Management Authority, Staff of Scientific Authority, Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and the public.','Lithuania has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','831','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','LT'),
	('146','0','0','2','0','0','13','0','0','2007','5','2008','8','+3','Training was provided to Staff of Management Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Technical assistance was provided to traders.','Luxembourg has not provided technical and financial assistance in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','2.651','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','LU'),
	('519','0','0','4','0','0','17','0','0','2007','2400','2008','89','-2311','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to traders, NGOs and the public. Oral and written advice/guidance, training and financial assistance was also provided to the Staff of Management Authority, Scientific Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities.','Latvia has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','519','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','LV'),
	('122','0','0','36','0','0','1','0','0','2007','3','2008','8','+5','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and technical assistance to Staff of enforcement authorities, traders, NGOs and the public. ','Malta has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','2010','645','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','MT'),
	('4139','257','6.2','991','53','5.3','979','29','3','2007','847','2008','761','-86','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical and financial assistance and to Staff of the Management and Scientific Authorities and Staff of enforcement authorities, as well as traders and the public.','The Netherlands has provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES as follows: to Argentina( financial support for the preparation of a species proposal (Bulnesia sarmeintoi) for CoP15, Malaysia (financial support for the workshop conservation of tree species in Kuala Lumpur, 2007), Georgia (financial support for the survey of Galanthus woronowii, 2008) and Croatia (Enforcement training and assistance for the MA in terms of legislation, policy and ICT).','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','2008','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ',NULL,'NL'),
	('757','','','42','','','20','','','2007','230','2008','183','-47','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and training to Staff of enforcement authorities and the Management Authority. ','Poland has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','2008','15.962','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','PL'),
	('2377','0','0','119','0','0','519','0','0','2007','234','2008','225','-9','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and NGOs. Also, oral and written advice/guidance was provided to the public.','Portugal has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','16,351','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','PT'),
	('424','0','0','50','0','0','18','0','0','2007','5','2008','','','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical and financial assistance to Staff of the Management, the Scientific Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. oral and written advice/guidance was provided to traders, NGOS and the public','Romania has not provided technical or financial support to another country in relation to CITES. ','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','2077','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','RO'),
	('666','7','1.05','237','5','2.11','22','1','4.5','2007','1553','2008','574','-979','Information not available. ','Information not available.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','34.555','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','SE'),
	('271','0','0','27','0','0','66','0','0','2007','19','2008','22','+3','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training was provided to the Management and Scientific Authorities, the Staff of enforcement authorities, and the public.','Slovenia has provided training assistance to Croatia.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reportsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','2.839','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','SI'),
	('0','0','0','27','0','0','2','0','0','2007','17','2008','','','The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the Scientific Authority, the public and district offices as well as training and technical to the Staff of enforcement authorities.','Slovakia has not provided technical and financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2008','1766','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','SK'),
	('31,065','302','1','4158','12','0.3','15,926','70','0.4','2007','360','2008','431','+71','Activities to enhance CITES implementation at the national level: development of implementation tools and improvement of national networks; computerisation. Other national-level capacity-building activities by national CITES authorities include: Staff of Scientific Authority, Staff of Management Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities were provided with oral/written advice, technical assistance and training. Specific capacity building activities provided include regular CITES training for Police and Customs authorities in Metropolitan UK and HM Wildlife Inspectorate , UKBA enforcement training given to UKBA detection officers, police, MA’s and SA’s,  training given to Wildlife Inspectorate staff on CITES plants issues and post CoP14 changes.','Assistance was given to India in the establishment of their Wildlife Crime Bureau. Enforcement training (Indian forestry officials and Polish enforcement officers) CITES & plants issues (Trinidad and Tobago), general CITES plants enquiries from EU member states. UK Border Agency enforcement has provided CITES enforcement training (including working with the UK Scientific Authority on technical training on timber issues) in Poland x 2, Romania x 2, Slovakia x 2, Cayman Islands and China. As part of the UK/India Sustainable Development Dialogue (SDD) Defra has contributed financially to the development of a training plan for Indian wildlife law enforcers including a module on illegal trade in CITES specimens. SDD funding was also made available to fund an exchange trip of Indian officials to the UK to exchange good practice and gain knowledge of CITES implementation in the UK.','Reference or title: CITES biennial reports Weblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/reports/biennial.shtml and http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_env/cites&vm=detailed&sb=Title','2010','242,813.08','Reference or title: CITES COP documentsWeblink: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml ','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A8_1_8` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A9_1_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A9_1_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A9_1_1` (
  `GHG2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GHG2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `GHG2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Change2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Change2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Change2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A9_1_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_1_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A9_1_1` (`GHG2006`,`GHG2007`,`GHG2008`,`Change2006`,`Change2007`,`Change2008`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('89.7','87.0','86.6','13.5','10.0','10.8','AT'),
	('136.2','130.2','133.2','-4.9','-9.1','-7.1','BE'),
	('71.9','75.8','72.6','-46.2','-43.4','-45.7','BG'),
	('9.7','9.8','10.2','84.2','87.0','93.9','CY'),
	('146.9','147.5','141.4','-24.5','-24.3','-27.5','CZ'),
	('980.0','956.1','958.1','-19.1','-21.2','-22.2','DE'),
	('71.6','66.8','63.9','1.8','-5.1','-7.4','DK'),
	('18.9','22.0','20.2','-54.9','-47.4','-50.4','EE'),
	('128.7','131.9','126.9','21.9','24.9','22.9','EL'),
	('427.3','438.7','405.7','48.3','52.2','42.3','ES'),
	('79.6','78.1','70.1','12.4','10.2','-0.3','FI'),
	('545.0','534.9','531.8','-3.6','-5.4','-6.1','FR'),
	('78.8','76.3','73.7','-32.4','-34.5','-36.8','HU'),
	('68.3','67.6','67.4','23.3','22.1','23.0','IE'),
	('562.0','552.6','541.5','8.9','7.0','4.7','IT'),
	('23.7','25.5','24.3','-51.6','-48.1','-51.1','LT'),
	('13.2','12.8','12.5','0.6','-2.5','-4.8','LU'),
	('11.8','12.3','11.9','-55.9','-54.0','-55.6','LV'),
	('2.9','3.0','2.9','44.2','47.7','44.2','MT'),
	('208.7','206.9','206.9','-1.6','-2,4','-2.4','NL'),
	('399.4','398.9','393.6','-29.9','-30.1','-30.4','PL'),
	('82.2','79.9','78.7','38.8','34.9','32.2','PT'),
	('154.2','152.6','145.9','-44.1','-44.7','-46.9','RO'),
	('67.3','66.2','64.0','-6.5','-8.0','-11.7','SE'),
	('20.4','20.6','21.3','0.5','1.1','5.2','SI'),
	('49.8','47.7','48.8','-32-0','-34.8','-33.9','SK'),
	('653.1','643.7','631.7','-15.6','-16.8','-18.4','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_1_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A9_3_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A9_3_2`;

CREATE TABLE `A9_3_2` (
  `PlanNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NREAPNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NREAPDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NREAPImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NREAPDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Round` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatCert` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDesc` text,
  `OtherNat` text,
  `Require` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `RequireDetail` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A9_3_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_3_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A9_3_2` (`PlanNo`,`PlanDev`,`PlanImp`,`PlanDontKnow`,`NREAPNo`,`NREAPDev`,`NREAPImp`,`NREAPDontKnow`,`Round`,`NatCert`,`OtherDesc`,`OtherNat`,`Require`,`RequireDetail`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','X','       ','','','X','','','','','P[2010]','','N','under development','AT'),
	('','','X (W)','','','X (Fl, W)','','','Y','N',' regional round table (Fl and W)','certific body in BHG','N','','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('','','X','','','X','','','','','','','','','CY'),
	('-','-','X','-','X','-','-','-','-','-','X','31.12.2010','N','-','CZ'),
	('','','X','','','X','','','','','Recognition certification schemes by BLE (see below)','','partly','Requirements adopted for all biofuels and vegetable oils','DE'),
	('x','','','','','x','','','','Y','','','N','Awaits report from the Commissions DG TREN','DK'),
	('     ','     ','Y','     ','     ','Y ','     ','     ','     ','     ','EU Nature Directive principles are followed.','     ','     ','EU Nature Directive pronciples are followed.','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('','','','','','','Y','','P','P','','','N','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('','','Y','','','','Y','','P(2011)','','Y (general law specifications about biofuels’ sustainability)','','Y','','FR'),
	('X','','','','','X','','','Y','','','','N','','HU'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','IE'),
	('','X','','','','X','','','N','N','P under the provisions of  Directive 2009/28/CE. Date of expected implememtation: december 2010 ','','N','','IT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','LT'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','Y','','','','N','','LU'),
	('N','','Y','','N','','Y','','N','N','','','Y','As part of EIA scheme','LV'),
	('Y','','','','','Y','','','','','','','N','','MT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','NL'),
	('X','','','','','X','','','P2010','P2010','P2010','P2010','N','','PL'),
	('X','','','','','X','','','N','N','N','','N','','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('X','','','','','X','','','N','N','P [2010]','A government bill on legislation concerning sustainability criteria biofuels and bioliquids, based on a proposal from the Swedish Energy Agency, is currently being processed by the Council on Legislation and will be presented to the Riksdag (parliament) in March 2010. ','Y','General requirements which address consideration to the nature and biodiversity are incoroprated in the Environmental Code and apply to everyone and all activities. Further, specific requirements aimed at at different sectors are incorporated in specific legislation e.g. the Forestry Act and acts and ordinances that regulate agricultural activities, and thus apply also to biomass production for energy purposes.','SE'),
	('','Y','','','','Y','','','Y','N','N','N','N','see below','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('','','Y','','','Y','','','','Y','','','Y',' The UK Renewable Energy Strategy sets out details of UK approach to sustainability for biomass used for heat and power (see chapter 4). This includes recognition that the use of biomass should not lead to degredation of natural or semi natural ecosystems/habitats, to indirect land use change or to net biodiversity loss. The country introduced a sustainability reporting requirement for biomass within the Renewables Obligation in April 2009. This allows UK to monitor the sustainability of biomass that is used for electricity .In addition, the Energy Crops Scheme in England which provides support under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (see EU regulation  1698/2007) was subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment Statement. Individual applications are also  subject to an environmental appraisal which includes an assessment of impact on biodiversity . The UK is also participating in discussion on EU sustainability scheme for solid biomass as provided for in Article 17 (9) of the EU Renewable Energy Directive.','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_3_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A9_4_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A9_4_1`;

CREATE TABLE `A9_4_1` (
  `StratNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StratDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StratImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StratDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `PlanDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDesc` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherNo` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherImp` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `OtherDontKnow` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AdaptStratYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AdaptStratDetail` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AdaptPlanYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `AdaptPlanDetail` text,
  `BioStratYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioStratDetail` text,
  `BioPlanYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `BioPlanDetail` text,
  `ProjectsYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `ProjectsDetail` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A9_4_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_4_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A9_4_1` (`StratNo`,`StratDev`,`StratImp`,`StratDontKnow`,`PlanNo`,`PlanDev`,`PlanImp`,`PlanDontKnow`,`OtherDesc`,`OtherNo`,`OtherDev`,`OtherImp`,`OtherDontKnow`,`AdaptStratYN`,`AdaptStratDetail`,`AdaptPlanYN`,`AdaptPlanDetail`,`BioStratYN`,`BioStratDetail`,`BioPlanYN`,`BioPlanDetail`,`ProjectsYN`,`ProjectsDetail`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('X','','','','X','','','','','','','','','Y','adaptation strategy in development','N',NULL,'N','Adaptation to climate change is not part of the National Biodiversity Strategy, but a specific Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, also focussing on biodiversity, is under development.','N','','','','AT'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','X','','','','Y',' in development  on regional level','Fl, BHG: in developmentW: a climate action plan was adopted in March 2007. It includes a chapter on adaptation with biodiversity adaptation measures e.g. : migration facilitation through a green network.',NULL,'','','','','Y','actions on regional level','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','BG'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','N','','',NULL,'N','','N','','N','','CY'),
	('-','X','-','-','X','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','-','N','-','N','-','Y','-','CZ'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','','','','','Y','see below','see below',NULL,'','','','','','','DE'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','X','','','','Y','see below','',NULL,'Y','http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Klima-%20og%20Energipolitik/klimatilpasningsstrategi_UK_web.pdf','N','','N','','DK'),
	('N','     ','     ','     ','N ','     ','     ','     ','','N','     ','     ','     ','N','     ','N','     ','Y','Climate change chapter is part of Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 (draft).','Y ','Climate change chapter is part of Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 (draft).','N','     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','EL'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','Y','Y','Y',NULL,'','','','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('','X','','','X','','','','','','','','','Y','Action plan under development','Y',NULL,'','','','','','','FR'),
	('','','X / in progress','','X','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','HU'),
	('','Y','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','',NULL,'N','','N','','N','','IE'),
	('','X','','','','X','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','IT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','N','','N','','N','','N','','N','','LT'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','N','','',NULL,'N','','N','','Y','Impacts of climate change are being studied on a selected number of species such as Arnica montana.','LU'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','N','','',NULL,'N','new Biodiversity program is due by 2012.','N','new Biodiversity program is due by 2012.','N','','LV'),
	('N','','','','N','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'N','','N','','','','MT'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','','','','','N','Biodiversity is one theme in the Dutch National Adaptation Strategy. However, the Strategy  is not comprehensively on this point, but  focuses only on the most important national issues','N','Concrete actions in line with the National Adaptation Strategy  concerning biodiversity   focus on evaluation of policy-instruments and integrated pilots for spatial adaptation.','N','Adaptation to climate change is an important theme in the National Biodiversity Policy Program (2008-2011). But it is dealth with in an integrated matter and not comprehensively.','Y','In the National Biodiversity Action Program the main issues of the Biodiversity Policy Program concerning adaptation to climate change are detailed in a series of concrete actions ','Y','A series of pilot projects on a regional/local level is started, to combine adaptation of biodiversity with adaptation in watermanagement and in rural and urban planning. In adition (Adaptation to) Climate Change and Biodiversity is an important theme in the national Adaptation Research Program and in the research program for the National Ecological Network. ','NL'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','X','','','','N','','',NULL,'N','','N','','Y','','PL'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','X','','','','Y','A biodiversidade é considerada domínio/sector estratégico da Estratégia','',NULL,'','','','','','','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','Guide on the Adaptation to the Climate Change Effects','','','Adopted through Ministerial Order no 1170/2008','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','RO'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','X','','','','N','','',NULL,'N','','N','','N','','SE'),
	('X','','','','X','','','','','','','','','N','','N','','N','','N','','N','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','',NULL,'','','','','','','SK'),
	('','N','','','','N','','','','','N','','','','','Y','In England, Defra\'s Departmental Adaptation (and Mitigation) Plan is expected to be published in late March 2010. It contains a chapter on natural environment with a specific section on biodiversity, and commitments to action.  The Plan also considers the broader context  including adaptation and mitigation impacts from sectors such as agriculture  ','Y','see below','','','Y','see below','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_4_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table A9_4_3
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `A9_4_3`;

CREATE TABLE `A9_4_3` (
  `StudiesYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `StudiesDetail` text,
  `HabitatYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatDetail` text,
  `SpeciesYN` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesDetail` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `A9_4_3` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_4_3` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `A9_4_3` (`StudiesYN`,`StudiesDetail`,`HabitatYN`,`HabitatDetail`,`SpeciesYN`,`SpeciesDetail`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','','N','','Y','','AT'),
	('Y','studies are carried out on regional level','Y','BHG: Habitats 9120 and 9130 are the most concern in the Brussels Capital Region','N','for few species groups on regional levelother species related studies are ongoing ','BE'),
	('','','','','','','BG'),
	('Y','mapping of habitats types ','Y','Coastal, Sand dunes ','Y','Monachus monachusGrass snake','CY'),
	('Y','see below','N','not yet','N','not yet','CZ'),
	('Y','see below','Y','see below','Y','see below','DE'),
	('Y','','Y','','Y','','DK'),
	('N','     ','N','     ','N','     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','EL'),
	('Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','Y','ES'),
	('','','','','','','FI'),
	('Y','','Y','Some species have been identified','Y','Some habitats (notably forests) have been identified','FR'),
	('Y','See below','Y','See below','N','See below','HU'),
	('Y','Wyse Jackson (2007); COCO-ADAPT; MONARCH','Y','COCO-ADAPT; MONARCH','Y','Wyse Jackson (2007); COCO-ADAPT; MONARCH','IE'),
	('Y','','Y','see below','','','IT'),
	('','','','','','','LT'),
	('Y','','N','','Y','see below','LU'),
	('N','','N','','N','','LV'),
	('Y','see below','N','see below','N','see below','MT'),
	('Y','see below','Y','see below','Y','see below','NL'),
	('N','','N','','N','','PL'),
	('Y','Um estudo intitulado “Iberia Change – Impacts of Climate Change in Terrestrial Biodiversity” foi patrocinado pelos Governos de Portugal e Espanha para análise dos potenciais impactes das alterações climáticas sobre um grupo de espécies de vertebrados nos próximos 100 anos.No âmbito do Bioclimac MAC/1/C067 (“Biotecnologia e Conservação face às Alterações Climáticas – BIOCLIMAC”), pretende-se aferir o efeito das alterações climáticas sobre a capacidade germinativa das sementes e a variabilidade genética da biodiversidade vegetal dos arquipélagos da Macaronesia. Projecto aprovado no âmbito da Convocatória do PCT-MAC 2007-2013.','N','Iberia change está focado na análise de risco ao nível da espécie. Os habitats não foram alvo de estudo','Y','As 302 espécies analisadas forma classificadas de acordo com as seguintes categorias: Estável	- Distribuição potencial futura difere da actual em menos de 30% Ganhadora - Distribuição potencial futura é 30% maior que a actualPerdedora - Distribuição potencial futura é 30% menor que a actualSem sobreposição - sobreposição entre distribuição actual e potencial futura  menos que 70%','PT'),
	('','','','','','','RO'),
	('Y','Scientific studies have been and are being undertaken at universities and by the initiative of authorities. Some examples of synopsises mentioned below.','Y','See below ','Y','Species at most risk have partly been identified, as charatcteristics that are fundamental to how species may be influenced have been identified. ','SE'),
	('N','','N','','N','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','see below','Y','see below','Y','see below','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `A9_4_3` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table actions
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `actions`;

CREATE TABLE `actions` (
  `id` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
  `target` varchar(25) DEFAULT NULL,
  `name` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
  `action` text NOT NULL,
  `community_action` text,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `name` (`name`),
  KEY `target` (`target`),
  CONSTRAINT `actions_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`target`) REFERENCES `targets` (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `actions` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `actions` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `actions` (`id`,`target`,`name`,`action`,`community_action`)
VALUES
	('A10_1_1','A10_1','A10.1.1','Subject to funding being found from existing financial resources, establish an EU mechanism for independent, authoritative research-based advice to inform implementation and further policy development.','Develop concept in consultation with key stakeholders, confirm funding availability, put mechanism in place.'),
	('A10_1_2','A10_1','A10.1.2','Identify ways and means to strengthen independent scientific advice to global policy making, inter alia by actively contributing to CBD consideration of the 2007 evaluation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the ongoing consultations on the need for improved International Mechanisms on Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity.','Engage in CBD consideration of 2007 MA evaluation, and ongoing IMoSEB consultations.'),
	('A10_1_3','A10_1','A10.1.3','Enhance research on status, trends and distribution of all habitats and species of community interest and of additional habitats and species of policy relevance [2006 onwards].','Accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities (including research infrastructures).'),
	('A10_1_4','A10_1','A10.1.4','Enhance research on most significant pressures on biodiversity, develop and test prevention and mitigation options [2006 onwards].','Accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities (including research infrastructures) plus Direct Cost Action Research within the JRC.'),
	('A10_1_5','A10_1','A10.1.5','Develop and apply tools to measure, anticipate and improve effectiveness of most important policy instruments for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity [2006 onwards].','Accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities.'),
	('A10_1_6','A10_1','A10.1.6','Allocate adequate financial resources to European and national biodiversity research and to dissemination of its results, including under the Seventh Framework Programme [2006 onwards].','Accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities (including research infrastructures).'),
	('A10_1_7','A10_1','A10.1.7','Establish effective and inclusive European Research Area for biodiversity and strengthen capacities (including infrastructures) in key disciplines, interdisciplinary and participatory science [2006 onwards].','Accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities (including research infrastructures).'),
	('A10_1_8','A10_1','A10.1.8','Put institutional arrangements in place to ensure policy-relevant research done (e.g. in support of implementation of the nature directives, integration of biodiversity into sectoral policies) and research outcomes are reflected where appropriate in policy development [2006 onwards].','Strengthen Community-level institutions/mechanisms at the science-policy interface (see Action A10.1.1); accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities; strengthen ability to assimilate research results at policy level.'),
	('A10_1_9','A10_1','A10.1.9','Establish and promote [2006 onwards] common data standards and quality assurance procedures to enable interoperability of key European and national biodiversity databases and inventories [by 2008].','Accommodate in FP7 work programmes - notably under the Specific Programmes for Cooperation and for Capacities (including research infrastructures).'),
	('A1_1_1','A1_1','A1.1.1','Accelerate efforts to finalise the Natura 2000 network including: complete terrestrial network of Special Protection Areas (SPA) [by 2006, 2008 for marine]; adopt lists of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) [by 2006, 2008 for marine]; designate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and establish management priorities and necessary conservation measures for SACs [by 2010, 2012 for marine]; establish similar management and conservation measures for SPAs [by 2010, 2012 for marine].','For EU15 - ensure MS which have not proposed sufficient sites complete their lists; adopt remaining lists of SCIs as soon as possible; provide necessary guidance on designation and establishment of management priorities and measures; for EU10 - ensure correct transposition of Birds and Habitats Directives, ensure MS which have not proposed sufficient sites complete their lists; adopt lists of SCIs as soon as possible; provide necessary guidance on designation and establishment of management priorities and measures; publish annual review of progress.'),
	('A1_1_2','A1_1','A1.1.2','Ensure adequate financing provided to Natura 2000 implementation from Community sources (notably Rural Development funds, Cohesion and Structural Funds, Pre- Accession Instrument, Life-III, Life+) and MS sources, accessible to those who manage Natura 2000 sites, with focus on optimising longterm conservation benefits as well as priority awareness raising and networking initiatives [2006 onwards','Establish Community priorities for cofinancing under each instrument; provide guidance on cofinancing to MS and potential beneficiaries; evaluate MS cofinancing programme proposals; disburse funds; monitor effectiveness (in terms of biodiversity outcomes); audit expenditure.'),
	('A1_1_3','A1_1','A1.1.3','Transpose fully [by 2006] Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive into national legislation and planning policies and ensure subsequent timely implementation; where appropriate (i.e. where development proposals cannot avoid damage to Natura 2000 sites, but proceed for reasons of overriding public interest) ensure special effort for adequate design and implementation of compensatory measures [2006 onwards].','Check and ensure full transposition; address any complaints relating to implementation; establish external technical capacity for evaluating requests for derogations under Article 6(4); provide guidance on compensatory measures; evaluate adequacy of compensatory measures.'),
	('A1_1_4','A1_1','A1.1.4','Strengthen effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in informing decision-making (inter alia: take stock of effectiveness, produce guidance, tighten legal requirements as appropriate) so as to prevent, minimise and mitigate damages to Natura 2000 sites [2006 onwards]. (cf. Actions A4.1.4, A4.1.6 and A4.6.1 to A4.6.4)','Take stock of effectiveness of EIA (2006-07) and of SEA (2008-09) with respect to preventing biodiversity loss, produce guidance on best practice in treatment of biodiversity in SEA and EIA (specific to the directives), consider options to tighten legal requirements (e.g. require biodiversity to be addressed at assessment of alternatives, screening, scoping stages) where necessary.'),
	('A1_1_5','A1_1','A1.1.5','Ensure full and timely application of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) as it applies to protected species and natural habitats (as defined under the directive), including preventive measures and remedial actions, as appropriate [2006 onwards].','Develop guidance, including on compensation required under ELD in respect of damages to Natura 2000 sites.'),
	('A1_2_1','A1_2','A1.2.1','Carry out [in 2008, following next reports] scientific review of habitat types listed in annexes of nature directives, informed by \'shadow lists\' of priority habitats; add to annexes any missing habitat types of Community interest, and ensure all habitat types of Community interest are sufficiently represented in the Natura 2000 network [by 2010].','Coordinate review, propose necessary amendments to annexes, assess sufficiency of MS proposals for any new sites in response to any amendments to annexes, adopt revised lists of SCIs where necessary.'),
	('A1_2_2','A1_2','A1.2.2','Accelerate efforts to place other designated protected areas (non-Natura 2000) of national, regional and local biodiversity importance under effective conservation management [by 2010, 2012 in marine].','Raise awareness of importance and relevance of these areas in context of Action 1.2.3 below.'),
	('A1_2_3','A1_2','A1.2.3','Assess [by 2008] and substantially strengthen [by 2010] coherence, connectivity and resilience of the protected areas network (Natura 2000 and non- Natura protected areas) by applying, as appropriate, tools which may include flyways, buffer zones, corridors and stepping stones (including as appropriate to neighbouring and other third countries), as well as actions in support of biodiversity in the wider environment (see also actions under objectives 2, 3 and 9).','Coordinate assessment, develop guidelines to strengthen coherence.'),
	('A1_3_1','A1_3','A1.3.1','Implement [2006 onwards], at EC or MS level as appropriate, existing species action or management plans for species under threat and review and update as necessary; elaborate [2006 onwards] and implement [2007 onwards] additional species action or management plans for a wider range of species under threat - including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish, invertebrates and plants; ensure monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of plans.','Coordinate preparation of EC-level action plans; coordinate implementation at Community level.'),
	('A1_3_2','A1_3','A1.3.2','Carry out [in 2008, following next reports] scientific review of species listed in annexes of nature directives, informed by EU \'shadow lists\' for major taxa and other relevant assessments of species status; add to annexes any missing species of Community interest, and ensure where appropriate that all species of Community interest are sufficiently represented in the Natura 2000 network [by 2010].','Coordinate review, coordinate monitoring and assessment of species conservation status, support development of EU \'shadow lists\' (including Red Data lists), propose amendments to annexes, assess sufficiency of Natura 2000 network in respect of all new species added to annexes.'),
	('A1_3_3','A1_3','A1.3.3','Identify and fill critical gaps in EU ex-situ (zoo, botanic gardens, etc.) conservation programmes for wild species, in line with best practice, with appropriate cofinancing from EC and MS [2006 onwards].','Coordinate assessment, provide co-financing for priority projects.'),
	('A1_4_1','A1_4','A1.4.1','Expand all above actions to Romania and Bulgaria (Acceding Countries) and to any future Acceding Countries in a timely manner, i.e. to provide for full implementation of environmental acquis, and provide lists of Natura 2000 sites [by date of accession].','Ensure transposition of nature directives for application from day of accession; ensure lists proposed by day of accession; adopt lists within 1 year of accession.'),
	('A1_5_1','A1_5','A1.5.1','Apply nature directivestype approach for valued sites and species in those EU Outermost Regions not covered by nature directives [2006 onwards].','None'),
	('A2_1_1','A2_1','A2.1.1','Allocate, at MS initiative, within each national/regional Rural Development (RD) Programme, adequate Community and MS co-financing to measures available under all three axes of the RD Regulation which are directly or indirectly supportive of nature and biodiversity [2006/07 and any subsequent revisions]. (cf. Action B.1.1.2)','Assess MS RD Programmes and seek amendments where appropriate.'),
	('A2_1_10','A2_1','A2.1.10','Consider, if appropriate, a possible review of crosscompliance requirements related to the preservation of biodiversity in the 2007 review of the cross-compliance system.','Evaluate in 2007, in the context of the foreseen review of crosscompliance'),
	('A2_1_11','A2_1','A2.1.11','Strengthen measures to ensure conservation, and availability for use, of genetic diversity of crop varieties, livestock breeds and races, and of commercial tree species in the EU, and promote in particular their in situ conservation [2006 onwards].','Facilitate (remove obstacles), provide guidance, provide cofinancing.'),
	('A2_1_12','A2_1','A2.1.12','Exploit opportunities under the CAP [2007-2013] to implement all above actions in the Outermost Regions.','Evaluate extent to which CAP National Strategy Plans for RD and National or regional RD Programmes (for MS with outermost regions) reflect this need - encourage adjustments where necessary.'),
	('A2_1_13','A2_1','A2.1.13','Ensure that the forthcoming EU Forest Action Plan [due 2006] addresses forest biodiversity among the priorities, in line with the EU Forest Strategy and the 6th Environment Action Programme.','Propose Action Plan, implement Communitylevel components.'),
	('A2_1_14','A2_1','A2.1.14','Implement Vienna Ministerial Conference resolution on forest biodiversity (2003) through forest policies of MS and EU Forest Action Plan with particular reference to the CBD Expanded Programme of Work on Forest Biological Diversity [2006 onwards].','Implement Resolution as it applies at Community level.'),
	('A2_1_15','A2_1','A2.1.15','Assess potential impact on biodiversity of plans, programmes and projects for afforestation (or, should the case arise, deforestation); adjust accordingly in order to ensure no overall long-term negative impact on biodiversity [2006 onwards].','None'),
	('A2_1_2','A2_1','A2.1.2','Apply Rural Development (RD) measures in the next programming period [2007- 2013] to optimise long-term benefits for biodiversity - in particular for Natura 2000 areas and for other \'high nature value\' farm and forest areas.','Provide guidance on application of RD measures, including on identification of highnature- value farmland, forests and woodlands.'),
	('A2_1_3','A2_1','A2.1.3','Define criteria and identify [2006-07] highnature- value farmland and forest areas (including the Natura 2000 network) threatened with loss of biodiversity (with particular attention to extensive farming and forest/woodland systems at risk of intensification or abandonment, or already abandoned), and design and implement measures to maintain and/or restore conservation status [2007 onwards].','Evaluate extent to which Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National RDPs reflect this need - encourage adjustments where necessary.'),
	('A2_1_4','A2_1','A2.1.4','Ensure effective implementation of crosscompliance (which provides a baseline for most of the measures of Axis 2 of the Rural Development Regulation) in ways that benefit biodiversity [2007- 2013].','Evaluate extent to which CAP National Strategy Plans for RD and National or regional RD Programmes reflect this need - encourage adjustments where necessary.'),
	('A2_1_5','A2_1','A2.1.5','Ensure that MS Rural Development Plans (RDPs) comply with environmental legislation and in particular with the nature directives so as to prevent and minimise any potential damages to biodiversity [2007-2013].','Assess whether proposed National Strategy Plans for RD and RDPs may result in breach of environmental legislation, seek adjustments where necessary'),
	('A2_1_6','A2_1','A2.1.6','Broaden extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the next rural development programming [2007 onwards], including support from the LEADER axis.','Evaluate extent to which CAP National Strategy Plans for RD and National or regional RD Programmes reflect this need - encourage adjustments where necessary.'),
	('A2_1_7','A2_1','A2.1.7','Ensure future \'less favoured area\' (LFA) regime [from 2010] under Axis 2 enhances its contribution to biodiversity and to \'high nature value\' farm and forest areas.','Assess contribution of LFAs to biodiversity, means to enhance this contribution - and reflect this in 2008 report and proposals.'),
	('A2_1_8','A2_1','A2.1.8','Implement the common monitoring and evaluation framework and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive requirements where applicable for rural development programmes, including the definition of indicators in a way that impact of measures on biodiversity is assessed [2006 onwards].','Evaluate the extent to which MS have used the mandatory indicators and the appropriateness and adequacy of their additional programme specific indicators.'),
	('A2_1_9','A2_1','A2.1.9','Encourage that implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy first pillar benefits biodiversity, notably through mandatory cross compliance, decoupling (single farm payments) and by encouraging take-up of modulation by the Member States MS Action: Use the instruments of the CAP first pillar (decoupling, cross-compliance) to promote biodiversity actions and increase modulation possibilities and redirection of first pillar resources to biodiversity actions through Rural Development.',NULL),
	('A2_2_1','A2_2','A2.2.1','Identify geographical risk areas for factors affecting soil biodiversity (soil sealing, loss of organic matter, soil erosion, etc.) [by 2009].','Provide guidance on identification of risk areas.'),
	('A2_2_2','A2_2','A2.2.2','Minimise soil sealing, sustain soil organic matter and prevent soil erosion through timely implementation of key measures identified in the forthcoming Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection [2010 onwards].','Propose suitable measures, provide guidance on implementation, monitor implementation, enforce any measures required by Community law.'),
	('A2_3_1','A2_3','A2.3.1','Ensure implementation of operational monitoring programmes [by 2006] and publication of River Basin Management Plans and establishment of River Basin District Programmes of Measures [by 2009] and that these Plans and Programmes of Measures are fully operational [by 2012], in line with provisions of the Water Framework Directive.','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A2_4_1','A2_4','A2.4.1','Significantly reduce point source pollutant pressures on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems through strengthening implementation of relevant Directives, notably on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Large Combustion Plants, Waste Incineration, Urban Waste Water Treatment (cf. action 3.2.1) [2006 onwards].','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A2_4_2','A2_4','A2.4.2','Significantly reduce airborne eutrophying and acidifying pollution of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in line with Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution [2006 onwards]; revise National Emission Ceilings Directive [by 2007]. (cf. action 3.2.2)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A2_4_3','A2_4','A2.4.3','Significantly reduce pollution of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems from agricultural sources (notably pesticides, nitrates) through measures in line with Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, pesticides and biocides legislation, Nitrates Directive [2006 onwards]. (cf. action 3.2.3)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A2_4_4','A2_4','A2.4.4','Significantly reduce current exposure, and limit future exposure, of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems to toxic chemicals through measures in line with EU chemicals legislation including REACH [2006 onwards]. (cf. action 3.2.4)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A2_5_1','A2_5','A2.5.1','As part of the preliminary flood risk assessment for each river basin, assess the risks and benefits of flooding for biodiversity [within 3 years of adoption of Directive].','Provide guidance'),
	('A2_5_2','A2_5','A2.5.2','Ensure Flood risk management plans for each river basin optimise benefits for biodiversity through, in particular, allowing necessary freshwater input to wetland and floodplain habitats, and creating where possible and appropriate additional wetland and floodplain habitats which enhance capacity for flood water retention [by 2015].','Provide guidance'),
	('A3_1_1','A3_1','A3.1.1','Make initial assessments, determine \'good environmental status\', and establish environmental targets for each Marine Region in line within the timetable specified in the proposed Marine Strategy Directive [2006 onwards].','Council to adopt Marine Framework Directive by 2007. Commission to provide guidance, facilitate and where necessary enforce implementation.'),
	('A3_1_2','A3_1','A3.1.2','Develop programmes of measures designed to achieve good environmental status in each Marine Region [by 2016 at latest, earlier where possible].','Council to adopt Marine Framework Directive by 2007. Commission to provide guidance, facilitate and where necessary enforce implementation.'),
	('A3_1_3','A3_1','A3.1.3','Ensure key biodiversity and ecosystem provisions of the Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment are assured in the Maritime Policy for the Union and any consequent policy.','Com to implement Thematic Strategy action plan.'),
	('A3_1_4','A3_1','A3.1.4','Ensure timely implementation of the Water Framework Directive as it applies to coastal areas [2006 onwards].','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A3_1_5','A3_1','A3.1.5','Ensure timely implementation and review of the EU Integrated Coastal Zone Management Recommendation [2006 onwards].','Coordinate implementation, review.'),
	('A3_2_1','A3_2','A3.2.1','Significantly reduce point source pollutant pressures on marine ecosystems through strengthening implementation of relevant Directives, notably on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Large Combustion Plants, Waste Incineration, Urban Waste Water Treatment [2006 onwards] (cf. action 2.3.1)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A3_2_2','A3_2','A3.2.2','Significantly reduce airborne eutrophicating and acidifying pollution of marine ecosystems in line with Thematic Strategy on Air Quality [2006 onwards]; revise National Emissions Ceiling Directive [by 2007]. (cf. action 2.3.2)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A3_2_3','A3_2','A3.2.3','Significantly reduce pollution of marine ecosystems from agricultural sources (pesticides, nitrates) through measures in line with Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, pesticides and biocides legislation, Nitrates Directive [2006 onwards]. (cf. action 2.3.3)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A3_2_4','A3_2','A3.2.4','Significantly reduce current exposure, and limit future exposure, of marine ecosystems to toxic chemicals through measures in line with EU chemicals legislation [2006 onwards]. (cf. action 2.3.4)','Provide guidance, monitor implementation, address complaints, enforce where appropriate.'),
	('A3_3_1','A3_3','A3.3.1','Introduce the fisheries management measures required in the Regional Marine Strategies adopted by Member States in line with the requirements of the Marine Strategy Directive [by 2017].','Ensure respect of deadlines for Programmes of Measures to be adopted by Member States and propose pertinent fishery measures.'),
	('A3_4_1','A3_4','A3.4.1','Apply new European Fisheries Fund and Member State funds for actions beneficial to marine biodiversity [2007 onwards]. (cf. Action B1.1.3)','Negotiate Operational Plans with Member States'),
	('A3_5_1','A3_5','A3.5.1','Prepare plan of action to attain maximum sustainable yield, prepare and implement multiannual plans for stocks outside safe biological limits [2006 onwards]','Propose plan of action to attain maximum sustainable yield. Seek scientific advice, consult stakeholders and elaborate proposals for recovery and management plans.'),
	('A3_5_2','A3_5','A3.5.2','Develop, adopt and implement restoration programmes for diadromous species (e.g. trout, salmon, sturgeon). [2006 onwards]','Propose programmes.'),
	('A3_5_3','A3_5','A3.5.3','Adjust fishing capacity to improve balance between fishing capacity and available fish stocks. [2006 onwards]','Work out efficient parameters for the assessment of fishing capacity.'),
	('A3_5_4','A3_5','A3.5.4','Adopt and implement provisions under CFP for the wider establishment of no-take zones.','Seek scientific advice, consult stakeholders and elaborate proposals.'),
	('A3_5_5','A3_5','A3.5.5','Take concerted EU action to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. [2006 onwards]',NULL),
	('A3_6_1','A3_6','A3.6.1','Implement technical measures to help ensure favourable conservation status of marine species and habitats which are not commercially exploited, aimed at the reduction of unwanted by-catch and of damage to the benthos. [2006 onwards]','Propose new technical measures under the CFP; supervise implementation at Community level.'),
	('A3_6_2','A3_6','A3.6.2','Adopt Community Plan of Action for the conservation of sharks and Community Plan of Action for reducing seabird by-catch and implement progressively thereafter.','Propose plans for Seabird by-catch action plan. Shark action plan to be adopted.'),
	('A3_6_3','A3_6','A3.6.3','Identify, define, adopt and enforce fisheries measures required for Natura 2000 sites in the marine environment. [by date of designation]','Define and propose measures, as appropriate, at Community level; supervise, guide and enforce implementation at Member State level.'),
	('A3_6_4','A3_6','A3.6.4','Ensure adequate treatment of biodiversity concerns in all cases where environmental impact assessment or strategic environmental assessment is required in relation to fisheries or aquaculture, and ensure authorisation process and subsequent implementation take due account of EIA and SEA findings in order to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity or, where prevention is not possible, minimise, mitigate and/or compensate for these negative impacts [2006 onwards].','Address any complaints relating to incorrect application of EIA; enforce correct application where necessary.'),
	('A3_7_1','A3_7','A3.7.1','Make periodic assessments [2006 onwards] of the progress of the Common Fisheries Policy in incorporating environmental protection requirements (with particular reference to biodiversity).','Seek basic scientific information and report to Council and Parliament.'),
	('A4_1_1','A4_1','A4.1.1','Allocate, at MS initiative, cohesion and structural funds for projects directly or indirectly benefiting biodiversity in appropriate operational programmes [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action B1.1.4)','Encourage MS to provide for such projects, provide technical support for programming (consistent with Financing Natura 2000 proposal); evaluate national programmes submitted.'),
	('A4_1_2','A4_1','A4.1.2','ESF contributing to biodiversity objectives through awareness-raising, capacity building, employment of the young, long-term jobless and elderly, etc. [2007 onwards] (cf. Action B1.1.5)','Encourage MS to provide for such projects, provide technical support for programming; evaluate national programmes submitted.'),
	('A4_1_3','A4_1','A4.1.3','Ensure National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NRSFs) and Operational Programmes 2007-2013 fully respect environmental acquis [2006 onwards]','Check conformity of NSRFs and Operational Programmes with environmental acquis.'),
	('A4_1_4','A4_1','A4.1.4','Ensure strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of Operational Programmes [2006 onwards] gives adequate treatment to biodiversity concerns and that the final programmes take full account of the SEA findings in order to prevent, minimise and mitigate impacts on biodiversity and provide where possible benefits to biodiversity. (cf. Action A1.1.4)','Check SEA Directive is applied.'),
	('A4_1_5','A4_1','A4.1.5','Ensure environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects cofinanced by Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), where such EIA is required, gives adequate treatment to biodiversity concerns and that final projects take full account of EIA findings in order to prevent, minimise and mitigate impacts on biodiversity and provide where possible benefits to biodiversity [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A1.1.4)','Assess all proposals over Euro 50m (25m for environmental projects) for potential biodiversity impacts. Address any complaints relating to projects. Check EIA Directive is correctly applied.'),
	('A4_1_6','A4_1','A4.1.6','Ensure full participation of civil society in development of NSRF and national Operational Programmes and in SEA/EIA and ensure biodiversity interests fully represented [2006 onwards].','Address complaints relating to inadequate participation.'),
	('A4_2_1','A4_2','A4.2.1','Ensure that all those territorial plans subject to strategic environmental assessment (SEA) (where deemed applicable by Member States under the SEA Directive) do not cause significant negative impacts on biodiversity (direct, indirect, cumulative) [2006 onwards].','Assess effectiveness of SEA in addressing biodiversity impacts (2006 SEA reports, commission special study to take stock).'),
	('A4_2_2','A4_2','A4.2.2','Implement policies and measures in line with Thematic Strategy for Urban Environment to prevent urban sprawl [2006 onwards].','n/a'),
	('A4_3_1','A4_3','A4.3.1','Develop and implement spatial and programmatic plans that support the coherence of the Natura 2000 network (in line with the requirements of the nature directives to ensure such coherence) and maintain and/or restore the ecological quality of wider landscape [2006 onwards] (cf. Action B2.5.1)','Promote best practice at MS, regional and local levels'),
	('A4_4_1','A4_4','A4.4.1','CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism promoted, adopted and implemented as appropriate by key stakeholders [2006 onwards].','Promote best practice.'),
	('A4_5_1','A4_5','A4.5.1','All above actions applied, as appropriate, in Outermost Regions (French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Reunion, Martinique, Canaries, Azores, Madeira) [2006 onwards].','As for all above actions under targets 4.1-4.5, as appropriate.'),
	('A4_6_1','A4_6','A4.6.1','Ensure effective treatment of biodiversity in all Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of programmes and plans, where such SEA is required, including by promotion of best practice through the development of guidelines, recognition of good performance) - and ensure that full account is taken of the findings of the assessment (in terms of impacts on biodiversity) in the final programmes or plans [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A1.1.4)','See action 1.1.3 .'),
	('A4_6_2','A4_6','A4.6.2','Ensure effective treatment of biodiversity in all Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of projects, where such EIA is required, including by promotion of best practice through the development of guidelines, recognition of good performance) - and ensure that full account is taken of the findings of the assessment (in terms of impacts on biodiversity) in the authorisation procedure [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A1.1.4)','See action 1.1.3 above.'),
	('A4_6_3','A4_6','A4.6.3','Ensure all new Trans- European Networks provide for environmental assessment and take full account of biodiversity impacts in the design and authorisation process in the framework of the existing EU legislation [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A1.1.4)','Check projects (existing modus operandi ENV/TREN).'),
	('A4_6_4','A4_6','A4.6.4','Take stock of effectiveness of EIA and SEA in preventing and minimising negative impacts and improving positive impacts of developments on biodiversity and consider necessary measures to improve EIA and SEA performance in this respect [by 2009]. (cf. Action A1.1.4)','See 1.1.3 above.'),
	('A5_1_1','A5_1','A5.1.1','Assess, at EU level, gaps in the current legal, policy and economic framework to prevent, control and eradicate IAS and mitigate their impacts on biodiversity and develop a community strategy to address IAS including, where necessary and appropriate, measures to fill gaps [by 2007].','Make assessment, propose measures to fill gaps.'),
	('A5_1_2','A5_1','A5.1.2','Encourage Member States to develop national strategies on invasive alien species [by 2007] and to implement them fully [by 2010].','Encourage MS'),
	('A5_1_3','A5_1','A5.1.3','Encourage ratification of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship\'s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation [2006 onwards].','Encourage ratification'),
	('A5_1_4','A5_1','A5.1.4','Establish early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries [by 2008].','Propose early warning system, coordinate implementation at Community level.'),
	('A5_2_1','A5_2','A5.2.1','Fully apply the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to ensure an adequate level of protection of biodiversity (and human health) in the field of the safe handling, use and transfer of genetically modified organisms [2006 onwards].','Apply as appropriate at Community level.'),
	('A5_2_2','A5_2','A5.2.2','Ensure protection of biodiversity as part of measures to protect human health and environment in relation to the deliberate release into the environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) [2006 onwards].','Ensure in GMO authorisation procedure.'),
	('A6_1_1','A6_1','A6.1.1','Press for effective worldwide implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, decisions of the Conference of the Parties including thematic and cross-cutting programmes of work, and other related international and regional biodiversity agreements (e.g. Bonn, Berne, AEWA, Ramsar, UN Fish Stocks Agreement) and promote greater synergies between these [2006 onwards].','Work at EU, global and regional levels for enhanced effectiveness in CBD implementation by streamlining operations of CBD, coordinating action between related multilateral environmental agreements, working towards integrated outcome-based reporting, establishing global partnership with key stakeholders.'),
	('A6_1_2','A6_1','A6.1.2','Enhance integration of biodiversity into global processes with important impacts on biodiversity such as sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals, trade and climate change [2006 onwards].','Work for effective integration of biodiversity concerns within Commission for Sustainable Development, in Doha Round of trade negotiations, and under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol regime.'),
	('A6_1_3','A6_1','A6.1.3','Promote improved oceans governance for conservation and recovery of marine biodiversity, ecosystem services and integration of key sectors, including in relation to areas beyond national jurisdiction; make progress towards mechanisms for establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the high seas, including by supporting the adoption of an Implementing Agreement to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, with the scientific support from the CBD, notably in developing criteria for identifying the areas to be protected. [2006 onwards]','Coordinate EU action'),
	('A7_1_1','A7_1','A7.1.1','Ensure adequate community funds earmarked for biodiversity in development cooperation (in line with European Consensus on Development Cooperation) in EC Thematic Programme for Environment and Natural Resources and ensure the use of these funds is targeted at biodiversity priorities [2007- 2013]; decide [in 2006] on an adequately funded EC Thematic Programme for Environment and Natural Resources (ENRTP) in the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument (DCECI) and ensure that biodiversity priorities receive an appropriate share of the total ENRTP and DCECI resources [2007-2013].','Include an adequate multiannual indicative resource framework and robust programming priorities for biodiversity in the ENRTP Article of both the DCECI and ENPI which should be adopted as early as possible in 2006. Further elaborate the biodiversity priorities in the Thematic Strategy Paper for the ENRTP and ensure its adoption well before the end of 2006. Seek coverage for biodiversity actions in financing strategy papers and indicative programmes under ENPI instrument.'),
	('A7_1_2','A7_1','A7.1.2','Allocate adequate resources in Country and Regional Strategy Programmes wherever biodiversity identified as a key issue in country/regional environmental profiles [2006 onwards].','Check and ensure that resources are available to implement the recommendations in the R/CEP through biodiversity projects or mainstreaming biodiversity concerns in to other relevant projects.'),
	('A7_1_3','A7_1','A7.1.3','Enhance MS funds earmarked for biodiversity (in line with European Consensus on Development Cooperation) in MS bilateral development cooperation programmes in support of implementation of the CBD, Millennium Development Goals and other programmes relevant for biodiversity in developing countries [2006 onwards].','n/a'),
	('A7_1_4','A7_1','A7.1.4','Enhance the overall contribution of EU MS for biodiversity through a substantial 4th replenishment of the GEF based on the agreed policy priorities [2006/07].','Use EU high level meetings to press for a substantial replenishment based on fair burden-sharing.'),
	('A7_1_5','A7_1','A7.1.5','Enhance funds for biodiversity related actions under the national and regional components of the Instrument for Pre- Accession (IPA) and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)','Seek coverage for biodiversity actions in financing strategy papers and indicative programmes under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA).'),
	('A7_1_6','A7_1','A7.1.6','Enhance economic and development assistance funds available for biodiversity-related actions in the MS\' Overseas Countries and Territories [2006 onwards].','Check and ensure that biodiversity is addressed through specific programmes and projects or through integration in other sectors covered by economic development assistance.'),
	('A7_2_1','A7_2','A7.2.1','Prepare country and regional environmental profiles with specific attention to the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem services (in particular in relation to livelihood concerns), and take these needs fully into account in preparation of Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) and Regional Strategy Papers (RSPs) and in equivalent MS country and regional aid programming [2006 onwards].','Check and ensure that appropriate action in response to the recommendations in the Regional and Country Environmental Profiles is undertaken as specific biodiversity projects or mainstreamed in to other relevant projects.'),
	('A7_2_2','A7_2','A7.2.2','Systematically carry out ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects funded by EU in partner countries and ensure actions are identified and implemented to prevent and mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity in a timely manner [2006 onwards].','Check and ensure that SEAs and EIAs are systematically carried out on relevant development strategies, programmes and projects.'),
	('A7_2_3','A7_2','A7.2.3','Substantially strengthen capacities in recipient countries and in Commission and MS cooperation programming for these purposes, including integrating implementation of the CBD into national development strategies including Poverty Reduction Strategies [2006 onwards].',NULL),
	('A7_2_4','A7_2','A7.2.4','Ensure that projects financed by EU under the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument (DCECI), European Development Fund (EDF), preaccession, neighbourhood and partnership instruments delivering enhanced biodiversity benefits, and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented or minimised [2006 onwards].','Commission to ensure that safeguards are included in procedures to ensure that these considerations are taken into account before funding can be released.'),
	('A7_2_5','A7_2','A7.2.5','Ensure that projects financed by EU economic and development assistance do not cause significant negative impacts on biodiversity in the MS Overseas Countries and Territories [2006 onwards].','Check and ensure that SEAs and/or EIAs are systematically carried out on development strategies, programmes and projects.'),
	('A8_1_1','A8_1','A8.1.1','Identify major impacts of trade on third countries’ and EU biodiversity and adopt measures to significantly reduce (in case of negative impacts) and/or enhance (in case of positive impacts) these impacts [by 2010]. This will in particular be done in the context of the Commission\'s trade-related Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) Programme, that covers a number of sectoral studies (e.g. agriculture, forests and forest products as well as fisheries), in the context of multilateral (WTO, ongoing negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda) and/or regional/bilateral free trade agreements (e.g. EPAs with ACP countries).','Identify impacts and follow-up measures - in particular in the context of the Commission\'s trade-related Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) Programme, covering a number of sectoral studies (e.g., agriculture, forests and forest products, fisheries, tourism), in connection to multilateral (WTO, ongoing negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda) and/or regional/bilateral free trade agreements (e.g. the planned Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and ACP countries and the EUMediterranean Free Trade Area).'),
	('A8_1_2','A8_1','A8.1.2','Foster links between the WTO agreements and biodiversityrelated international agreements, and ensure biodiversity taken into account as a Non-Trade Concern, in order to identify and put in place key measures to reduce the ecological impact of globalisation in line with the precautionary principle and with the commitment made in the context of the WTO\'s Doha Development Agenda to promote the objective of sustainable development (paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration) and to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment (paragraph 31) [2006 onwards].','This will be done in line with the commitment made in the context of the WTO\'s Doha Development Agenda to promote the objective of sustainable development (paragraphs 6 and 51 of the Doha Declaration) and to enhance the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment (notably paragraphs 28 and 31).'),
	('A8_1_3','A8_1','A8.1.3','Promote full implementation of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) arising out of their Utilisation, and other agreements relating to ABS such as the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture – and continue to contribute to negotiation of an international regime on ABS according to the mandate adopted at the 7th Conference of the Parties of the CBD [2006 onwards].','Further implement actions set out in the Commission Communication on implementation of the Bonn Guidelines in the EC. Support effective EU coordination and defending of EU positions in ongoing negotiations on an international ABS regime.'),
	('A8_1_4','A8_1','A8.1.4','Maximise the proportion of EU consumption of wood products deriving from sustainable sources [by 2010].','Ensure implementation of CITES provisions for listed timber species and support capacity building in range states. Review of other timber species with criteria for listing. Analyse options for further legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber into the EU (as foreseen in FLEGT action plan). Facilitate exchange of best practice in private and public sector procurement policies favouring wood products from sustainable sources.'),
	('A8_1_5','A8_1','A8.1.5','In the context of action 8.1.1, identify EU non-wood imports driving deforestation in third countries (particularly in the context of traderelated SIAs, notably on agricultural products) and adopt and implement measures to prevent, minimise and/or mitigate this deforestation [by 2010].','Identify impacts and follow-up measures, in particular in the context of the Commission\'s trade-related Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) Programme, that covers a number of relevant sectoral studies (e.g., agriculture, forests and forest products, fisheries, tourism), both in connection to multilateral (WTO, ongoing negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda) and to regional/bilateral free trade agreements (e.g. the planned Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and ACP countries and the EUMediterranean Free Trade Area).'),
	('A8_1_6','A8_1','A8.1.6','Put in place bilateral agreements between EU and major timber exporting countries with aim to support forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) [2006 onwards].','Identify and secure key bilateral agreements.'),
	('A8_1_7','A8_1','A8.1.7','Ensure Fisheries Partnership Agreements compatible with maintenance and recovery of stocks at levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield, and with minimising impact on non-target species and habitats [2006 onwards].','Negotiate agreements; support assessments and recommendations for sustainable fisheries through Joint Scientific Committees, implementation by Parties through Joint Committees.'),
	('A8_1_8','A8_1','A8.1.8','Support capacity-building and implementation of CITES provisions to ensure that trade in CITES species is effectively regulated and controlled and not detrimental to the conservation of the species in range states [2006 onwards].','Support CITES programmes to implement CoP decisions on capacity building, national legislation, enforcement and species specific measures in range states. Continue to ensure coordinated response to unsustainable trade in CITES species through the EU Scientific Review Group, including consultation with range states and ensure constructive follow-up to possible import suspensions with range states. Review MS enforcement of EC CITES Regulations, including gaps and best practice in addressing illegal trade, following completion of on-going study in this field. Assess the effectiveness of EC CITES Regulation in ensuring that trade in endangered species is sustainable.'),
	('A8_1_9','A8_1','A8.1.9','Apply principle of prior informed consent when commercially using traditional knowledge relating to biodiversity and encourage the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of such knowledge [2006 onwards].','n/a'),
	('A9_1_1','A9_1','A9.1.1','Commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol respected [2006 onwards].','Implement measures identified in European Climate Change Programme (ICCP) including European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS); review ECCP and ETS.'),
	('A9_2_1','A9_2','A9.2.1','Further ambitious measures to limit temperature increase agreed in line with the long-term Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, and action against climate change post-2012 extended to all the polluting countries (with common but differentiated responsibilities) and sectors involved.','Explore strategies for achieving necessary emission reductions and reduction pathways for the group of developed countries in the order of 15-30% by 2020, compared to the baseline envisaged in the Kyoto Protocol, and beyond, without prejudging new approaches for differentiation between Parties; follow-up on Montreal UNFCCC COP 11 and negotiate international response addressing climate change. Actions at Community and Member State level to be differentiated in due course.'),
	('A9_3_1','A9_3','A9.3.1','All climate change adaptation and mitigation measures assessed to prevent negative impacts or, where prevention not possible, to minimise, mitigate and/or compensate for negative impacts and, wherever possible, provide positive benefits to biodiversity [2006 onwards].','Impact assessment of new policies at Community level where appropriate.'),
	('A9_3_2','A9_3','A9.3.2','Ensure that implementation of EU Biomass Action Plan takes due account in assessments, where relevant, of impacts on biodiversity, in particularly on high-nature-value farmland and forests, in order to achieve ecological sustainability of biomass production [2006 onwards].','Provide guidance on sustainability impact assessments.'),
	('A9_4_1','A9_4','A9.4.1','Develop a comprehensive programme of priority actions to support biodiversity adaptation to climate change in the EU [by 2008].','Coordinate development of programme.'),
	('A9_4_2','A9_4','A9.4.2','Assess [by 2008], on the basis of available scientific evidence, and substantially strengthen [by 2010] coherence, connectivity and resilience of the protected areas network (Natura 2000 and non- Natura protected areas) in order to maintain favourable conservation status of species and habitats in the face of climate change by applying, as appropriate, tools which may include flyways, buffer zones, corridors and stepping stones (including as appropriate to neighbouring and third countries), as well as actions in support of biodiversity in the wider environment (cf. action 1.2.3).','Coordinate assessment, develop guidelines to strengthen coherence.'),
	('A9_4_3','A9_4','A9.4.3','Make a preliminary assessment of habitats and species in the EU most at risk from climate change [by 2007], detailed assessment and appropriate adaptation measures prepared [by 2009], commence implementation [by 2010].','Launch debate, raise awareness of need for Community level approach to adaptation.'),
	('A_2_1_9','A2_1','A.2.1.9','Encourage that implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy first pillar benefits biodiversity, notably through mandatory crosscompliance, decoupling (single farm payments) and by encouraging takeup of modulation by the Member States.','Evaluate the extent to which MS have used the first pillar of CAP for supporting biodiversity.'),
	('B1_1_1','B1_1','B1.1.1','Ensure adequate financing provided [2007- 2013] to Natura 2000 implementation through community (CAP Rural Development, Structural Funds, Life+) and MS cofinancing, accessible to those who manage Natura 2000 sites, with focus on optimising longterm conservation status and benefits as well as priority awareness raising and networking initiatives. (cf. Action A1.1.2)','See Action A1.1.2'),
	('B1_1_2','B1_1','B1.1.2','Allocate, at MS initiative, within each national/regional Rural Development (RD) Programme, adequate Community and MS co-financing to measures available under all three axes of the RD Regulation which are directly or indirectly supportive of nature and biodiversity [2006/07 and any subsequent revisions].','See Action A2.1.1'),
	('B1_1_3','B1_1','B1.1.3','Apply new European Fisheries Fund and Member State funds for actions beneficial to marine biodiversity [2007- 2013]. (cf. Action A3.4.1)','See Action A3.4.1'),
	('B1_1_4','B1_1','B1.1.4','Allocate, at MS initiative, cohesion and structural funds for projects directly or indirectly providing biodiversity benefits in all MS operational programmes [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A4.1.1)','See Action A4.1.1'),
	('B1_1_5','B1_1','B1.1.5','ESF contributing to biodiversity objectives through awareness-raising, capacity building, employment of the young, long-term jobless and elderly, etc. [2007 onwards]. (cf. Action A4.1.2)','See Action A4.1.2'),
	('B1_1_6','B1_1','B1.1.6','Ensure adequate financing of other biodiversity measures outside Natura 2000 in the EU through other Community cofinancing (e.g. Life+) and Member States’ financing [2007- 2013].','Ensure adequate cofinancing within limits of funds available.'),
	('B1_1_7','B1_1','B1.1.7','Increase in real terms international development assistance funds flowing annually to projects directly benefiting biodiversity [for period 2006-2010 compared with period 2000-2005; and again for period 2011- 2013]. (cf. Actions A7.1.1 to A7.1.6)','See Actions A7.1.1 to A7.1.6'),
	('B1_1_8','B1_1','B1.1.8','Allocate adequate financial resources to European and national biodiversity research and to dissemination of its results, including under the Seventh Framework Programme [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A10.1.5)','See Action A10.1.5'),
	('B1_1_9','B1_1','B1.1.9','Allocate adequate funds for supporting measures including promoting joinedup planning, development of partnerships, monitoring, awareness raising and institutional capacity-building for biodiversity [2007-2013].','Allocate funds through available instruments including Life+'),
	('B2_1_1','B2_1','B2.1.1','Launch, hold and conclude EU debate on this vision and policy framework [2007/08].','Establish process, coordinate debate, agree vision.'),
	('B2_1_2','B2_1','B2.1.2','Strengthen understanding and communication of the values of natural capital and of ecosystem services, and the taking into account of these values in the policy framework, expand incentives for people to safeguard biodiversity [2006 onwards].','Studies, meetings, research to feed into EU debate (Action 2.1.1) - development of proposals as appropriate.'),
	('B2_2_1','B2_2','B2.2.1','Integrate concerns for biodiversity and ecosystem services, given their economic important in terms of jobs and growth for some sectors such as tourism, into Lisbon National Reform Programmes and the development of policies and budgets under these NRPs [2006 onwards].','Address biodiversity and ecosystem services in future guidelines, evaluate adequacy of integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services concerns in NRPs, address these issues in annual reports and any future recommendations to MS.'),
	('B2_2_2','B2_2','B2.2.2','Screen all new legislative and policy proposals at EU and MS levels for potential significant impacts on biodiversity in general and on ecosystem goods and services in particular, and ensure effective treatment of biodiversity concerns in policy impact assessments, in particular to ensure the maintenance of ecosystem goods and services [2006 onwards].','Implement policy impact assessment effectively as part of Better Regulation, including taking biodiversity impacts better into account.'),
	('B2_3_1','B2_3','B2.3.1','Strengthen alignment of the biodiversity policy cycle with the broader EU policy and budgeting cycle to enable more effective integration [2006 onwards].','Carry out mid-term and final reviews in timely manner in order to feed in to broader policy reviews (e.g. CAP) and into next Financial Perspectives post 2013.'),
	('B2_4_1','B2_4','B2.4.1','Re-align MS biodiversity strategies and action plans with this EU Action Plan [by 2007] and strengthen mechanisms for ongoing alignment of EC and MS biodiversity strategies and action plans [2007 onwards].','Encourage MS to realign; propose and establish new mechanisms.'),
	('B2_4_2','B2_4','B2.4.2','Strengthen the institutional arrangements in support of coherence and complementarity in the implementation of EC and MS biodiversity strategies and action plans and in particular of this Action Plan [2006 onwards].','Propose and establish effective mechanism.'),
	('B2_4_3','B2_4','B2.4.3','Strengthen mechanisms for delivery from MS level to local level [2006 onwards].','None'),
	('B2_5_1','B2_5','B2.5.1','Strengthen proactive integration of available planning instruments including Natura 2000, river basin management planning, programmes of measures for soils, rural development plans - towards application of an ecosystems approach in the terrestrial and freshwater environment [2006 onwards]. (cf. Action A4.3.1)','Provide guidance'),
	('B2_5_2','B2_5','B2.5.2','Integrate biodiversity concerns into the evaluation, monitoring and reporting mechanisms of Community-funded programmes which have an impact on the conservation and recovery of biodiversity [2006 onwards].','Provide guidance, integrate into community level evaluation and reporting.'),
	('B2_6_1','B2_6','B2.6.1','Reinforce efforts to ensure compliance, control and enforcement at national, regional and local levels [2006 onwards].','Monitor compliance at Community level, enforce where necessary.'),
	('B3_1_1','B3_1','B3.1.1','Enhance communication, cooperation and concerted action between Commission, Member States, landowners, scientific and conservation communities in support of Natura 2000 (including implementation of \'El Teide\' Declaration) [2006 onwards].','Provide guidance, facilitate, co-finance.'),
	('B3_1_2','B3_1','B3.1.2','Develop farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships, building on existing consultative processes under the Common Agricultural Policy and forest policy [2006 onwards].','Facilitate such partnerships at Community level.'),
	('B3_1_3','B3_1','B3.1.3','Establish and adequately fund Regional Advisory Councils for fisheries, as provided for under the Common Fisheries Policy, and support their operations [2006 onwards].','Support RACs at Community level as provided for in Common Fisheries Policy.'),
	('B3_1_4','B3_1','B3.1.4','Establish a Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation Task Force at EU level [2007] to advise on measures to support biodiversity adaptation to climate change and the prevention of damaging impacts of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures on biodiversity [2007 onwards].','Establish task force'),
	('B3_1_5','B3_1','B3.1.5','Develop biodiversity and planning partnership [2007 onwards].','Encourage such partnerships at MS levels, facilitate exchange of best practice.'),
	('B3_1_6','B3_1','B3.1.6','Develop a business and biodiversity partnership [2006 onwards].','Facilitate such partnerships at Community level'),
	('B3_1_7','B3_1','B3.1.7','Develop partnership between financing sector and biodiversity [2006 onwards].','Facilitate such partnerships at Community level, including involving EBRD and EIB.'),
	('B3_1_8','B3_1','B3.1.8','Apply the CBD Akwe- Kwon Guidelines for projects affecting terrestrial lands of indigenous and local communities both within the EU MS and in Third countries [2006 onwards].','Apply in respect of projects financed by Community public aid.'),
	('B4_1_1','B4_1','B4.1.1','Develop [2006/07] and implement [2007 onwards] a communications campaign in support of full implementation of this Action Plan.','Coordinate development and implementation of campaign in partnership with MS.'),
	('B4_1_2','B4_1','B4.1.2','Strengthen and implement IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative [2006 onwards].','Support the initiative, implement joint actions under the initiative.'),
	('B4_1_3','B4_1','B4.1.3','Ensure public participation, related access to justice requirements of the Aarhus Convention applied to projects, plans and programmes relating to or having an impact on biodiversity conservation [2006 onwards].','Ensure provisions of community law transposed and applied, address complaints.'),
	('C1_1_1','C1_1','C1.1.1','Submit annual report on progress in implementation to Council and Parliament [starting end 2007].','Prepare and submit reports'),
	('C1_2_1','C1_2','C1.2.1','Adopt and apply [by 2007], at EC and MS levels, a small set of biodiversity headline indicators (see Annex 2) which inform the public and decisionmakers on the state and trends of biodiversity, pressures on biodiversity and the effectiveness of key policy measures; adopt and apply at EC level a biodiversity index as a Sustainable Development Indicator and as a Structural Indicator [by 2007]','Development, quality assessment, make proposal, implement indicators.'),
	('C1_3_1','C1_3','C1.3.1','Establish reference values for favourable conservation status for Habitats and Birds Directive habitats and species to achieve a consensus of definitions across Member States [2006/07]; monitor habitats and species status in relation to these values [2007 onwards].','Coordinate development of reference values.'),
	('C1_3_2','C1_3','C1.3.2','Use, and as necessary develop, monitoring tools, approaches and frameworks (building on those existing, including those of civil society) in order to establish and coordinate adequate harmonised data flows for the biodiversity indicators to reveal key trends [2007 onwards].','Coordinate implementation of the action with EEA.'),
	('C1_3_3','C1_3','C1.3.3','Develop shared information system for biodiversity monitoring and reporting in the EU, based on agreed biodiversity indicators, which makes data available to all interested users, streamlines reporting and supports policy evaluation and development at national, regional and global levels [2006 onwards].','Coordinate development of shared information system, including exploitation of generic information and communication technologies.'),
	('C1_4_1','C1_4','C1.4.1','Submit to Council and Parliament in 2009 a concise midterm evaluation of progress towards the 2010 targets (to end 2008) and make any essential adjustments in actions to meet targets.','Commission to coordinate evaluation, prepare and submit evaluation report; Council to respond to evaluation report.'),
	('C1_4_2','C1_4','C1.4.2','Submit to Council and Parliament, in 2011, a full evaluation of extent to which EU has met its 2010 targets.','Commission to coordinate evaluation, prepare and submit evaluation report; Council to respond to evaluation report.'),
	('C1_4_3','C1_4','C1.4.3','Submit to Council and Parliament, in 2014, a full evaluation of extent to which EU has met all post-2010 targets of this Action Plan, and proposing a new Action Plan for the period of the new Financial Perspectives post-2013.','Commission to coordinate evaluation and preparation of new action plan, prepare and submit evaluation report and action plan; Council to respond to evaluation report and new action plan.');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `actions` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B1_1_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B1_1_1`;

CREATE TABLE `B1_1_1` (
  `NatProg` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NatProgDetails` text,
  `NatProgData` text,
  `Mange2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Restore2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Other2004` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mange2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Restore2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Other2005` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mange2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Restore2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Other2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mange2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Restore2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Other2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mange2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Restore2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Other2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B1_1_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B1_1_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B1_1_1` (`NatProg`,`NatProgDetails`,`NatProgData`,`Mange2004`,`Restore2004`,`Other2004`,`Mange2005`,`Restore2005`,`Other2005`,`Mange2006`,`Restore2006`,`Other2006`,`Mange2007`,`Restore2007`,`Other2007`,`Mange2008`,`Restore2008`,`Other2008`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','In Austria, biodiversity funding allocations are made through federal agricultural and environment budgets. Since 1995, in line with EU Regulation No. 2078/92 in situ protection runs under the Austrian Agri-Environmental Programme (ÖPUL). Since 2001 the new regulation ÖPUL 2000 has been in force, based on EU RL 1257/99. In addition, all nine Austrian Provincial Governments have individual annual budgets allocated to nature conservation. All government expenditure is being monitored, including biodiversity spending.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/  ','6,976,439','0','0','3,517,907','0','0','2,937,507','0','0','10,886,959','0','0','3,570,441','0','0','AT'),
	('Y','Belgium’s three regions and the federal government each have their own budgets for the financing of biodiversity. In Flanders, a specific funds (Minafonds) has been established to deal with financial aspects of investments in the field of environment. The country also benefits from co-financing opportunities through European financing programmes (LIFE+, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the Cohesion and Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, etc.). In Wallonia, the budgets for nature development are allocated to protection and management measures for sites of biological interest (purchase and management of natural reserves, LIFE Nature programmes for the conservation of Natura 2000 habitats etc.). The relative significance of budgets for the support of themed operations management should also be noted («attics and steeples», roadsides, municipality plans for nature development, etc.). They represent around 10 % of the total budget, depending on the year.A study has been launched to identify possible federal mechanisms that could be designed for financing federal actions to integrate biodiversity in other sectors (fiscal measures, establishment of a biodiversity funds, etc.).','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/  ','157,562','1,521,350','0','0','11,307,092','0','3,167,425','8,592,574','0','0','1,801,182','0','0','0','0','BE'),
	('','No information is available.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','','','','','','','','','','511,439','0','0','1,341,208','666,164','0','BG'),
	('Y','Cyprus funds activities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through government funds as well as funds from the EU and the Mediterranean Action Plan.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','1,020,511','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','480,032','0','0','CY'),
	('Y','The Ministry of the Environment administers and implements through the State Environmental Fund the Operational Programme Environment, which draws financial help from the EU sources. The Programme\'s axis 6 – Improving the State of Nature and the Landscape, has the following defined goals: implementation of the Nature 2000 network, renewal and protection of natural and semi-natural biotopes and threatened plant and animal species, restoration of ecological stability of landscape, optimisation of the hydrological regimes, regeneration of urbanised landscape, and prevention of landslides and rock collapses. The MoE also administers several important subsidy programmes financed from the MoE budget. They include landscape management programmes which support concrete measures aimed at preserving the landscape’s cultural status, contributing to species diversity, improving natural processes, strengthening the functions of significant landscape elements and components of the territorial system of ecological stability. They also include some ex-situ conservation measures. The State Environmental Fund also administers through the MoE budget one programme aimed at land purchasing in specially protected areas. Specific projects focused on nature and landscape protection and drawing the financial resources from the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms can also be applied at the MoE. The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for funds administration under the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, focused, among other things, on environmental protection and rural development - the Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013. Measures aimed at nature and landscape protection are included mainly in axis 2 of the Programme; these are particularly agro-environmental measures, payments within Natura 2000 on farmland and forest, and environmental forestry payments. Within the EU Fisheries Policy, the European Fisheries Fund supports the Operating Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013, also under the Ministry of Agriculture. Measures aimed at the protection of aquatic environments include environmentally friendly pond management, focused primarily on areas of high natural value.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/  ','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','CZ'),
	('Y','As a federal state, the task of conserving biological diversity in Germany is performed by the federal authorities and by the states (Länder) and local authorities. In addition, financial resources for the conservation of biodiversity are provided not only by the nature conservation sector, but also by other sectors (e.g. agriculture and forestry, transport, urban development, education and research). Among other things, these resources are used to support direct measures in the field of area and species conservation, nature -friendly use, research projects and associations. In addition to resources from the domestic budget, money for nature conservation measures is also provided by a number of foundations (public and private) and by the EU. ','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','5,984,622','0','0','7,256,837','2,281,802','0','2,929,847','478,174','0','5,206,702','1,207,888','0','10,165,331','1,448,173','0','DE'),
	('Y','Since 1989 the Danish Parliament has through the yearly Fiscal Act provided financial resources for a fund for Nature Management operated by the Danish Forest and Nature Agency of the Ministry of Environment. The fund is used in support of projects to:Restore nature areas and improve habitats of wild fauna and flora, including protected areas such as Natura 2000 sitesTo increase the area of state owned forest by afforestation in order to contribute to the objective of doubling the forest area of Denmark within 80-100 yearsImprove public access to nature areas and the possibilities for non-consumptive useTo conserve and manage the aesthetic and cultural values of open landscapesIn addition funds are allocated each year to the counties for use at regional level for the same purposes excl. afforestation.From 2007 the Danish public administration will undergo a radical change. The administrative middle layer of 14 counties will be closed down, their tasks divided between the municipalities and the State. The State will set up 5 new regions. The former municipalities will be merged into 98 larger units with broader responsibilities. Biodiversity issues will fall both at local municipality and State level (managed via the regions). Most international responsibilities lie at State level. ','Reference or title: National reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','1,926,183','2,093,309','0','5,637,649','1,539,893','0','0','3,158,665','0','2,334,821','0','0','1,710,820','1,081,047','0','DK'),
	('Y','Funding programmes for biodiversity relate in particular to the financing of activities under the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), which includes, among others, funding for the preservation of landscapes and biological diversity. Most of the funding for these specific activities comes from foreign aid funds. In total, 68% of the financing of NEAP activities came from the funds of enterprises, 21% from foreign funds, and 11% from state and local budget funds, incl. the funds of the Environmental Investment Centre (EIC). Most of the foreign aid was used for the implementation of water and waste projects aimed at fulfilling the EU requirements. Local budget financing was the most extensive in the field of water management. In spite of the fact that state budget financing for nature conservation is annually increasing, this is still insufficient to fulfil all obligations under the CBD.The State Budget Strategy 2007-2010 provides the principles of the government for composing the state budget within four years, main goals of activities, analysis of the economic situation, prediction of the economic development and other relevant financial information. The State Budget Strategy also plans the priorities and goals for use of the EU funding within the 2007 – 2013 period. The foreword to the document mentions, among others, preservation of the unique natural environment as a detail of a more flexible and sustainable model of the welfare society nature capital, including biodiversity. The valuation of natural resources is expected to be achieved by the taxation system. As a part of Priority 4: Lower environmental load, preservation of biodiversity as a basis for assuring generally favourable environment is seen, mostly by means of Natura 2000 areas and other protected areas and general nature protection management. The applied action plan of the document for environment includes measure 2.3 Preservation of biodiversity and securing sustainable use of natural resources as an investment from the European Regional Fund.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','816,337','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','583,931','0','0','525,215','0','0','EE'),
	('Y','A variety of funding sources for biodiversity exists in Greece. Regional channels include EU co funding and mainly LIFE, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, the European Fund for Fisheries, the European Development Cooperation funding instruments, and the 6th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development. The petrol tax that is generated by charges to petrol; is collected by the Ministry of Environment and used for activities, among others, dedicated to biodiversity. Within the Operational Program for the Environment, measure 8.1. is dedicated to ensuring the establishment and operation of Management Bodies for protected areas in Greece.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','757,715','0','0','625,894','0','0','0','0','0','1,253,173','785,000','0','833,641','850,385','0','EL'),
	('','As to national biodiversity funding programmes, little information was found in the 3rd and 4th national reports to the CBD hence no information is included here. For information on expenditure for Natura 2000 see below.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','7,118,541','93,324','0','2,212,251','523,874','0','18,377,375','0','0','13,607,343','787,357','0','9,404,573','0','0','ES'),
	('Y','The preparation of Finland\'s National Forest Programme 2015 has made use of Regional Forest Programmes for 2006–2011 drawn up by the Forestry Centres for their territories in a participatory process and with support from the Regional Forest Councils. The implementation of the programme is coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, supported by the National Forest Council and its secretariat. The NFP is financed by seven ministries and the private sector. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will prepare a revised action plan that specifies the responsibilities for the implementation of the programme, actors, schedule and Government funding. The Forest Council will modify the action plan on a yearly basis.The new METSO Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland for 2008–2016 was approved by the government in March 2008. It builds upon the experiences gathered from the first pilot phase in 2003–2007 and, as concerns privately owned forests, continues to rely on voluntary protection measures. Altogether 182 million euros have been allocated for its implementation. Most of these funds will be directed to conservation on private land, but funds will also be directed to acquisitions of areas by the state, research, habitat restoration, guidance and communications. The Act on the Financing of Sustainable Forestry was revised in 2008 so as to take into consideration the METSO programme. The Act also allocates funds to biodiversity-oriented management in private forests. This sum was raised to 8 million euros in 2009.Under the Research Programme of Deficiently Known and Threatened Forest Species (PUTTE), the quality of the data in the threatened species database, as well as the knowledge of the biology and ecology of poorly known species groups, is improved. The project has been funded by the Ministry of the Environment annually with 1–1.6 million euros in 2003–2007.The Finnish Agri-Environment Scheme (AES) consists of measures on three levels. All participating farmers have to apply five mandatory basic measures. These address cultivation planning, fertilisation, plant protection and biodiversity management issues. On top of these, all farmers are obliged to implement at least one additional measure, the choice of which has increased from 6 to 13 between the second and third AES periods. The third level of measures of the AES are the special contracts that address more specialized environmental issues and require more concerted actions on behalf of the farmer.Some examples of recent funding programmes: a) The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of the Environment funded the Academy of Finland\'s Research Programme on Environmental, Societal and Health Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms 2003–2007 (ESGEMO Programme). b) FINESSI (http://www.finessi.info/finessi/) was a three-year project funded by the Finnish Environment Institute during 2003–2006 to develop a computer-based evaluation framework for investigating the impacts of global change on various natural and managed systems in Finland.  c) With Article 8(j) of the CBD as a point of departure, the Ministry of the Environment has funded a study \"Biodiversity and the Saami: implementing Article 8(j) in the Saami homeland”.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','871,557','0','0','1,252,540','0','0','2,575,162','0','0','1,704,635','0','0','3,363,307','0','0','FI'),
	('Y','France’s expenses for biodiversity and landscape conservation comprise 4.2% of the total environmental protection budget. The conservation of biodiversity and landscape is mainly publicly financed, but local funding plays also an important role. At the focus of this funding is the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, in particular the Natura 2000 network. Another focus of funding is the implementation of a new law from 2006 on National Parks, Marine Nature Parks and Regional Nature Parks. For France’s overseas territories, increased funding has been foreseen for biodiversity conservation.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','8,027,127','0','0','1,358,244','0','0','2,260,693','0','0','2,387,768','0','0','6,040,295','0','0','FR'),
	('Y','After Hungary’s accession to the European Union, compared to domestic funds, financial resources from the European Union became dominant. In the period 2007-2013, a larger amount of project-based funds is available for activities aiming at biodiversity conservation. Financial sources for biodiversity related activities include the Life+ financial instrument and the Environment and Energy Operative Programme of the ‘New Hungary’ Development Plan. The following activities can be financed from these financial instruments: best practice or demonstration projects that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s nature conservation directives (Birds and Habitats Directives), projects that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s Biodiversity Action Plan, habitat reconstruction; ecotourism activities; conservation of threatened species; investments for nature conservation etc. The domestic budget for nature conservation is a very small percentage of the national budget. ','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','3,084,645','367,853','0','1,190,041','0','0','1,563,633','0','0','1,957,752','401,744','0','1,051,898','0','0','HU'),
	('Y','Budgetary allocations for biodiversity come from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but also from other Departments such as Agriculture and Food, Communication Marine and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs and the Environment Protection Agency.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','557,622','625,000','0','1,290,287','0','0','0','0','0','1,666,496','0','0','0','0','0','IE'),
	('Y','In Italy, there are various sources of funding for biodiversity. Besides national funding, decentralized cooperation promoted and funded by Regional Councils and local authorities has become more important over the last years. The 4th National Report to the CBD provides many examples of funding from national budgets (although there are no specific funding resources for Natura 2000 in ordinary national resources), including cofinancing of EU funds and funding from regional and local government sources.','Reference or title: National reports to CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','9,236,196','0','0','2,056,066','0','0','2,960,534','0','0','7,360,381','0','0','13,090,791','0','0','IT'),
	('Y','After Lithuania\'s accession to the European Union, compared to domestic funds, financial resources from the European Union became dominant. Relevant state programmes include the Environmental Protection Promotion Programme, with allocations for protection and management of biodiversity and landscape (including scientific studies of protected species, enforcement of control of use of nature resources, public information) and the Action Programme of Cohesion Encouraging for 2007-2013. The latter receives major funding from the European Regional Development Fund and includes the following biodiversity-relevant measures: Protection of biodiversity and landscape, Setting measures of water protection and management, Improvement of waterbodies condition, Coastal zone management, Assessment of polluted areas impact, Management of earlier polluted areas, Improvement of environment monitoring, control and prevention, Creation and development of public information system about the environment, and Implementation of actions under the public information system about the environment. Additionally, in the framework of the Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013 major funding is dedicated to forest ecosystems.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','0','0','0','2,369,624','0','0','0','0','0','2,014,582','0','0','0','0','0','LT'),
	('Y','The Plan National Protection Nature (PNPN) 2007-2011 contains a detailed budget for the envisaged measures to implement the seven targets of the 2007-2011 action plan: Target 1. Renforcement de la mise en oeuvre de mesures concrètes en faveur de la protection de la nature (total budget 2007-2011: EUR41,699,000)Target 2. Intégration de la protection de la nature dans d\'autres secteurs d\'activités et multiplication des acteurs (EUR4,649,000)Target 3. Désignation et gestion appropriée des zones d’intérêt national et communautaire (EUR1,480,000)Target 4. Mise à jour des instruments de planification légaux et réglementaires (EUR218,000)Target  5. Système de monitoring scientifique de l’état de la biodiversité et de l’efficacité de la mise en oeuvre de la politique en matière de protection de la nature (EUR1,040,000)Target 6. Promotion de la recherche scientifique dans le domaine de la biodiversité et de la conservation de la nature (EUR2,370,000)Target 7. Amélioration de la sensibilisation et de l’enseignement en matière de protection de la nature et du développement durable et coordination des acteurs (EUR785,000)The total spending foreseen is EUR52,241,000.','Reference or title: Plan National Protection Nature (PNPN) 2007-2011Weblink: http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PNPN/PNPNvfinale200407-2.pdf','0','0','0','1,132,031','0','0','0','0','0','1,493,999','0','0','0','0','0','LU'),
	('Y','In Latvia, there are direct budget allocations for nature conservation as well as indirect allocations through the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund (LEPF). In 1995 the Latvian parliament adopted a law “On Nature resources tax”, which provides for imposing tax on use of natural resources such as water, air, and packaging material. All tax is collected in the Latvian Environmental Protection fund, which finances project proposals in eight different budget lines. The most important are the budget lines “Biodiversity” and “Environmental education and awareness building”. LEPF also provides co -financing to important nature protection project proposals submitted to the Global Environmental Facility, EU LIFE programme, and bilateral projects. Biodiversity issues are fully integrated in the Rural Development Plan, implementation of which is financially supported by the EU European Agriculture Guidance Guaranty fund. Biodiversity issues concern both the requirements to be taken into account under regular agriculture activities as well as specially dedicated activities for the management of important habitats.Bilaterally the Danish EPA, as well as Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan have provided the most substantial support. Multilateral external funding sources relate to the EU and the GEF. In addition, EU subsidies are paid for the maintenance of biodiversity in agricultural lands; the Latvian Environmental Protection fund is financing smaller scale environmental and biodiversity protection projects.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','603,290','456,182','0','1,555,658','0','0','357,301','452,654','0','0','0','0','0','181,679','0','LV'),
	('','','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','0','0','0','0','0','0','459,867','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','MT'),
	('Y','Public resources for biodiversity include the following:The National budget, including the specific budgets of the ministries involved in biodiversity policy (i.e., Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management);Budgets of the provinces of the Netherlands (mainly financed by the National budget);Budgets of the municipalities of the Netherlands (only partly financed by the National budget);Budgets of the water boards in the Netherlands;EU resources.A mix of policies including financial support and incentives is developed and supplied in the Netherlands. The mayor ones include the following:Green funds: applied for a broad field of activities: e.g. nature conservation, sustainable forestry, etcAccelerated depreciation for investments: applied for a broad field of activities e.g. prevention of invasive species, fish migration facilities, and so on.A tax exemption is in place reducing the fiscal real estate value of historical estates (Natuurschoonwet). This measure provides essential support to the maintenance of privately owned nature areas. Tax exemptions in place in the Netherlands include gifts to conservation organisations; death duty tax for gifts; income from natural forestry; accelerated depreciation for specific investments; and investments in green funds.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','7,178,366','0','0','0','2,900,553','0','7,938,526','6,734,487','0','880,879','0','0','0',NULL,'0','NL'),
	('Y','The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej - NFOŚiGW) is a pillar of the Polish environmental protection funding system. The key objective of the NFOŚiGW lately has been effective and efficient use of funding from the European Union allocated for development and modernization of environmental protection infrastructure in Poland. The domestic source of NFOŚiGW’s funding are fees for economic use of environment and penalties for breaching environmental law as well as fees pursuant to the act on recycling of disused vehicles. The NFOŚiGW takes particular care of nature protection and survival of the most endangered species of animals and plants as well as building the public ecological awareness. Nature and landscape protection and support given to forestry are its priorities. Although nature, landscape and forests protection, on the average, has made up 3% of NFOŚiGW’s total spending on protection of environment and water management recently, the impact upon the fields has been still significant. Between 1989 and 2007, over 1000 contracts regarding “landscape and nature protection” were concluded and the subsidies amounted to over 257 million PLN.Adopted in August 2008, the Strategy of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management, formulating goals for nature protection in years 2009-2012, specifies that the cofinancing will cover active conservation of nature protection in protected areas in Poland aimed at limiting natural environment degradation and losses of biological diversity resources according to the National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity and National Forest Policy. Initiatives that will be legible to the support include actions for conservation of endangered species and genetic diversity of plants, animals, and fungi as well as restoring diversity in ecological corridors for ensuring proper operation of Natura 2000 network. Furthermore, the document emphasized that proper realization of conservation goals in such protected areas as nature reserves, national parks, landscape parks and Natura 2000 sites requires supporting the process of developing management plans and plans for protection of selected species or natural habitats. It is also necessary to restore proper conservation status of natural habitats in ecosystems and shelters of species, especially in Natura 2000 sites.The EcoFund Foundation has actively operated since 1992. The basic source of EcoFund\'s income are Polish debts for environment swap from the United States, France, Switzerland, Italy, and Norway. Between 1992 and 2007 EcoFund spent in total about 1,7 billion PLN on co-financing of about 1500 projects in five priority sectors. One of the sectors is conservation of biological diversity. The fund has spent in total 250 million PLN on such projects, which amounted to 15% of all the spending, including 15,5 million PLN in 2004 on 95 projects, 13 million PLN in 2005 (89 projects), and 14 million PLN in 2006 (88 projects). Financial support was provided by the EcoFund through various dedicated contests with the subsidy as the main prize. Since 2007, a procedure of financial support under Priority Axis V of Operational Programme Infrastructure and Environment has been used for programmes related to nature conservation and environmental education. Under the Rural Development Programme, agriculture and environment programs co-financing farms whose owners decided to take certain proenvironmental actions and observe the standards specified in Rural Development Programme. The support consists in refunding additional costs or compensating profits lost in result of changing the ways of farming. Other environmental funding sources come from cooperation programmes with Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','287,257','0','0','1,364,277','0','0','1,064,782','0','0','0','0','0','1,202,464','1.136.223','0','PL'),
	('Y','Beyond the Governmental Budget there are programmes financed by the EU, such as the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Fund for Fisheries, and the Financial Instrument for the Environment. Some fiscal exemptions exist for the inhabitants of the National Park of Peneda-Gerês as a compensatory measure for the existence of the protected area. Other tax exemptions are being studied to encourage financial support to biodiversity. In the preparation of the financial framework of EU 2007-2013, Portugal is reviewing her monetary policies, namely CAP, CFP and Cohesion Policy, to increase support for the financing of the Natura 2000 network.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/  ','1,064,172','0','0','0','0','0','2,065,565','0','0','2,004,460','0','0','660,139','0','0','PT'),
	('Y','A Fund for the Environment was created in Romania. It consists of the taxes for pollution and biological resources exploitation paid by economic agents. There are no special governmental programmes for biodiversity conservation, but the willingness to cofinance the best conservation projects of public or private organisations selected for this purpose. The Ministry of Environment and Water Management decided to support with larger funds and facilities the co-financing of applications to the Fund for the Environment for projects on biodiversity conservation and management of biological resources. The recent measure 3.3 of the SAPARD program will contribute to the development of green agriculture and agricultural biodiversity conservation. Financial support is strictly limited to the projects of the institutions subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Water Management and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development and for international co-financing. Bilateral external funding plays a significant role, coming from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, USA and other countries, multilateral funding from the EU and in the past from the GEF. ','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','367,949','0','0','1,544,050','0','0','773,186','0','0','612,803','0','0','1,478,963','0','0','RO'),
	('Y','The Swedish government has established budget appropriations for protection of biodiversity, agricultural management measures and purchase of forest land. Also relevant for biodiversity are management measures in farming, purchasing forest land of high conservation value or compensating forest owners for enhanced environmental stewardship. Although there are environmental payments and even entire posts on the national budget that have biodiversity as their main focus, a lot of other expenditures benefit both biodiversity and other issues. Besides the state, local authorities, businesses and households also spend money on improving the environment for themselves or others. ','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','1,050,381','0','0','2,065,483','0','0','0','381,288','0','4,028,214','0','0','10,965,119','0','0','SE'),
	('Y','Besides the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, other ministries provide funding for the implementation of the CBD. External funding, through EU resources, also plays a significant role. There is a process of monitoring financial support for biodiversity from the state budget that is being further developed.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/  ','1,437,574','0','0','0','0','0','1,506,164','0','0','0','0','0','295,923','0','0','SI'),
	('Y','The tasks set out in the NBSAP for Slovakia are financed from three main sources:The state budget (the main source) – in accordance with the general laws of the Slovak Republic, through the budgetary chapters of each department of government and their specialised departmental organisations. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture have concluded an agreement on “cross compliance”, i.e. the payment of subsidies to agricultural production to achieve environmental objectives relating to NATURA 2000 (the habitats directive and birds directive) and the water framework directive in Slovakia.The Environmental Fund (supplementary source) – established to provide state aid for environmental management in the Slovak Republic under the Ministry of the Environment.Various EU funds and programmes provided by the EU and EU-associated countries (Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands). It should be mentioned here that after its accession to the EU in 2004, Slovakia, as an OECD member state, was excluded from the list of beneficiaries from the Global Environment Facility, which is intended for developing countries, and strongly feels the lack of this funding.','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','250,122','0','0','540,000','312,000','0','1,124,316','0','0','2,288,832','0','0','906,505','0','0','SK'),
	('Y','Since 2000/01 there has been a year-on-year increase in biodiversity expenditure from the public sector in real terms, resulting in an overall increase of 112% (over the same period GDP increased 19%). The increases in public sector expenditure in the UK should be considered in the context of the need to increase funding, in tandem with the appropriate policy and legislative measures, to a level sufficient to meet biodiversity targets. The environmental protection expenditure account (EPEA) is a formal framework for the collection and compilation of data on environmental protection expenditure that is closely linked to the National Accounts. It is part of the wider conceptual structure for a harmonised monetary description of environmental protection activities developed by Eurostat in the early 1990s, known as the European System for the Collection of Economic Information on the Environment (SERIEE). The accounts cover all spending on environmental protection, including spending on biodiversity, which is within the domain of spending on biodiversity and landscape.  ','Reference or title: National Reports to the CBD; JNCC information on public spending on biodiversity; Report Public sector expenditure on UK and global biodiversity by R Harris & S Wellington, Defra Environment Statistics, 2009.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/; http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4251; ','2,505,470','0','0','3,305,968','0','0','0','941,348','0','0','2,723,233','0','4,386,604','0','0','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B1_1_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B1_1_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B1_1_4`;

CREATE TABLE `B1_1_4` (
  `Cat51_2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat51_2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat51_2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat51_2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat55_2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat55_2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat55_2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat55_2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat56_2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat56_2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat56_2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Cat56_2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B1_1_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B1_1_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B1_1_4` (`Cat51_2006`,`Cat51_2007`,`Cat51_2008`,`Cat51_2009`,`Cat55_2006`,`Cat55_2007`,`Cat55_2008`,`Cat55_2009`,`Cat56_2006`,`Cat56_2007`,`Cat56_2008`,`Cat56_2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','0','','','','175,000','','','','2,000,000','','','AT'),
	('','1,054,383','','','','15,427,183','','','','8,713,592','','','BE'),
	('','80,786,894','','','','18,074,389','','','','60,247,963','','','BG'),
	('','0','','','','0','','','','0','','','CY'),
	('','605,920,677','','','','66,971,972','','','','65,002,327','','','CZ'),
	('','50,619,560','','','','56,637,975','','','','85,970,068','','','DE'),
	('','0','','','','6,127,108','','','','6,127,108','','','DK'),
	('','21,729,961','','','','12,213,516','','','','12,213,516','','','EE'),
	('','179,763,000','','','','21,704,000','','','','31,790,000','','','EL'),
	('','681,821,904','','','','68,056,378','','','','63,484,373','','','ES'),
	('','1,932,884','','','','2,868,765','','','','12,104,438','','','FI'),
	('','175,187,846','','','','48,880,964','','','','103,442,222','','','FR'),
	('','125,800,000','','','','163,166,605','','','','113,891,226','','','HU'),
	('','0','','','','0','','','','3,500,000','','','IE'),
	('','57,132,769','','','','97,621,926','','','','238,087,169','','','IT'),
	('','71,849,743','','','','73,729,741','','','','42,736,547','','','LT'),
	('','0','','','','0','','','','0','','','LU'),
	('-','26,000,000','-','-','-','0','-','-','-','0','-','-','LV'),
	('-','1,700,000','-','-','-','19,130,000','-','-','-','4,250,000','-','-','MT'),
	('-','5,720,000','-','-','-','1,694,000','-','-','-','15,529,000','-','-','NL'),
	('-','135,077,500','-','-','-','72,694,634','-','-','-','98,646,828','-','-','PL'),
	('-','46,972,811','-','-','-','119,536,754','-','-','-','48,343,697','-','-','PT'),
	('','171,988,693','','','','63,901,273','','','','115,506,675','','','RO'),
	('-','1,980,000','-','-','-','360,000','-','-','-','1,500,00','-','-','SE'),
	('-','49,555,411','-','-','-','39,947,329','-','-','-','7,743,033','-','-','SI'),
	('','30,454,161','','','','0','','','','46,307,740','','','SK'),
	('-','69,608','--','-','-','28,981,758','-','-','-','59,955,837','-','-','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B1_1_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B1_1_8
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B1_1_8`;

CREATE TABLE `B1_1_8` (
  `Y2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B1_1_8` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B1_1_8` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B1_1_8` (`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Y2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('1,956,872','1,817,005','1,313,437','1,300,000','AT'),
	('','','','W: 3,190,000FL: 16,000,000','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('250,000','450,000','35,000','30,000','CY'),
	('','','','','CZ'),
	('90,000,000 ','90,000,000 ','90,000,000 ','90,000,000 ','DE'),
	('','','','','DK'),
	('','','','','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('41,025,700','34,711,500','30,933,900 ','35,014,200','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('12,000,000','  9,000,000','  4,000,000','  7,000,000','FR'),
	('','','13,600,000','14,700,000','HU'),
	('','','','','IE'),
	('','','','','IT'),
	('','','','','LT'),
	('59,000','36,000','54,000','600,100','LU'),
	('','','','','LV'),
	('','','','','MT'),
	('12,000,000','12,000,000','12,000,000','12,000,000','NL'),
	('','','','','PL'),
	('','','','','PT'),
	('','','','','RO'),
	('N/A','660,000','1,590,000','2,990,000','SE'),
	('','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('','','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B1_1_8` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B2_4
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B2_4`;

CREATE TABLE `B2_4` (
  `New` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Existing` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Develope` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NoNew` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Details` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B2_4` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B2_4` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B2_4` (`New`,`Existing`,`Develope`,`NoNew`,`Details`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','N','N','N','www.biologischevielfalt.at ','AT'),
	('Y','N','N','N','The National Biodiversity Strategy reflects the structure of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan that was developed based on the EC Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. Specific policy plans are developed at the regional level and exist in the Flemish Region (FL) and the Brussels Capital Region, and are in development in the Walloon Region (W).','BE'),
	('','','','','','BG'),
	('N','N','N','N','There isn\'t any strategic Plan or Action Plan prepared until today, something that is planned to be done in the next year.','CY'),
	('N','N','Y','N','The Czech Republic Ministry of the Environment is currently reviewing its strategic document - State Policy on the Environment. This document shall be in place until 2020. A special chapter is also dedicated to biodiversity issues and nature and landscape protection issues. They are currently thinking of how to best incorporate the outcomes of the environment ministers meeting on 15 March 2010 at the Council of the European Union.','CZ'),
	('Y','','','','Die Bundesregierung hat am 7. November 2007 die unter Federführung des Bundesumweltministeriums erarbeitete Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt beschlossen. Damit liegt in Deutschland erstmals eine umfassende und anspruchsvolle Strategie zur Umsetzung des UN-Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt vor, die rund 330 Ziele und rund 430 Maßnahmen zu allen biodiversitätsrelevanten Themen enthält. Im Kapitel „Anhang“ werden u. a. die Beschlüsse der verschiedenen Vertragsstaatenkonferenzen des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt sowie die Inhalte der EU-Biodiversitätsstrategie und der EU-Aktionspläne, u.a. der Mitteilung zum 2010-Ziel von 2006 den jeweiligen Abschnitten der nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt zugeordnet..','DE'),
	('Y','N','N','N','Green Growth agreement includes several actions in accordance with the Communication on the 2010 target.','DK'),
	('     ','     ','Y ','     ','The name of the new strategy is Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020. The years of implementation will be 2010 - 2020, to be adopted in 2010. As of yet only a draft is ready, so no link available. ','EE'),
	('','','','','','EL'),
	('','','Y','','The Strategic National Plan of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity is in development. The foreseen approval is 2010. Additional information related to this Plan can be found in the Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the National Law 42/2007, from 13th December, of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity.','ES'),
	('','','','','','FI'),
	('','Y','','','The National Strategy for Biodiversity was created in 2004. Its 10 action plans have been up-dated in 2009, this update took into account the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-plans-d-actions-de-la.html','FR'),
	('','Y','','','National Environmental Programme: In 1995, the Parliament passed the Act on General Rules of Environmental Protection, in which the detailed rules of the elaboration of National Environmental Programme are laid down. This Programme, as a framework for all national environmental goals and tasks, is renewed every six years.','HU'),
	('','','Y','','Draft National Biodiversity Plan due in June 2010','IE'),
	('','','Y','','The National Biodiversity Strategy is under development (foreseen for end of 2010). The Strategy is focused on the new challenges 2010 onwards, and clearly it builds on the results achieved within 2010 according to the Communication.','IT'),
	('N','N',NULL,'Y','','LT'),
	('Y','','','','Plan national concernant la protection de la nature, 2007: http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PNPN/PNPNvfinale200407-2.pdf','LU'),
	('Y','','','','Concept of the Environmental policy, 2009 - 2010, approved by the Government. New Biodiversity Programme should be due by 2012. http://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/dokumenti/ppd/?doc=9338   ','LV'),
	('','','Y','','In December 2006, a communication from Malta’s Environment and Planning Authority has been provided to the Commission regarding the EU Biodiversity Communication stated that Malta was preparing its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). The strategy will establish priority objectives for action to conserve sustainable use and manage local biodiversity, as well as aims to integrate biodiversity into cross-sectoral policies and programmes. The development of Malta’s NBSAP is still an ongoing process. Although an NBSAP is not yet in place, in the past years national documents of a strategic nature have been developed. These include for instance State of the Environment Reports (SOERs), State of the Environment Indicators (SOEIs), the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) and the National Report on the Strategic Action Plan for the Conservation of Maltese Coastal and Marine Biodiversity (SAPBIO Report). These documents have put forward a number of recommendations for safeguarding, as well as for conserving and managing, biological resources in the Maltese Islands. In this respect these documents have served a similar purpose as the NBSAP, that is, that of recommending activities for mainstreaming biodiversity across sectors. In addition, conservation endeavours have been undertaken nationally; these positively contribute to the objectives (whether directly or indirectly) of the Communication of putting biodiversity on the road of recovery.','MT'),
	('Y','Y','N','N',NULL,'NL'),
	('','Y','','','Existing National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, Action Plan 2007 - 2013.','PL'),
	('Y','','','','Legal regime of nature conservation and biodiversity (Decree-Law No. 142/2008 of 24 July) http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/14200/0459604611.pdf ','PT'),
	('','','','','','RO'),
	('','Y','','','Environmental Quality Objective \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\", in-depth evaluation conducted 2007: www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5773-2.pdf (English summary).','SE'),
	('N','Y','N','N','Natura 2000 management programme has been approved by the Government in October 2007 as a specific follow up of the National Environmental Action Programme and as up-date of a part of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. This management programme covers 35.5% of Slovenian territory, including many areas with outstanding biodiversity, and includes specific biodiversity targets for 2010.  ','SI'),
	('','','','','','SK'),
	('','Y','','','“Conserving Biodiversity – The UK Approach” was published in 2007 and was a response to a number of top-level drivers including EU’s target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010.  The Strategy can be downloaded from: http://defraweb/environment/biodiversity/documents/conbiouk-102007.pdf ','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B2_4` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B3_1_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B3_1_2`;

CREATE TABLE `B3_1_2` (
  `Local` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Regional` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `National` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B3_1_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B3_1_2` (`Local`,`Regional`,`National`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','10','AT'),
	('','21','','BE'),
	('','','','BG'),
	('0','0','0','CY'),
	('980','11','9','CZ'),
	('>1000','ca. 100','','DE'),
	('154','','1','DK'),
	('> 1','> 1','>1','EE'),
	('','','','EL'),
	('','','','ES'),
	('','','','FI'),
	('','20 ','1 ','FR'),
	('100-200','10','1','HU'),
	('0','0','2','IE'),
	('','','','IT'),
	('','','','LT'),
	('','','1','LU'),
	('','','','LV'),
	('','','','MT'),
	('','','','NL'),
	('','','','PL'),
	('','','','PT'),
	('','','','RO'),
	('','','','SE'),
	('','','','SI'),
	('','','','SK'),
	('','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B3_1_5
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B3_1_5`;

CREATE TABLE `B3_1_5` (
  `Local` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Regional` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `National` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B3_1_5` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_5` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B3_1_5` (`Local`,`Regional`,`National`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','N','AT'),
	('    Y','Y','Y','BE'),
	('','','','BG'),
	('N','N','N','CY'),
	('N','N','N','CZ'),
	('Y','Y','Y','DE'),
	('Y','Y','Y','DK'),
	('N','N','N','EE'),
	('','','','EL'),
	('N','N','N','ES'),
	('N','N','N','FI'),
	('N','N','N','FR'),
	('N','N','N','HU'),
	('N','N','N','IE'),
	('N','N','N','IT'),
	('N','N','N','LT'),
	('','Y','Y','LU'),
	('N','N','N','LV'),
	('Y','Y','Y','MT'),
	('','','','NL'),
	('N','N','N','PL'),
	('N','N','N','PT'),
	('N','N','N','RO'),
	('Y','N','Y','SE'),
	('','','','SI'),
	('N','N','N','SK'),
	('Y','Y','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_5` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B3_1_6
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B3_1_6`;

CREATE TABLE `B3_1_6` (
  `Y2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B3_1_6` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_6` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B3_1_6` (`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Y2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','10','AT'),
	('1','3 ','','8','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('0','0','0','0','CY'),
	('8','8','8','8','CZ'),
	('','','1','','DE'),
	('0','0','0','0','DK'),
	('1+','1+','1+','1+ ','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('1','1','3','2','FR'),
	('','','','','HU'),
	('1','1','1','1','IE'),
	('','','','','IT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LU'),
	('0','0','0','0','LV'),
	('','','','','MT'),
	('','','','','NL'),
	('N','N','N','N','PL'),
	('','1','','','PT'),
	('','','','','RO'),
	('','','','','SE'),
	('','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('','','','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_6` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B3_1_7
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B3_1_7`;

CREATE TABLE `B3_1_7` (
  `Y2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2009` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B3_1_7` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_7` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B3_1_7` (`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Y2009`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','1','AT'),
	('','','','','BE'),
	('','','','','BG'),
	('0','0','0','0','CY'),
	('','','','','CZ'),
	('','','','','DE'),
	('0','0','0','0','DK'),
	('>1','>1','>1','>1 ','EE'),
	('','','','','EL'),
	('','','','','ES'),
	('','','','','FI'),
	('1','','1','','FR'),
	('','','','','HU'),
	('0','0','0','0','IE'),
	('','','','','IT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LT'),
	('0','0','0','0','LU'),
	('0','0','0','0','LV'),
	('','','','','MT'),
	('','','','','NL'),
	('','','','','PL'),
	('','1','','','PT'),
	('','','','','RO'),
	('','','','','SE'),
	('','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','SK'),
	('0','0','0','0','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_7` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B3_1_8
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B3_1_8`;

CREATE TABLE `B3_1_8` (
  `EU` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NonEU` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B3_1_8` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_8` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B3_1_8` (`EU`,`NonEU`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('N','N','AT'),
	('N','N','BE'),
	('','','BG'),
	('N','N','CY'),
	('-','-','CZ'),
	('',' N','DE'),
	('N','N','DK'),
	('N','N','EE'),
	('','','EL'),
	('','','ES'),
	('','','FI'),
	('','','FR'),
	('N','N','HU'),
	('N/A','N/A','IE'),
	('N','','IT'),
	('N','N','LT'),
	('N','N','LU'),
	('N','','LV'),
	('N','N','MT'),
	('','','NL'),
	('N','','PL'),
	('','N','PT'),
	('','','RO'),
	('','Y','SE'),
	('','','SI'),
	('','','SK'),
	('N','N','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B3_1_8` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B4_1_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B4_1_1`;

CREATE TABLE `B4_1_1` (
  `Yes` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `No` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Dev` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `NotYet` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Partially` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Fully` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B4_1_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B4_1_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B4_1_1` (`Yes`,`No`,`Dev`,`NotYet`,`Partially`,`Fully`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Y','','','','','Y','AT'),
	('Y','','','','Y','','BE'),
	('','','','','','','BG'),
	('','x','','x','','','CY'),
	('-','X','-','-','-','-','CZ'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','DE'),
	('','N','','N','','','DK'),
	('     ','X','     ','','X','     ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','EL'),
	('Y','','','','','Y','ES'),
	('','','','','','','FI'),
	('','X','','','','','FR'),
	('','Y','','','Y','','HU'),
	('Y','','','','','Y','IE'),
	('Y','','','','','X','IT'),
	('Y','','','','PartiallyY','','LT'),
	('Y','','','','','Y','LU'),
	('','Y','','','','','LV'),
	('','','Y','Y','','','MT'),
	('X','','','','','Y','NL'),
	('','','Y','Y','','','PL'),
	('','N','','','','','PT'),
	('','','','','','','RO'),
	('','X','','','','','SE'),
	('','','','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','SK'),
	('Y','','','','Y','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B4_1_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table B4_1_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `B4_1_2`;

CREATE TABLE `B4_1_2` (
  `Y2006` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2007` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Y2008` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Declaration` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `B4_1_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B4_1_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `B4_1_2` (`Y2006`,`Y2007`,`Y2008`,`Declaration`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('25,000','13,333','13,333','Y','AT'),
	('0','53000  ','0','Y','BE'),
	('0','0','0','N','BG'),
	('0','0','0','N','CY'),
	('0','0','0','N','CZ'),
	('0','150,000','0','Y','DE'),
	('13,000','0','0',' Y ','DK'),
	('0','0','0','Y','EE'),
	('0','0','0','N','EL'),
	('0','0','0','Y','ES'),
	('10000','0','0','Y','FI'),
	('2,002,000','2,067,000','2,002,000','Y','FR'),
	('0','0','0','Y','HU'),
	('50000','0','0','Y','IE'),
	('350,000','335,000','225,000','Y','IT'),
	('0','0','0','N','LT'),
	('0','0','0','Y','LU'),
	('0','0','0','N','LV'),
	('0','0','0','N','MT'),
	('150,000    ','68,000    ','0','Y','NL'),
	('0','0','0','N','PL'),
	('0','0','0','Y','PT'),
	('0','0','0','N','RO'),
	('0','0','0','Y','SE'),
	('0','0','0','Y','SI'),
	('0','0','0','N','SK'),
	('1,266,666','1,266,666','6,266,666','Y','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `B4_1_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table C1_2
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `C1_2`;

CREATE TABLE `C1_2` (
  `SEBI` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `C1_2` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `C1_2` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `C1_2` (`SEBI`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('Within the existing set of 47 proposed indicators for the monitoring of biodiversity in Austria (MOBI), 16 indicators are implemented and reported, and some additional are in an implementation procedure for further development.In 2003 the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management initiated a project to control the changes of biodiversity in Austria. The proposed indicator set should allow documenting the changes of biodiversity in Austria. It should support the international commitments and reporting obligations (CBD, e.g.) and be harmonised with other international activities, using synergies with Habitats Directive monitoring, evaluation of rural development.The MOBI indicator set is comprehensible for decision makers and the public. It is aligned to concrete measures to conserve biodiversity. As a result of the cooperation with amateur biologists and laities (e.g. farmers counting species on their own land) the MOBI indicator set makes available rapid results as well as is active in increasing public awareness.Additional detail & Narrative summary of the above information (text provided should be able to stand alone):Within the existing set of 47 proposed indicators for the monitoring of biodiversity in Austria (MOBI), 16 indicators are implemented and reported, and some additional are in an implementation procedure for further development. In 2003 the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management initiated a project to control the changes of biodiversity in Austria. The proposed indicator set should allow documenting the changes of biodiversity in Austria. It should support the international commitments and reporting obligations (CBD, e.g.) and be harmonised with other international activities, using synergies with Habitats Directive monitoring, evaluation of rural development, The MOBI indicator set is comprehensible for decision makers and the public. It is aligned to concrete measures to conserve biodiversity. As a result of the cooperation with amateur biologists and laities (e.g. farmers counting species on their own land) the MOBI indicator set makes available rapid results as well as is active in increasing public awareness.Additional clarifications:Data source (if any)Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; Monitoring von Biodiversität in Österreich; Indikatoren-Bericht zur Biodiversität in ÖsterreichWeblink:  http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/; http://www.nachhaltigkeit.at/article/articleview/73917/1/25775 and http://www.umweltnet.at/article/articleview/48562/1/6914 When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here (Member State) : 09/02/2010When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here, steps 1 and 2 (Commission) : When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here, steps 1 and 2 (Contractor) : 09/12/200909/05/2010','AT'),
	('Of the 26 SEBI indicators, 19 are used in Belgium, with several amendments of the indicators in Flanders and Wallonie or both. There are 12 and about 20 additional biodiversity indicators in Wallonie and Flanders, respectively..','BE'),
	('Bulgaria applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, with five further indicators amended to the national circumstances.','BG'),
	('The development of biodiversity indicators is underway.','CY'),
	('The Czech Republic currently uses 24 of the 26 SEBI indicators, with the two remaining indicators (Marine Trophic Index of European Seas and Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) not being applicable to the country.','CZ'),
	('Germany has established a system of national biodiversity indicators, which reflects 14 of the 26 SEBI indicators and includes several additional indicators. Several of these indicators are new, and the collection of data has only just started, while other indicators make use of long-established systems of monitoring.','DE'),
	('Denmark currently applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators. The implementation of indicators is based on monitoring and the national commitments to the relevant EU Directives. Model-based indicators such as indicator 11 (impact of climate change on bird populations) are found to be rather difficult to use at the national level. The remaining 4-6 further SEBI indicators will be finalised in 2010.','DK'),
	('Estonia currently implements one of the SEBI indicators: nationally designated protected areas. The Estonian environmental indicator system is still under development and cannot be considered an official complete set as there has not been yet a decision on it at state level.','EE'),
	('Greece has adopted 15 of the SEBI indicators, with three of them being adapted to the national circumstances. It should be noted that the process of systematic data collection for the indicators has not started yet and some of the indicators are yet to be finalised.','EL'),
	('Spain has developed biodiversity indicators, within a wider system of environmental indicators. Many of these indicators correspond to the SEBI indicators. Spain has included in its national conservation law (Ley 42/2007, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad) the obligation to develop a National Indicators System. This system will be based on existing international indicator systems, such as SEBI 2010, and an annual national report on biodiversity will be produced using this information.','ES'),
	('Finland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 4 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances and another one is under development. There are several other biodiversity-relevant indicators, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','FI'),
	('Within the framework of the National Biodiversity Strategy, two first sets of national indicators (1 for mainland France and 1 for overseas territories) have been developed in 2007 in order to monitor biodiversity. The identification of these indicators, which are based on the State-Pressure-Response concept, resulted from the analysis of the challenges, and sub-topics underlying each challenge, facing biodiversity. This work largely rested upon the SEBI discussions. The methodology and each one of these indicators are described in two documents which are freely accessible (cf references and weblinks). Further work will consist in making a thorough assessment of the indicators needed and available, completing the current sets by indicators which have been developed since, ensuring the long term supply of the necessary data and developing further indicators to assess the effectiveness of the national policies for biodiversity preservation.Most SEBI indicators are included in the national set of indicators. These indicators are informed every year in the annual report of the French national strategy for biodiversity, if data is available). France is implementing a wide range of environmental and biodiversity indicators.  Of the 26 SEBI indicators, France has adopted directly or amended to the national circumstances 22; with only 4 indicators not applied or under development. There are six additional nationally-used biodiversity indicators.','FR'),
	('Hungary applies 18 of the SEBI indicators, while of the 23 indicators applicable to Hungary, 5 are not applied. ','HU'),
	('Ireland applies the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality and has nationally adapted the SEBI indicators on Abundance and distribution of selected species, Red List Index for European species, Species of European interest, Ecosystem coverage, and Habitats of European interest. There is no information on additional nationally-applied biodiversity indicators.','IE'),
	('Italy applies 4 of the SEBI indicators directly, with a further five indicators where Italy applies similar ones. There are also nine further indicators for biodiversity, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','IT'),
	('Lithuania applies 10 SEBI indicators directly and has nationally adapted further two: Evaluation of critical loads to ecosystems according to EMEP/CORINAIR requirements; and Nutrient flow through selected typical agro-ecosystems.','LT'),
	('A national biodiversity monitoring programme has been developed between 2008 and 2009. Its implementation will begin in 2010. A number of biodiversity indicators will be derived from the national biodiversity monitoring programme and will be regularly updated.','LU'),
	('Of the 26 SEBI indicators, Latvia applies two directly (Nationally designated protected areas, Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives), while 11 have been adapted to the national circumstances.','LV'),
	('Out of the 26 SEBI indicators listed, Malta has specified that 8 of these indicators have been computed for Malta. Additionally, for 6 of the SEBI indicators a similar biodiversity indicator has been identified. The remaining 12 indicators are not available or not applicable to Malta.','MT'),
	('The Netherlands apply 20 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, while having nationally adapted further 4 of the indicators. The only SEBI indicators not applied are Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms, and Patent applications based on genetic resources. The national nature balance report lists some 6 additional biodiversity indicators.','NL'),
	('Poland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 3 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','PL'),
	('O trabalho de consolidação da bateria de indicadores foi iniciado, de forma coordenada, no último trimestre de 2009. Apesar de Portugal ter vindo a contribuir com informação para diferentes indicadores, no âmbito de diferentes processos, não se encontra ainda consolidada uma bateria nacional de indicadores de biodiversidade, estando em curso trabalho nesse sentido. É ainda de referir que individualmente alguns dos indicadores incluidos na bateria SEBI 2010, ou semelhantes, são actualmente utilizados em Portugal.','PT'),
	('Romania applies 2 of the SEBI indicators directly (Nationally designated protected areas; Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives). 10 further SEBI indicators are similar but have been amended to the national circumstances; 6 indicators are in development or their use is being checked, and 8 SEBI indicators are not being used.','RO'),
	('Sweden is implementing a wide range of indicators, including 13 of the SEBI indicators, while there are many indicators additional to the SEBI indicators. 10 of the SEBI indicators are not implemented, while for approximately further three SEBI indicators national implementation or national indicators are under development.','SE'),
	('Within the National Environmental Action Programme in 2005, a range of indicators has been adopted. In the field of biodiversity and nature conservation, these indicators basically follow the logic of the SEBI indicators (as at that time SEBI indicators were not fully developed). As for the EU level not for all of the SEBI indicators national data exists.','SI'),
	('Slovakia applies 3 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 9 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','SK'),
	('The UK developed its indicators in parallel / in advance of the SEBI set and has used data which provide information on national progress towards meeting the 2010 target.  The indicators are closely aligned, but where the UK has better information available at a national level we have capitalised on that. The European Environment Agency has details of which SEBI indicators contain UK data. See also the review undertaken by the EEA in advance of the EIONET meeting in October 2009 for a correspondence between country indicators and the SEBI indicators.  ','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `C1_2` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table C1_2_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `C1_2_1`;

CREATE TABLE `C1_2_1` (
  `Abundance` text,
  `RedList` text,
  `Species` text,
  `Ecosystem` text,
  `Habitat` text,
  `Livestock` text,
  `Areas` text,
  `BirdSites` text,
  `Nitrogen` text,
  `Aliens` text,
  `BirdClimate` text,
  `MarineTrophic` text,
  `FragArea` text,
  `FragRicer` text,
  `NutrientCostal` text,
  `FWQuality` text,
  `ForestGrow` text,
  `ForestDead` text,
  `AgriNitro` text,
  `AgriAreas` text,
  `Fisheries` text,
  `Aquaculture` text,
  `Footprint` text,
  `Patent` text,
  `Finance` text,
  `Public` text,
  `Additional` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `C1_2_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `C1_2_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `C1_2_1` (`Abundance`,`RedList`,`Species`,`Ecosystem`,`Habitat`,`Livestock`,`Areas`,`BirdSites`,`Nitrogen`,`Aliens`,`BirdClimate`,`MarineTrophic`,`FragArea`,`FragRicer`,`NutrientCostal`,`FWQuality`,`ForestGrow`,`ForestDead`,`AgriNitro`,`AgriAreas`,`Fisheries`,`Aquaculture`,`Footprint`,`Patent`,`Finance`,`Public`,`Additional`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('See AL1 and AL3','See N4 and N5','','','See AL1','See G6','See N1','','See BO2','See N6','','','See KL3','','','See GW1','See W3','See W2','','See A1, A2, A3, A4, KL1, KL2','','','','','','See B1','','AT'),
	('Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','None','Same','Same in Flanders. Wallonie: Natura 2000 network','Same','Same','Flanders: Occurrence of southern European dragonflies, none in Wallonie ','None','Wallonie and Flanders: Under development (fragmentation of forests)','None in Wallonie, same in Flanders','None','Same','Same in Wallonie, Flanders: Area with management plan according to the criteria for sustainable forest management','Same in Wallonie, Flanders: Natural character of forests','Same','Wallonie: Agri-environment measures; extensification of agricultural production; same in Flanders','None','None','None in Wallonie, Flanders: Ecological footprint of consumption of renewable materials','None','Same in Wallonie, none in Flanders','Wallonie: Consumption of environmental products, Flanders: Frequency of visits to forest and nature areas; membership of non-governmental organisations for nature conservation','','BE'),
	('Same','Number of species in the Bulgarian Red List in the IUCN categories','None','Same','None','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Change in duration of vegetation period','Same','Same','None','Same','Same','Same','Same','Partially, see below','Same','Same','None','None','None','Number of projects related to biodiversity with international financing and relevant amount of money','Number of existing protected area management plans and Action Plans for species','','BG'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','CY'),
	('Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Not applicable','Same','Same','Not applicable','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','','CZ'),
	('Sustainability indicator for species diversity (birds), none for butterflies','Endangered species','Conservation status of Habitats Directive habitat types and species','None','Conservation status of Habitats Directive habitat types and species','None','Size of strictly protected areas','Natura 2000 area designations','Nitrogen surplus (overall balance sheet)','Number of non-native fauna and flora species in Germany','In development','None','Dissection of the landscape','None','None','Water quality: Proportion of water bodies with at least water quality grade II','None','None','Same','Agro-environmental subsidy (subsidised area); Organic farmland as a proportion of total agricultural land; High nature value farmland','Populations of selected commercial marine species; Sustainable marine fisheries','None','None','None','None','Significance of environmental policy goals and tasks','','DE'),
	('Common bird index','','Habitat Directive Species of European interest','Area of nature types','Habitat Directive Habitats of European Interest','Livestock genetic diversity','Nationally designated protected areas','','Nitrogen and phosphorus balance','Invasive alien species','','','','','Nutrients in marine and coastal waters','Water quality in lakes; water quality in  streams','','','Phosphorus balance','Organic farming','Commercial fish stocks','','','','Financing for biodiversity management','Nature guides','','DK'),
	('None','','','','','None','Same','None','','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None',NULL,'EE'),
	('Same','None','Same','None','Same','Same','Same','Same','None','Same','None','Same','Same','Same','None','Status of inland, transitional and coastal waters','Same','None','None','Same','None','None','None','None','Financing of actions for the implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy','Implementation of general and issue-based public awareness programmes','','EL'),
	('Farmland bird indicator','Threatened fauna','','Ecosystem coverage','','','Number and extent of protected areas','Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives','','Invasive alien species','','','','','','General water quality','','','','','','','','','Yes','Yes','','ES'),
	('Same','None','Same','None','Same','None','Time series on size of protected areas','None','None','none','None','None','Adapted','None','Adapted','None','Same','Same','Same','Organic farming','Under development','Same','None','None','None','None','','FI'),
	('indicators for trend in abundance of common birds, butterflies, freshwater fish, commercial fish stocks','Under development','Same (Habitats Directive Species only)','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same (Sufficiency and Area of Natura 2000 sites are used)','Evolution of pollutant concentration in waters','Number of management plans addressing invasive species','Impact of climate change on common breeding birds','Same','Trend in diversity of types of land use with low-level artificialisation at local scale','Under development','Proportion of transitional and marine waters in a good ecological status','Proportion of freshwaters in a good ecological status','- Gross annual production (which represents forest biological growth) per tree species - Amount of wood harvested per year','Quantity (per ha) of large standing and lying deadwood (diameter >35cm)','Same','Area of organic farming and proportion of the total cultivated area; area with agri-environment practices and proportion of the total cultivated area','Percentage of overfished species','None','None','Same (but difficult to implement)','Financing for the protection of biodiversity','Place for biodiversity given by the public among environmental stakes','See below under additional information','FR'),
	('Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Not applicable','Same','None','Not applicable','Same','Same','Same','None','Same','Not applicable','Same','None','None','Same','None','','HU'),
	('Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','Same','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','','IE'),
	('None','Abundance and level of threat to animal species; Abundance and level of threat to plant species','None','None','None','None','Same','Same','Same','Spread of alien animal and plant species','None','Quality required for shellfish waters','None','None','None','Macrodescriptors (75  percentile), Levels of pollution by macrodescriptors (LPM), Extended biotic index (EBI), Ecological state of rivers (ESR), Ecological state of lakes (ESL), Quality of waters needing protection to support the fish life, Chemical state of underground waters (CSUW)','Forest area: current situation and trends','None','None','Same','None','None','None','None','None','None','','IT'),
	('Same','None','Same','Same','Same','None','Same','Same','Evaluation of critical loads to ecosystems according to EMEP/CORINAIR requirements','Same','None','None','None','None','Same','Same','Same','None','Nutrient flow through selected typical agroecosystems','None','None','None','None','None','None','None','','LT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','LU'),
	('Yes, nationally adapted','None','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','None','Same','Same','None','None','None','None','Yes, nationally adapted','None','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','None','Yes, nationally adapted','Yes, nationally adapted','None','None','None','None','None','-','LV'),
	('Yes','Yes','Yes','Yes','Yes','N/a','Yes','Yes','Yes','Yes','N/a','N/a','N/a','N/a','Yes','Yes','N/a','N/a','Yes','N/a','N/a','N/a','N/a','N/a','Yes','Yes','-','MT'),
	('Same','Red List Index for Butterflies, Reptiles, Mammals, Amphibians, Vascular Plants, Toadstools/Mushrooms (indicator follows Dutch Red List classification, based on IUCN criteria)','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Large fish in catches in the Netherlands (available up to 2000)','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','Same','None','Similar but only in terms of real spatial use, not virtual spatial use by fossil fuels. Also a biodiversity footprint which expresses the loss of biodiversity outside the Netherlands due to Dutch consumption, in terms of mean species abundance','None','Same','Membership of nature conservation organisations; voluntary participation in nature and landscape management','-','NL'),
	('Nationally adapted','Same','Same','Nationally adapted','Same','None','Same','None','None','Same','None','None','None','None','None','None','Nationally adapted','Same','None','None','None','None','Same','None','None','None','-','PL'),
	('Idêntico (aves).                                                                                                                  - Sub-nacional: abundância e distribuição de moluscos terrestres, aves, répteis, morcegos e plantas (Madeira)','Em desenvolvimento  - Sub-nacional: espécies com estatuto de ameaça IUCN e do TOP 100 (Madeira)','Idêntico','Em desenvolvimento. - Sub-nacional: dados da carta de uso de solos do Inventário Florestal da Região Autónoma da Madeira e Direcção Regional de Informação Geográfica e Ordenamento do Território (Madeira)','Idêntico','Idêntico','Idêntico                                                                                                    - Sub-nacional: redes regionais de áreas protegidas (Açores, Madeira)','Idêntico','Em análise','Outros parâmetros em desenvolvimento - Sub-nacional: Espécies Invasoras (Açores) - Sub-nacional: Top 100 Invasoras (Madeira)','Em desenvolvimento','Em desenvolvimento','Em desenvolvimento. Forest Fragmentation and Rural Naturalisation/ 1984, 1994 and 2004, also trends in DesertWatch Project','Em análise','Em análise.- Sub-nacional: projecto de monitorização do IGA (Investimentos e Gestão da Água. S.A.) (Madeira)','Em análise- Sub-nacional: estado trófico das lagoas (concentração de fósforo total; média anual da concentração de clorofila; penetração da luz) (Açores)- Sub-nacional: qualidade das massas de água(concentração de CBO5; fósforo e azoto); indicadores pela Direcção Regional do Ordenamento do Território e dos Recursos Hídricos (Açores) - Sub-nacional: projecto de monitorização do IGA (Investimentos e Gestão da Água. S.A.) (Madeira)','Em desenvolvimento (dados de base no Inventário Florestal Nacional) -  Sub-nacional: Inventário Florestal da Região Autónoma da Madeira','- Floresta: Madeira morta – em desenvolvimento (dados de base no Inventário Florestal Nacional) - Sub-nacional: Inventário Florestal da Região Autónoma da Madeira','Em desenvolvimento- Sub-nacional: análise ao solo obrigatória(fósforo, potássio, pH, matéria orgânica) e apresentadas pelos agricultores à Direcção Regional do Desenvolvimento Agrário no âmbito das medidas agro-ambientais (Açores)','Em desenvolvimento- Sub-nacional: área natural preservada(hectares) ao abrigo de projectos elegíveis no âmbito da aplicação de medidas agro- ambientais (Açores)','Em análise','Não','Idêntico','Não','Em desenvolvimento',' Em desenvolvimento (alguns parâmetros ainda não consolidados) - Sub-nacional: número médio de participantes em acções de participação pública (Açores)','','PT'),
	('Restricted to bird monitoring','None','Similar','None','Similar','In development','Same','Same','None','In development','None','The following parameters are monitored: Total inorganic nitrogene, phosphates, silicates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytobenthos, and zoobenthos','None','In development','In development','Surface water quality','Similar','In development','Similar','Similar','Similar','In development','None','None','Internal current expenditure for environment protection, by sector of activity, environment field and category of producers','Not quantitatively available','-','RO'),
	('Common Bird Index; Breeding birds on agricultural land; Breeding wetland birds; Breeding forest birds; Mountain breeding birds','Under development','Number of wolverines and reindeer in mountain areas','Old forest; Old deciduous-dominated forest; Semi-natural grazing land; Mown meadows; Arable land','-','-','Protected wetlands; Protected areas in the Mire Protection Plan; Protected lakes and rivers; Protected forest land; Protected mountain environments','None','Nitrogen dioxide in air; NOx emissions','Under development','Occurrence of temperature-sensitive species','-','New buildings near the seas shore; New buildings near lake shores and river banks','New buildings near lake shores and river banks; Artificial wetlands','Nitrogen in the sea; Phosphorus and nitrogen entering coastal areas','Limited nutrient leaching - catch crops; Limited nutrient leaching - protection zones; Energy use; Reproduction of freshwater pearl mussel; Nitrogen deposition; Sulphur deposition; Breeding birds near water; Protected lakes and watercourses; New buildings near lake shores and river banks; Plant protection products','Data are available but no indicator','Hard deadwood','Nitrogen deposition','Organic livestock production; Land under organic cultivation; Mown meadows; Pastures','Data exist; indicator under development','-','-','-','-','Membership numbers of nature conservation organisations (under development)','-','SE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SI'),
	('Nationally adapted','Same','Nationally adapted','Same','Nationally adapted','None','None','None','Nationally adapted','Same','Nationally adapted','None','None','None','None','Nationally adapted','Nationally adapted','None','Nationally adapted','None','None','None','None','None','Nationally adapted','None','','SK'),
	('Populations of selected species (birds, butterflies, bats, plant diversity)','None','Status of UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species','None','Status of UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats','Genetic diversity (native sheep breeds, native cattle breeds)','Extent and condition of UK protected areas','Extent and condition of UK protected areas','Ecological impacts of air pollution','Impact of invasive species','None','Marine ecosystem integrity (size of fish in the North Sea)','Habitat connectivity','None','None','Biological river quality','None','None','None','Area of land under agri-environment scheme management; Woodland management','None','None','None','None','UK biodiversity expenditure; UK government funding for global biodiversity','Conservation volunteering','','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `C1_2_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table C1_3_1
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `C1_3_1`;

CREATE TABLE `C1_3_1` (
  `Costal` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Dunes` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FWHabitats` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Heath` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Scrub` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Grass` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Bogs` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Rocky` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Forest` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `HabitatOther` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Birds` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Mammals` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Amphibians` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Fish` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Inverts` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Plants` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `SpeciesOther` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CostalDetail` text,
  `DunesDetail` text,
  `FWHabitatsDetail` text,
  `HeathDetail` text,
  `ScrubDetail` text,
  `GrassDetail` text,
  `BogsDetail` text,
  `RockyDetail` text,
  `ForestDetail` text,
  `HabitatOtherDetail` text,
  `BirdsDetail` text,
  `MammalsDetail` text,
  `AmphibiansDetail` text,
  `FishDetail` text,
  `InvertsDetail` text,
  `PlantsDetail` text,
  `SpeciesOtherDetail` text,
  `CountryCode` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`CountryCode`),
  UNIQUE KEY `CountryCode` (`CountryCode`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `C1_3_1` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `C1_3_1` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `C1_3_1` (`Costal`,`Dunes`,`FWHabitats`,`Heath`,`Scrub`,`Grass`,`Bogs`,`Rocky`,`Forest`,`HabitatOther`,`Birds`,`Mammals`,`Amphibians`,`Fish`,`Inverts`,`Plants`,`SpeciesOther`,`CostalDetail`,`DunesDetail`,`FWHabitatsDetail`,`HeathDetail`,`ScrubDetail`,`GrassDetail`,`BogsDetail`,`RockyDetail`,`ForestDetail`,`HabitatOtherDetail`,`BirdsDetail`,`MammalsDetail`,`AmphibiansDetail`,`FishDetail`,`InvertsDetail`,`PlantsDetail`,`SpeciesOtherDetail`,`CountryCode`)
VALUES
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','AT'),
	('Fl: 5','Fl: 3','Fl: 6W: 1','Fl: 1','Fl: 1','Fl: 2','Fl: 2 ','W:1','Fl: 4W: 1BHG: 2','BHG: 1','Fl: 12W: 1BHG: 1','Fl: 6W: 1BHG: 3','Fl: 2W: 1','FL: 1W: 1BHG: 1','Fl: 9W: 4BHG: 1','Fl: 8W: 1BHG: 1','Fl: 1BHG: 3','Fl: Bio-monitoring of the Schelde-estuary.  Monitoring the nature development of the Schelde-estuary. Evaluation and monitoring of nature values in and near the harbour of Antwerpen. Habitat mapping. Monitoring of the nature development in the IJzermonding - Vegetation.','Fl: Permanent Inventory of the Coastal dune Nature Reserves. Vegetation dynamics in dune areas. Habitat mapping.','Fl: Inventory of the Natura 2000 water habitat types on the Flemish level.  Integrated monitoring of the river Meuse. Ecological monitoring of gravel ridges in the river Meuse. Different monitopring programmes for the Water Frame Work Directive (e.g. macrofytes and fysicio-chemical conditions of rivers and lakes). Pondscape: towards a sustainable management of pond diversity at the landscape level.','Fl: Habitat mapping.','Fl: Habitata mapping','Fl: Monitoring of species-rich grasslands. Habitat mapping. ','Fl: Research on  ecohydrologic reference data of water dependent vegetation types in valley areas. Habitat mapping.','','Fl: Systematic Forest Inventroy. Monitoring programme in forest reserves and unmanaged forests. Habitat mapping. Programme for the intensive monitoring of forest-ecosystems (= effects of acidification and nitorgen depostions)  Permanent inventory of forest ressources of WalloniaBHG: Forest inventory; Forest Health Survey','BHG: Natura 2000 habitats (conservation status)','FL: Flemish Special Breeding Bird Project; Flemish Common Breeding Bird Project; Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Birds; Bio-monitoring of the Schelde-estuary - Waterbirds; Evaluation and monitoring of nature values in and near the harbour of Antwerpen - Birds; Monitoring of the Flemish beaches; Monitoring of marine areas; Monitoring of the nature values in the Bird Directive Area Zeebrugge-Heist; Aerial counts of seaducks; Monitoring of the nature development in the IJzermonding - Birds; Flemish Waterbird Counts; Evaluation (by monitoring) of NTMB-projects along the IJzer - Birds;  See common birds monitoring schemeBHG: Listening points breeding birds','Fl: Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Bats, Evaluation and monitoring of nature values in and near the harbour of Antwerpen - Bats; Population-ecological research on carnivores in Flanders; Overwintering bats; nest counts common dormouse; burrow counts European Hamster BHG:Bats (land transects and pond inventories); roe dee','Fl: Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Amphibians; Evaluation and monitoring of nature values in and near the harbour of Antwerpen - Natterjack Toad Bufo calamita;  ','Fl: Monitoring of freshwater fish; Fish inventory by electric fishingBHG: WFD','Fl: Butterly Monitoring Flanders (N-Belgium); Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Dragonflies, Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Grasshoppers; Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Butterflies; Monitoring the nature development of the Schelde-estuary - Macrobenthos; Evaluation and monitoring of nature values in and near the harbour of Antwerpen - Butterflies; Monitoring of the nature development in the IJzermonding - Arthropoda; Evaluation (by monitoring) of NTMB-projects along the IJzer - Macro-invertebrates; Biomonitoring of the Schelde-estuary - MacrobenthosBHG: macro-invertebrates (WFD)','FL: Permanent Inventory of the Coastal Nature Reserves - Vegetation; Bio-monitoring of the Schelde-estuary - Vegetation; Monitoring the nature development of the Schelde-estuary - Vegetation; Evaluation and monitoring of nature values in and near the harbour of Antwerpen - Vegetation; Monitoring of the nature development in the IJzermonding - Vegetation; Florabank; Evaluation (by monitoring) of NTMB-projects along the IJzer - Higher plants; Ecological monitoring of gravel ridges in the Grensmaas - Aquatic plantsBHG: higher plants within the forest inventory framework','BHG:macrofytes; Bacillariophyceae; phytoplankton (all 3 for WFD) Fl:Monitoring programme in forest reserves and unmanaged forests - Fungi;   ','BE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','BG'),
	('1','','1','1','1','1','','','few','','Life ','> 10 yrs','> 20yrs','','','','','CAMP','','','','','','','','','','3 years monitoring plan','Cyprus mufflon','Turtles','','sporadic research','Red Data List','','CY'),
	('1','1','1','1','1','1','1','1','1','1','1','39','32','18','46','51','-','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats',NULL,'One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','One common monitoring scheme for all habitats','CZ Birds Directive montoring scheme covers all listed species','All the species of the annexes are covered by specific monitoring scheme, chiropterans are covered by one common scheme','All the species of the annexes are covered by specific monitoring scheme','All the species of the annexes are covered by specific monitoring scheme','All the species of the annexes are covered by specific monitoring scheme','All the species of the annexes are covered by specific monitoring scheme','-','CZ'),
	('12','12','12','5','1','15','8','9','17','','4','28','20','10','35','17','','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied; Synergies with TMAP are used','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied; some overlap with monitoring for HNV indicator','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied','Typical species, structures and important derogation factors are recorded at occurrences included in the programme: Depending on distribution and area covered full census or sampling approaches are applied; frequent forest habitat types are included in the national forest inventory; Habitat type 9120 is included in 9110','','Monitoring of common breeding birds by the Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten (DDA)- the Federation of German Avifaunists - has provided reliable information on the widespread common bird species of Germany since 1990. Further important modules of bird observation are the \"rare breeding birds monitoring\" and the monitoring programmes for resting waterbirds (e.g. International Waterbird Census, Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Programm of the Wadden Sea, Seabirds at Sea), as well as monitoring of birds of prey and owls and the \"Integrated Monitoring of Songbird Populations\".','','','','','','','DE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','DK'),
	('2','     ','     ','2','     ','4','3','1','3','     ','11','7','1','1','9','2','2','Coastal landscapes, coastal meadows   ','     ','     ','Alvars, heaths','     ','Dry and wooded meadows, floodplain meadows, coastal meadows, agriculture landscapes','Bogs, fens, forest and moor fire zones  ','Forests on clint','Forests, forests on clint, forest and moor fire zones','     ','Woodpeckers, raptors and owls, eagles and black stork, Galliformes Tetraonidae, wintering waterbirds, Anseriformes + Cygnus + Grus grus, breeding birds of various habitats, breeding birds of bogs and fens, winter birds in various habitats, breeding birds of small islets, dead birds on the coastline ','European mink, grey seal, ringed seal, flying squirrel, otter, bats, roe deer, red deer, wild boar, moose, lynx, wolf, brown bear ','Amphibians and reptiles ','Protected fish','Dry land snails, crayfish, pearl mussel, butterflies, dragonflies, moths, bumblebees, Formica sp, Hirudo medicinalis ','Vascular plants, mosses','Fungi, soil biology ','EE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','EL'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','1 ','1','1','1','1','1','','','','','','','','','','','','National level. Monitoring scheme ongoing from 1998','National level. Monitoring scheme ongoing from 2010','National level. Monitoring scheme ongoing from 2009','National level (continental fish). Monitoring scheme ongoing from 2009','National level. Monitoring scheme ongoing from 2010','National level. Monitoring scheme ongoing from 2010','','ES'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','FI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','Method for the assessment of conservation status of calcareous grasslands ','','','Method for the assessment of conservation status of Natura 2000 sites','French cartography of natural habitats            (1/100 000)','French Breeding bird surveyFrench Winter farmland birds survey','French common bat survey','','','French Rhopalocera  surveyFrench garden butterflies survey','French common plants survey','','FR'),
	('1','','1','1','1','1','1','','1','1','4','5','2','1','4','2','','1530 habitat type is included in the monitoring scheme for grasslands.','','','40A0 habitat type is included in the monitoring scheme for grasslands.','5130 habitat type is included in the monitoring scheme for grasslands.','','7110, 7140, 7210, 7230 habitat types are included in the monitoring scheme for grasslands. 7220 habitat type is included in the monitoring scheme for freshwater habitats.','','','Habitat mapping','There are monitoring schemes for rare and colonially-nesting birds, Common Birds, waterfowl and for raptors.','There are monitoring schemes for European Ground Squirrel, for bat communities, for trapping of small rodents (including Root Vole), for large carnivores (Lynx, Wolf) and for the nest tube of dormouse species.','There is a community level monitoring scheme for the 32 Hungarian species, and one for trapping newts.','','There are monitoring schemes for orthopterans (community and species level), for butterflies (community and species level), for ground-surface arthropods, and for aquatic macroscopic invertebrates (community level).','There are monitoring schemes for plants (including the 36 species of community interest) and for moss species (community and species level).','','HU'),
	('3','1','3','0','1','1','3','2','1','','25','12','2','2','7','4','','Baseline monitoring of seacliff, saltmarsh & lagoonsBiological data is currently being gathered for marine habitats','Baseline monitoring of dunes','Research to develop indicators for turloughs and floating river vegetationEPA water quality monitoring (river and lakes)','Baseline monitoring of Upland habitats','Baseline monitoring of Juniper scrub','Baseline monitoring of grassland habitats','Baseline monitoring of Upland habitatsMonitoring of Raised Bog habitatsResearch and baseline monitoring of Petrifying Springs','Baseline monitoring of Upland habitatsBaseline monitoring of Limestone pavement','Monitoring of Woodlands','','Bewick & Whooper SwanGreenland White-fronted GooseBarnacle GooseBrent GooseCorncrakeTernsHen HarrierPeregrine FalconChoughGolden Plover & DunlinRed GrouseRed-throated DiverKingfisherCommon ScoterGolden EagleRed KiteSea EagleGreylag GooseMerlinBreeding seabirdsWintering waterbirdsWaterways birds surveyCountryside Bird SurveyBird AtlasSeabirds at sea (restricted area)','Otter monitoring survey (national and catchment level)Daubenton\'s Bat waterway monitoring programmePipistrelle & Leisler\'s Bat national car transect monitoring programmeMyotis bat research to develop monitoring indicatorsBatlas (baseline bat distribution)National baseline pine marten surveyNational grey and harbour seal surveysCetacean distribution surveyConstant effort cetacean monitoringDolphin monitoring in selected sites','Baseline monitoring of the common frogMonitoring of the Natterjack toad ','Baseline monitoring of LampreySalmon programme ','Monitoring of Vertigo speciesIndirect monitoring of white-clawed crayfish in rivers - EPABaseline lake monitoring programme of white-clawed crayfishMonitoring of Marsh fritillary larval websButterfly transects (indirectly Marsh Fritillary)Research and baseline monitoring of Kerry slug Monitoring of Freshwater Pearl Mussel','Reseach and monitoring of Marsh Saxifrage, Petalwort, Slender green feather moss, Killarney fern and Clubmosses.Monitoring of slender naiad','','IE'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','IT'),
	('1','1','3','1','','1','1','','1','1','5','1','1','1','1','1','2','','','','','','','','','','','Parts of NEMP - Monitoring of globally threatened species (except corncrake); Monitoring of corncrake; Monitoring of accumulation sites of migratory waterfowl and wetland birds; Monitoring of rare breeding bird species; Monitoring of meeting areas of the migration ways of birds; more than 100 sites in total, parameters of individual or pair abundance of species; degree of preservation of site conditions ','Part of NEMP - Monitoring of rare mammals; 35 sites, parameters of individual abundance, regarding the species; degree of preservation of habitat conditions, important for the observed species, and their restoration possibilities','Part of NEMP - Monitoring of rare reptiles and amphibians; 11 sites, parameters of individual abundance, regarding the species; degree of preservation of habitat conditions, important for the observed species, and their restoration possibilities','Part of NEMP - Monitoring of rare fish and lamprey species; 24 sites, parameters of individual abundance, regarding the species; degree of preservation of habitat conditions, important for the observed species, and their restoration possibilities','Part of NEMP - Monitoring of rare invertebrate species; 38 sites, parameters of individual abundance, regarding the species; degree of preservation of habitat conditions, important for the observed species, and their restoration possibilities','Part of NEMP - Monitoring of rare plant species; 55 sites, individual abundance, viability, fertility, area occupied by population, habitat characterstics, degree of preservation of habitat conditions, important for the observed species, and their restoration possibilities ','Part of NEMP - Monitoring of other species of EU importance (wolf and beaver)','LT'),
	('','','1','1','1','1','1','1','1','','1','1','1','1','1','1','','','','A national monitoring programme will be launched in 2010, a national inventory of annex 1 habitats was carried out between 2007 and 2010.','id.','id.','id.','id.','id.','id.','','Common bird monitoring programme initiated in 2009','Species on the annexes of the Habitats Directive will be monitored starting in 2010.','id.','id.','id.','id.','','LU'),
	('2','2','2','1','-','1','1','1','1','','2','0','1','1','0','1','','1) Subprogramm of coastal habitats and species monitoring of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (in 2008)2) Natura 2000 monitoring programme','1) Subprogramm of coastal habitats and species monitoring of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (in 2008)2) Natura 2000 monitoring programme','1) Subprgram under the National Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (in 2009)2) Natura 2000 monitoring programme','Natura 2000 monitoring programme','Not relevant','Natura 2000 monitoring programme','Natura 2000 monitoring programme','Natura 2000 monitoring programme','Natura 2000 monitoring programme','','1) Monitoring of birds under the National Monitoring Programme (in 2008 and 2009)2) Monitoring of wintering seabirds','','Monitoring of amphibians under the National Monitoring Programme (in 2008)','Monitoring of fish under the National Monitoring Programme (in 2008 and 2009)','','Natura 2000 monitoring programme','','LV'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','1','','','1','','','','','','','','','','','','','','Bird ringing','','','Malta has participated in the collection of data under the DCF since 2005, through the Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences (MCFS). The results are used in national and regional fisheries management processes. Data sources include the MEDITS Trawl survey and the MEDLEM Monitoring Programme.','','Ad-hoc','','MT'),
	('1','3','2','2','2','2','2','0','1','','1','1','1','2','1','2','','RWS, TMAP','RWS','RWS, STOWA','Natuurkwaliteit, SNL renewal in progres','same','same','same','','FUTMON new programm in preparation','','trends and range','same','same','1 saltwater 2 freshwater','','Two shemes: one on a national level and one on a provincial level','','NL'),
	(' 2','0','3','2','1','4','1','2','5','','11','2','3','15','4','20','','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','As part of National Environmental Monitoring','PL'),
	('1','','2','1','','1','1','1','3','','28','9','1','4','3','6','','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/Programa sub-nacional - estudo da hidromorfologia a cada 6 anos (rede de 320 estações em rios)','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','IFN 1995-98 (2336 pontos) / IFN 2005-2006 (12.258 parcelas das quais 6.897 em áreas florestais e 2.121 em matos)Borges, P.A.V., e tal. (2005). Ranking protected areas in the Azores using standardized sampling of soil epigean arthropods. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14: 2029-2060http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','','INTERREG MARMAC (2006-2008) (Conhecimento, Promoção e Valorização para a Utilização Sustentada de Áreas Marinhas Protegidas da Macaronésia) co-financiado pelo programa INTERREG III-B/FEDER onde foi realizado o estudo da ecologia pelágica de cagarros no arquipélago dos Açores através de telemetria por satélite e da caracterização oceanográfica das áreas de alimentação, bem como a realização de censos  populacionais das aves marinhas que nidificam no arquipélago.Programas nacionais1) Monitorização anual de Otis tarda durante a época de reprodução em toda a área de distribuição da espécie2) Programa Nacional de Monitorização de Aves Aquáticas Invernantes, que incide sobre as zonas húmidas mais importantes para estas espécies3) Monitorização anual de aves comuns que incide sobre todo o território continental4) Monitorização anual de Aquila adalberti durante a época de reprodução que incide sobre toda a actual área de distribuição5) Monitorização da população nidificante de Cegonha-branca através da realização de um censo de 10 em 10 anos 8) 2) Compilação dos resultados anuais da exploração de espécies cinegéticas de 4370 zonas de caçaProgramas sub-nacionais1) Monitorização dos núcleos de ocorrência de Pyrrhocorax phyrrocorax (Parque Natural das Serras de Aire e Candeeiros, Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina, Parque Natural da Serra da Estrela; Parque Nacional da Peneda-Gerês)2) Monitorização de aves rupícolas durante a época de nidificação (Gyps fulvus, Neophron percnopetrus, Hieraaetus fasciatus, Aquila chrysaetos, Ciconia nigra. Bubo bubo, Oenanthe leucura) no Parque Natural da Serra de S. Mamede;3) Monitorização de Coracias garrulus durante a época de nidificação na ZPE Campo Maior;4) Monitorização anual de Larus michahellis, Phalacrocorax aristotelis e Uria aalge na ZPE Ilhas Berlengas5) Monitorização anual de anatídeos, ardeídeos e Plataleia leucorodia na Reserva Natural do Paul do Boquilobo6) Monitorização anual de rapinas e aves marinhas na Reserva Natural das Lagoas de Santo André e Sancha7) Monitorização da nidificação de anatídeos na Reserva Natural das Dunas de S. Jacinto8) Monitorização da nidificação de Alcedo atthis, Ardea cinerea, Ardea purpurea, Cettia cetti, Nycticorax nycticorax, passeriformes florestais e paludícolas nos pauis do Baixo Mondego (Taipal e/ou Madriz) 9) Monitorização da nidificação de Glareola pratincola e Sterna albifrons na Reserva Natural do Estuário do Tejo10) Monitorização da nidificação de Parus major e Larus aduoinii na Reserva Natural do Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Santo António11) Monitorização da nidificação de Hieraaetus fasciatus, Falco peregrinus, Apus melba, Phalacrocorax aristotelis, Accipiter nisus no Parque Natural de Sintra-Cascais12) Monitorização de aves rupícolas durante a época de nidificação (Gyps fulvus, Neophron percnopetrus, Hieraaetus fasciatus, Aquila chrysaetos, Ciconia nigra. Falco peregrinus) no Parque Natural do Douro Internacional;13) Monitorização mensal da população invernante de Grus grus nas ZPE Vale do Guadiana, Castro Verde e áreas envolventes14) Monitorização da nidificação de Hieraaetus fasciatus nas ZPE Vale do Guadiana, Castro Verde e áreas envolventes15) Monitorização da nidificação de Ciconia nigra e Aquila chrysaetos na ZPE Vale do Guadiana 16) Contagens de Pterocles orientalis no Outono e Primavera nas ZPE Vale do Guadiana e Castro Verde17) Monitorização dos casais nidificantes de Falco peregrinus na ZPE Costa Sudoeste Ver A.1.3.1 e A.3.6.2','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/Programas Nacionais 1) Programa de monitorização de morcegos cavernícolas que abrange 30 abrigos subterrâneos2) Monitorização da população de Canis lupus através da realização de censos nacionais com uma periodicidade aproximada de 6 a 8 anos3) Monitorização continuada da população de Canis lupus através da recolha de dados resultantes da verificação dos prejuízos causados por esta espécie sobre os efectivos pecuários4) Monitorização da mortalidade de Canis lupus através de um sistema de recolha e centralização dos espécimes encontrados mortos5) Compilação dos resultados anuais da exploração de espécies cinegéticas de 4370 zonas de caçaVer A.1.3.1 e A.3.6.2','Ver A.1.3.1','Programas sub-nacionais - Avaliação da qualidade ecológica utilizando um Índice de qualidade ictiológica a cada 6 anos (Projecto Aquariport)Desenvolvimento de eco-survey como um método de caracterização das populações de peixes em albufeirasVer A.1.3.1','Borges, P.A.V., e tal. (2005). Ranking protected areas in the Azores using standardized sampling of soil epigean arthropods. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14: 2029-2060Programa sub-nacional  -avaliação da propagação de duas espécies de lagostins exóticos no Rio Maçãs (rede de 12 estações)Ver A.1.3.1','http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/Programas sub-nacionais - 1) Monitorização da área de ocorrência de Narcisus fernandesii no Parque Natural do Vale do Guadiana2) Monitorização da evolução de núcleos cartografados de Astragalus tragacantha subsp.vicentinus (a médio/longo prazo) relativamente ao efeito da perturbação humana associada às arribas costeiras (pisoteio, circulação veículos)Ver A.1.3.1.','','PT'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','RO'),
	('>7','1','>10','>2','0','>2','>5','2','>5','>20','>4','>10','>3','>4','>5','>5','>10','Around 7 schemes more directly aimed at aspects for Conservation Status Assessments, more than 32 in total.','1 method, designed for monitoring of dunes in protected areas. ','Around 10 schemes more directly aimed at aspects for Conservation Status Assessments, more than 35 in total.','At least two landscape-covering schemes with important monitoring, more than 20 in total (including for example monitoring of hatching birds).','Vegetation type not well developed in Sweden.','At least two landscape-covering schemes with important monitoring, more than 20 in total (including for example monitoring of hatching birds).','At least two landscape-covering schemes with important monitoring, a few more yet only covering parts of the country, more than 20 in total (including for example monitoring of hatching birds).','Two landscape-covering schemes gather some information, a few more give some additional information.','Several landscape-covering schemes gather important information, for example the Swedish Forest Monitoring and the national bird monitoring.','Many different methods exist, some with ongoing landscape-covering monitoring, for example monitoring of marine plankton, and organic pesticides in some organisms. The main monitoring scheme is the National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS), a nation-wide environmental protection programme that monitors the conditions and changes in the Swedish landscape and how these changes influence the conditions for biodiversity. The programme started in 2003 and is the first Swedish inventory programme that includes all types of terrestrial environments: agricultural land, forests, wetlands, shores, alpine and populated environments. An important aim of NILS is to provide information for follow-up of the Swedish national environmental objectives and the Natura 2000 network. ','National coverage of bird monitoring, covering most or all of the information needed to judge on conservation status (except for a few tricky species).','Ambitious program for monitoring of wolf, rather good monitoring of other large carnivores, less good but existing for some rodents, a few mammals without reliable monitoring so far.','Regional schemes for frogs, toads and Triturus cristatus (using national methods).','Established monitoring using nets and electrical fishing nationally. A few tricky species with less good monitoring.','Mostly regional monitoring, using a few national methods and some regional methods. Also a national program tracking for example butterflies in agricultural land.','National schemes covering all landscape, a forest-specific one, a grassland-specific one, some voluntary monitoring of rare species, and more. ','Several methods, some designed for baseline surveys are useable also for monitoring purposes.','SE'),
	('0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','0','31','29','0','5','26','0','0','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SI'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','SK'),
	('','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','','see website','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','see website ','UK');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `C1_3_1` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table community_report
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `community_report`;

CREATE TABLE `community_report` (
  `action` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
  `year` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `progress` text,
  PRIMARY KEY (`action`,`year`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `community_report` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `community_report` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `community_report` (`action`,`year`,`progress`)
VALUES
	('A10_1_1',2008,'See B 2.1.2. \n\nThe European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), an informal science-policy interface whose main aim is to identify the knowledge gaps that hinder the creation or application of policy, or that make it difficult to manage ecosystems effectively, has been very active. The EPBRS has contributed to the European consultation on an International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) and will also contribute to other science-policy interfaces, including the recent proposal for an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), when called upon to do so in the future.'),
	('A10_1_1',2010,'A third consultation meeting on an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES was organised by UNEP in June 2010, which led to an agreement to establish IPBES. The regional contribution to such a mechanism is being discussed at EU level. \n\nSee also B 2.1.2'),
	('A10_1_2',2008,'The European Community is engaged in the global strategy for follow-up to the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and is committed to develop a sub-global assessment for the European region, using the EURECA project launched by the European Environment Agency, and the outcomes of the study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). At CBD COP9 in May 2008 the EC and its Member States have supported UNEP\'s proposal for establishing an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES), to strengthen independent scientific advice to global policy making.'),
	('A10_1_2',2010,'The European Commission participated in the three Ad-hoc Intergovernmental and Multistakeholder Meeting on an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and has provided a grant of 1 million € to UNEP to support the strengthening of the Science-Policy Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, in particular through organisation of regional consultations. \n\nUnder the 2010 Annual Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP) the EC is providing 1.5 million € to develop capacity for effective use of ecosystem assessment in developing countries.'),
	('A10_1_3',2008,'There have been 2 calls for proposals in the first 2 years of FP7, 8 successful proposals (HUNT, SOILSERVICE, HighARCS, LiveDiverse, PALMS, SCALES and EBONE) as well as the LIFEWATCH support are expected to be funded with a Community contribution of EUR 23 122 421.'),
	('A10_1_3',2010,'There have been 4 calls for proposals of FP7 resulting in the following successful projects: HUNT, SOILSERVICE, HighARCS, LiveDiverse, PALMS, SCALES, EBONE, STEP, CONGRESS, TESS, BioFresh and the projects SPIRAL, FunDivEUROPE, (ECOFINDERS?) and KNEU are under negotiation.An \"Atlas of Biodiversity Risk\" has been launched during Green Week 2010. The Atlas brings together the results of a number of European Research Projects in a comprehensive manner thus contributing significantly to the biodiversity knowledge base for informed policy making. The RUBICODE project on Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Europe: From Threat to Action provided knowledge support to EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline.'),
	('A10_1_4',2008,'See A 10.1.3. \n\nJRC has developed tools for assessing in a consistent way pressures on biodiversity in 741 major African protected areas and made this available via the WWW http://www-tem.jrc.it//PA/index.html. JRC has developed a methodology and a software tool that has been used for the assessment of forest fragmentation and lack of connectivity (pressure on biodiversity) at the European level (http://forest.jrc.it/biodiversity). \n\nJRC, in the context of the European Forest Fire Information System, has assessed the impact of forest fires in Natura 2000 sites; reports on the impact of fires in Greece (2007) on forest fragmentation and connectivity in Natura2000 sites has recently been produced. \n\nThe FP6 projects ALARM, MACIS and COCONUT have achieved first results regarding prevention and mitigation options as well as assessment tools.'),
	('A10_1_4',2010,'As indicated in A 7.2.4, the MONDE action of the JRC has developed methodologies for assessing pressure on more than 700 African Protected Areas (http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/PA/). Current work is addressing new visualisation means for describing these pressures as well as, in collaboration with the FOREST action, to assess fragmentation and connectivity of natural habitats in Africa. \n\nAdditionally, the JRC developed high-spatial resolution forest maps of Europe to assess forest change over time. This is the basis of the development of European wide datasets of forest spatial pattern and forest fragmentation, which have already been used e.g. in the EEA State of Forest Report, and the MCPFE 2007 European Forest report. \n\nIn the context of the Action BIOMES, the JRC is developing a methodology to map the capacity of ecosystems to provide a sustainable flow of ecosystem services. A first set of biophysical maps of ecosystem services at EU scale is foreseen by the end of 2010.'),
	('A10_1_5',2008,'See A 10.1.3.'),
	('A10_1_5',2010,'See A 10.1.3.'),
	('A10_1_6',2008,'The first call for the Environment Theme (FP7 SP Cooperation) has a budget of EUR 200 Million of which only EUR 24 Million for the Activity 6.2 Sustainable Management of Resources under which the topic of biodiversity is treated. \n\nThe indicative budget for the second call for the Environment Theme is of EUR 212 Million. The Activity 6.2 Sustainable Management of Resources under which the topic of biodiversity is treated has an indicative budget of EUR 30 Million. \n\nThe funding profile over the duration of FP7 is expected to rise quite steeply towards the end but cannot be extrapolated from the first 2 years of the remaining 5 of this 7-year programme.'),
	('A10_1_6',2010,'As part of the Environment Theme (FP7 SP Cooperation) Biodiversity is treated as topic under the Activity 6.2 Sustainable Management of Resources. The following financial resources have been allocated so far within, to Environment theme Sub-Activity 6.2.1 Conservation and sustainable management of natural and man-made resources and biodiversity under Activity 6.2 Sustainable Management of Resources: \n\n * First call 2007: EUR 24 Million out of an overall budget of EUR 200 Million.\n * Second call 2008: EUR 30 Million out of an overall budget of EUR 212 Million. \n * Third call 2009: EUR 27 Million out of an overall budget of EUR 193,5 Million \n * Forth call 2010: EUR 28,5 Million out of an overall budget of EUR 175 Million (FP7-ENV- 2010)'),
	('A10_1_7',2008,'BiodivERsA is an ERA-NET in biodiversity research with a Community contribution of EUR 2.8 Million. LIFEWATCH, an e-science and technology infrastructure for biodiversity data and observatories is supported through the \"infrastructure\" budget. \n\nLIFEWATCH has been launched on 12 March 2008 in Amsterdam. In the 3 years preparatory phase (2008- 2010) the Community allocates EUR 5 Million to the project, Member States add further EUR 4.6 Million. The construction phase is planned from 2011-2018 with an overall budget of EUR 368 Million.'),
	('A10_1_7',2010,'A follow-up ERA-Net project BiodivERsA2 will be funded with € 1 Million by the EU for further 4 years.'),
	('A10_1_8',2008,'For progress with the EU Mechanism and international mechanisms for scientific advice on biodiversity, sees Actions B 2.1.2 and A10.1.2. The FP7 1st call included 3 biodiversity topics of considerable policy relevance (related to the development of the ecosystem services concept). The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) has developed a set of priorities for biodiversity research in response to the EU Action Plan to 2010 and Beyond and continues to help orient biodiversity research strategy towards policy needs. \n\nIn the second call (FP7-ENV-2008-1) one topic was particularly dedicated to the science-policy interface, a coordination and support actions with a max. of EUR 1 Million EC contribution. EPBRS continues work towards an EU biodiversity research strategy.'),
	('A10_1_8',2010,'In the forth call (FP7-ENV-2010) one topic is dedicated to create a prototype of an EU network of knowledge (KNEU). \n\nIn May 2009 a workshop in Brussels was dedicated to elaborate on a concept of a network of knowledge as science side of a science-policy-interface. \n\nInformation on the latest scientific findings for biodiversity is provided by the \"Science for Environment Policy\" news alert service under its Biodiversity topic and in the Biodiversity Thematic Issue.'),
	('A10_1_9',2008,'See A10.1.7 the LIFEWATCH project.'),
	('A10_1_9',2010,'See A10.1.3. the project EBONE contributing to GEO/GEOSS. \n\nThe EuroGEOSS project, a European approach to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, has been funded by DG RTD. The MONDE action of the JRC is coordinating the development of a biodiversity operating capacity (http://www.eurogeoss.eu/) \n\nJRC is working to ensure the extension of the INSPIRE guidelines to Natura2000 that, among others, should take into consideration the outcome of the Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directive. In addition, JRC has recently started to work on following Annex II and Annex III data themes particularly relevant for the Action Plan in collaboration with DG ENV Thematic Units: 17. Bio-geographical regions, 18. Habitats and biotopes, 19. Species distribution, 2. Land cover, 3. Soil, 12. Natural risk zones.'),
	('A1_1_1',2008,'Significant progress in work on the establishment of NATURA 2000 with 823 areas covering a total surface area of approximately 97,000 km², added to the network protected under the Habitats Directive. Commission Decisions of 13/11/2007, 25/1/2008 and 28/3/2008 updated and extended the lists of protected sites for the Atlantic, Continental, Boreal, Macaronesian and Mediterranean biogeographical regions and provided a first list for the Pannonian region, thus extending the network for the first time to new Member States (EU 10).; By the end of 2008 there will be a second updating round of the lists of sites of Community importance. \n\nTwo meetings of marine expert group held, to assess state of play with marine Natura 2000 designations and to specify the assessment process and the implementation of fisheries measures. All coastal MSs working to identify further suitable marine Natura 2000 sites, including related research and studies (sometimes with support from LIFE projects) and internal consultations. However Progress is slow and only a few MS (e.g. SW, UK) proposed additional offshore sites in 2008.\n \nAt least 6 MS have indicated that they will propose sites in early 2009. Preparation of non-binding guidance on introducing measures for marine Natura 2000 sites under the CFP. Seminar for site selection for Atlantic Biogeographical sea region scheduled in March 2009. Others to follow. 464 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) have been designated by Member States under the Birds Directive covering 73528 km². 1st assessment of SPA designation for EU10+2 completed and legal action taken when necessary; infringement cases against 19 Member States (FIN, ES, IE, EL, PT, DE, AT, UK, PL, SL, SK, MT, LT, LV, HU, CY, CZ, RO, BG) on the basis that the list of areas classified as SPAs is not sufficient; transposition checks underway (see A.1.1.3); bilateral follow up with MS on completing NATURA 2000, including legal actions; infringement cases open against 4 Member States (IE, AT, UK, PL) on the basis that the list of pSCIs transmitted is not exhaustive.; Commission guidelines published for Natura 2000 in marine and for the implementation of Articles 12 and 16 of the Habitats Directive; development of new guidance documents for Natura 2000 in estuaries and coastal zones, for non-energy extractive industries and for wind energy and nature conservation underway; NATURA barometer updated twice yearly by ETC/BD; COM contract to overview process of SAC designation, establishment of conservation objectives & management instruments being applied by MS; New COM contract for Natura 2000 to overview economic and social benefits, dealing with conflicts, best practice at the Local/Site levels, and its relationship with other initiatives which serve to protect biodiversity.'),
	('A1_1_1',2010,'Further progress on the establishment of NATURA 2000 with 59 areas covering a total surface area of approximately 20,000 km² added to the network protected under the Habitats Directive, mainly in the marine. Commission Decisions in the context of the 2009 updating round extended the Community lists of protected sites for the Alpine, Atlantic, Continental, Boreal, Macaronesian and Mediterranean biogeographical regions. By the end of 2010 there will be a fourth updating round of the lists of sites of Community importance. The Natura 2000 network consists of about 26 000 sites and covers almost 18% of the EU terrestrial territory. \n\nIn 2009 dedicated marine biogeographical seminars were held for the Atlantic marine region and the Baltic Sea. Further marine seminars were organised in 2010 for the Black Sea and the Mediterranean and the Macaronesian Atlantic marine regions. All coastal MSs working to identify further suitable marine Natura 2000 sites, including related research and studies (sometimes with support from LIFE projects) and internal consultations. However progress is slow and only a few MS (e.g. NL, DK) proposed additional offshore sites in 2009. \n\nBetween 12/2008 and 07/2009 36 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive were added, covering 29910 km². Work is also under progress for the designation of marine SPAs. \n\nTwo meetings of marine expert group held, to assess state of play with marine Natura 2000 designations and to specify the assessment process and the implementation of fisheries measures. A further meeting is scheduled in 2nd half of 2010 to focus on marine sites management issues. \n\nDevelopment of new guidance documents for Natura 2000 in estuaries and coastal zones, for non-energy extractive industries and for wind energy and nature conservation made further progress. These guidelines will be published in 2010. New initiative on guidelines for Natura 2000 and Agriculture planned for 2010. NATURA barometer updated twice yearly by ETC/BD. \n\nNew expert group on Natura 2000 management was set up and held its first meeting on 25 November 2009. This group will inter alia work on the process of SAC designation, the establishment of conservation objectives & management instruments.'),
	('A1_1_2',2008,'Comprehensive opportunities to co-fund Natura 2000 costs provided in each appropriate EC funding regulation for 2007-2013. Guidelines & training under an EC contract provided to assist Member States in applying these funds. An Information Technology Tool on financing Natura 2000 has been developed to assist potential beneficiaries on how individual measures for Natura 2000 might be funded by the different major EU sources. COM is checking relevant funding programmes submitted by Member States (See also A 2.1.1, A 3.4.1, A 4.1.1 and B.1.1.1). A new COM study contract aims to further support linkages between financing and management of Natura 2000 This will update and refine cost estimates of Natura 2000 financial needs, provide documented examples of good practice where EU funds have been used in a successful and innovative way and develop a methodology to identify and evaluate different socio-economic benefits.'),
	('A1_1_2',2010,'Specific Natura 2000 priority has been confirmed for relevant Community co-financing instruments (EAFRD, EFF, Structural and Cohesion Funds). The guidelines for Natura 2000 financing from various funds were prepared and published. However, it is in many cases difficult to effectively assess how much of the funds have been allocated and spent on actions directly connected to Natura 2000 (with the exception of the dedicated Life+ Nature Fund and EAFRD Natura 2000 measures) because of absence of relevant programme indicators. Therefore the exact uptake of the funds cannot be fully quantified. \n\nAn Information Technology Toolkit on financing Natura 2000 was prepared and made available on the Internet. \n(http://www.financing-natura2000.moccu.com/pub/index.html) \n\nThe estimation of the costs of the Natura 2000 network is being revised, delivering results in 2010. Preliminary results suggest a coherence with the previous figure 6,1 billion €/year, published in 2004. However, assessment of the budget allocation of the main EU and national funding streams suggests that this amount is currently not being met.'),
	('A1_1_3',2008,'General conformity studies for all EU 25 MS have been carried out for both Birds and Habitats Directive; where gaps in transposition appear COM has initiated non-conformity cases. As regards the Birds Directive, infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are ongoing against 15 Members States (AT, IE, ES, DK, UK, EL, IT, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SK, RO). As regards the Habitats Directive infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are ongoing against 16 Member States (AT, DE, UK, FR, IE, ES, DK, NL, EL, CZ, EE, MT, PL, SI, SK, HU) COM Guidelines on compensatory measures have been published http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm. Update on COM guidance document on Article 6 is foreseen (start 2009).'),
	('A1_1_3',2010,'COM continues monitoring progress in the implementation and complaints in relation to bad implementation have been addressed and infringement procedures launched where appropriate, both related to the Habitats and the Birds Directives.\n \nEfforts on developing sectoral guidance documents have been actively continued. \n\nProactive seminars in selected MSs (e.g. IE, BG and CY) have been held to promote sound implementation of Art. 6 provisions.'),
	('A1_1_4',2008,'Two studies on the application of the EIA and SEA Directives have been launched in 2008 and will include examination of the relationship between these directives and the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and the Habitats Directive. Final reports are expected in early 2009. Experience with the application of SEA to Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 period suggests the need for specific guidance explaining \'how to do these\' needs to be provided. The preparation of guidance document will be submitted to the EIA – SEA Experts group for further consideration and follow-up action. Also, the working groups set-up under the ENEA (European network of environmental authorities dealing with structural funds programmes) such as the one on \"Natura 2000\", \"SF and SEA\" and on \"climate change\" will be invited to consider the biodiversity dimension in their forthcoming new work-programmes. Action taken as regards transposition of the SEA/EIA Directives: - SEA: infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are ongoing against 9 Members States (DK, EE, IE, LT, LV, SL, MT, CZ, UK). The assessment of the transposition measures is ongoing regarding 15 Members States. - EIA: infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are ongoing against 12 Members States (BE, FR, IE, NL, AT, UK, EE, LV, LT, PL, CZ, SK).'),
	('A1_1_4',2010,'On the basis of two studies on the application of the EIA and SEA Directives (launched in 2008 and finalized in 2009), the Commission has issued implementation reports for both Directives COM(2009)378 for the EIA Directive and COM(2009)469 for the SEA Directive. \n\nExperience with the application of SEA to Structural Funds for the 2007-2013 period suggests the need for specific guidance explaining \'how to do these\' needs to be provided. The preparation of guidance document will be submitted to the EIA – SEA Experts group for further consideration and follow-up action. According to the initial timetable, a guidance document may be available in 2011. In addition, the working groups set-up under the ENEA (European network of environmental authorities dealing with structural funds programmes) such as the one on \"Biodiversity\", \"SF and SEA\" and on \"climate change\" consider the biodiversity dimension in their forthcoming new work-programmes. \n\nAction taken as regards transposition of the SEA/EIA Directives: \n * SEA: infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are still ongoing against 10 Members States (BE, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT, LT, PT, SK, SE). \n * EIA: infringement procedures related to non-conformity issues are ongoing against 7 Members States (BE, CZ, FR, NL, PL, HU, IT).'),
	('A1_1_5',2008,'COM is monitoring progress on ELD transposition. At present 19 Member States have notified complete transposition of the Directive (in chronological order: IT, LT, LV, HU, DE, RO, SK, SE, ES, EE, CY, MT,BG, NL, CZ, PT, PL, DK, BE). The remaining 8 Member States are before the ECJ potentially facing judgements in 2009. The conformity assessment of the transposing legislation is being launched. A potential horizontal non-conformity infringement procedure resulting from this exercise will however not be instigated before summer 2009. When transposition will be complete there will be information about the choices of the MS on Biodiversity coverage and also on other issues that will affect implementation, the COM may start work together with the MS for providing guidelines on compensation (for all environmental legislation covered by ELD). The results of the recently finished 6th framework programme Community funded \'REMEDE\' project on the application of Resource Equivalency Methods for Remediation and the tool-kit it produced will be of help (http://www.envliability.eu/index.htm). \n\nIn terms of financial security issues (for which the COM will produce a report by April 2010), the COM may seek examples of ELD incidents and application and analyse the role of financial security for remediation of damage and for compensation of the loss of services and goods.'),
	('A1_1_5',2010,'COM is monitoring progress on ELD transposition. At present all Member States have notified complete transposition of the Directive with a small exception the Region of Salzburg in Austria The conformity assessment of the transposing legislation has started. Information about the choices of the MS on Biodiversity coverage and also on other issues that will affect implementation is available. \n\nThe COM works together with the MS through bilateral meetings as regards interpretation and application of the ELD, mainly within government expert group meetings. EU wide guidelines on compensation (for all environmental legislation covered by ELD) is however unlikely to emerge due to opposition by several MSS. The results of the RTD funded \'REMEDE\' project on the application of Resource Equivalency Methods for Remediation and the tool-kit it produced will be of help (http://www.envliability.eu/index.htm).In terms of financial security issues the COM has finalised a report which will be adopted in the 3rd semester of 2010, the COM has asked for cases of ELD application after damage incidents and is currently analysing the role of financial security for the remediation of damage and for compensation of the loss of services and goods.'),
	('A1_2_1',2008,'The first major \'health check\' of the conservation status of species and habitats of Community interest under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive is underway. On the basis of national reports received in 2007/early 2008 the Commission with support of the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity of the European Environment Agency will complete an EU level assessment (as part of the Commission\'s composite report by mid-2009. An overview on the national assessments can be already viewed through the following web-site: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17. Also for each MS a so-called \"national summary\" of the Art.17 reports can be viewed on the CIRCA-Reporting (http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library). The next step is to carry out the EU-level (biogeographic level) assessment of conservation status: draft results in late 2008 following the input of the public consultation on the draft results. This exercise will help identify the extent to which additional measures for the management and restoration of species populations and habitats are needed and will be a key input to any review of habitat types of EU conservation concern; no separate review envisaged at present; preparatory actions for EC-level action plans for non-bird species are currently under preparation, a first set of action plans is envisaged to be prepared in 2009.Following up the Art.17 conservation status assessment exercise, the Commission has started also a new initiative in streamlining all reporting under the Birds and the Habitats Directive. The intention is to have better data available in order to assess the effectiveness of the nature directives as well as for a multitude of other purposes. Within this initiative a Member States Working Group was established, which deals not only with a review of the Art.17 exercise but also with (among others) starting up a similar status and trends assessment for bird-species and improving the dataflow on Natura 2000.'),
	('A1_2_1',2010,'The first major \'health check\' of the conservation status of species and habitats of Community interest under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive was finalised in mid 2009. On 13 July 2009 the Commission adopted the \"Commission Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive\". The report represents the first ever systematic assessment of conservation status of Europe\'s most vulnerable habitat types and species. Enormous work is being done since then in the reporting working group to prepare the next reporting, streamline the various reporting processes, adopt new standard data form formats, etc. The intention is to have better data available in order to assess the effectiveness of the nature directives as well as for a multitude of other purposes. The working group has also elaborated and tested a draft format for improved reporting on bird populations status and trends. \n\n(The \'Article 17\' Technical report, including the EU-level analysis and other material as well as links to national reports, etc. can be found under http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17.)'),
	('A1_2_2',2008,'Work undertaken & to be carried out under A 1.2.3 also takes account of national protected areas.'),
	('A1_2_2',2010,'Work undertaken & to be carried out under A 1.2.3 also takes account of national protected areas.'),
	('A1_2_3',2008,'Draft guidelines on \'the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild fauna and flora\' have been prepared & discussed with Habitats Committee (June 2007), A new COM contract was launched in 2007 for further assessment of coherence of Natura 2000 network.'),
	('A1_2_3',2010,'Guidelines on \'the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild fauna and flora\' have been published in 2008. A contract on Natura 2000 and its relationships with other initiatives which may serve to protect biodiversity has been started in 2009. Another COM contract was launched for the further assessment of coherence of Natura 2000 network. Within this contract, a workshop on Green Infrastructure has been organised to identify actions that would be most effective at EU level, building on the experiences of existing initiatives across Europe. The workshop took place 25-26 March 2009. More information on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm. A conference will be held on Green Infrastructure in November 2010 as a follow-up event to the 2009 meeting and to further discuss the development of the Green Infrastructure concept, leading towards a Strategy on Green Infrastructure at the end of 2011.'),
	('A1_3_1',2008,'COM has prepared EU guidelines for management plans for large carnivores promoting best practice and providing guidance on population level management planning http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/index_en.htm; New COM contract launched at end of 2007 for technical support in elaboration of Species Action Plans (Annex I, Birds Dir.) & Management Plans (Annex II, Birds Dir.). & action plans for a selected number of Habitats Dir. species; first drafts prepared for 3 revised (Acrocephalus paludicola, Marmaronetta anguistirostris, Aquila adalberti) and 3 new (Coracias garullus, Chersophilus duponti, Neophron percnopterus) bird action plans; draft criteria prepared for selecting non-bird species for action plans. 7 new management plans for huntable bird species finalised in 2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/managt_plans_en.htm), as well as an international action plan for Saker Falcon (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm). As regards Species Action Plans for non-bird species, preparatory actions are currently under preparation (development of selection criteria & format), a first set of action plans is envisaged to be prepared in 2009.'),
	('A1_3_1',2010,'COM has prepared EU guidelines for management plans for large carnivores promoting best practice and providing guidance on population level management planning http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/index_en.htm New COM contract launched at end of 2007 for technical support in elaboration of Species Action Plans (Annex I, Birds Dir.) & Management Plans (Annex II, Birds Dir.). & action plans for a selected number of Habitats Dir. species. First drafts prepared for 3 revised (Acrocephalus paludicola, Marmaronetta anguistirostris, Aquila adalberti) and 3 new (Coracias garullus, Chersophilus duponti, Neophron percnopterus) bird action plans. 7 new management plans for huntable bird species finalised in 2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/managt_plans_en.htm), as well as an international action plan for Saker Falcon (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm). Draft criteria prepared for selecting non-bird species for action plans. EC-level action plans for non-bird species are currently under preparation, a first set of action plans is envisaged to be prepared in 2009/2010.'),
	('A1_3_2',2008,'Same as for habitat types in relation to Article 17 HD assessment (see 1.2.1); COM funded EUR mammal red data list (RDL) prepared (publish May 2007) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/index.htm; EUR fresh-water fish RDL to be updated; \n\nCOM currently funding European Red Lists (EU27) for other taxa: amphibians and reptiles (ready end 2008), dragonflies, butterflies & saproxylic beetles (ready end 2009), molluscs and vascular plants (selected families) – ready end 2010.'),
	('A1_3_2',2010,'Same as for habitat types in relation to Article 17 HD assessment (see 1.2.1); COM funded European mammal red list (published in May 2007) as well as further Red Lists http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/index_en.htm on amphibians and reptiles (published in 2009), dragonflies, butterflies, freshwater fish & saproxylic beetles (ready end 2009), molluscs and vascular plants (selected families) – ready end 2010.'),
	('A1_3_3',2008,'New possibilities for EU financing of \'ex-situ\' conservation actions under LIFE+ when justified for species conservation linked to delivery of BAP.'),
	('A1_3_3',2010,'New possibilities for EU financing of \'ex-situ\' conservation actions for species conservation under LIFE+ are available when linked to the delivery of BAP.'),
	('A1_4_1',2008,'As regards transposition, see Action A1.1.3; \n\nBulgaria submitted part of its national SPAs and pSCIs lists by beginning of 2008. Romania submitted the pSCIs list in mid-2007 its list of SPAs in December 2007. The level of designation of both SPAs evaluated in 2008. The biogeographic seminar to assess the pSCIs in the 5 biogeographic regions of these 2 MS (BG-ALP, BLACK SEA, CONT; RO -+ PANN & STEPPIC) held in June 2008.'),
	('A1_4_1',2010,'As regards transposition, see Action A1.1.3. \n\nCommunity lists were updated in 2008 and 2009 to include SCI proposed by new Member States.'),
	('A1_5_1',2008,'ERA-net NET-BIOME - Community-funded network on biodiversity in EU outermost Regions – started in September 2006. European Conference on Biodiversity and Climate Change in Outermost Regions held in La Réunion, 7-11 July 2008. This conference brought together for the first time representatives of all OR and OCTs. The participants agreed, that there is a need for EU Member States and the European Commission, together with OCTs and ORs, to establish a voluntary scheme for the protection of species and habitats, inspired by the Natura 2000 approach. This scheme should be flexible, adapted to the local situation, balance conservation and development needs and take into account existing mechanisms and tools. The implementation of the scheme should be based on local commitment and shared financing. The importance of conservation, at species level, outside protected areas should be highlighted and priority should be given to globally threatened species. The elaboration of restoration or management plans is only a first step in the process, that has to be followed by effective implementation. The networking among existing national parks and other protected areas in order to harmonise monitoring, exchange best practices and share data is very valuable.'),
	('A1_5_1',2010,'There was a European Conference on Biodiversity and Climate Change in Outermost Regions held in La Réunion, 7-11 July 2008. This conference brought together for the first time representatives of all OR and OCTs. \n\nThe EC is engaged with concerned Member States to develop a voluntary scheme to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in European Overseas inspired by the experience of Natura 2000.'),
	('A2_1_1',2008,'Covered under rural development policy for 2007-2013; All 94 national and regional programmes have been approved by management committee. At present the first analysis can be made: around 44% (€39.6 billion) of the EU resources have been allocated to Axis 2 dealing with land management and improvement of the environment including support to biodiversity and NATURA 2000 network. According to estimations, agrienvironment, the biggest contributor to NATURA 2000 management, has been allocated more than a fifth part of the Community means devoted to rural development (around 22% i.e. €20.3 billion). In addition, approximately EUR 577 million of EAFRD resources have been dedicated specifically to Natura 2000 agriculture and forest areas.'),
	('A2_1_1',2010,'Under the rural development policy for 2007-2013 some 44.4% (€42.75 billion) of the EU contribution was earmarked to Axis 2 dealing with land management and improvement of the environment including support to biodiversity and NATURA 2000 areas. Agri-environment, an important measure supporting the management of NATURA 2000 sites was allocated around 23% of the Community means devoted to rural development (€22.2billion). In addition, some EUR 590 million of EAFRD resources were dedicated specifically to the Natura 2000 agriculture and forest measures. \n\nFollowing the implementation of the Health Check the funds earmarked by Member States for the agri-environment measure went up by almost 2 billion totalling 22.2 billion €. \n\nSee also examples under Green Infrastructure in A.1.2.3.'),
	('A2_1_10',2008,'See A2.1.4 and 2.1.9.'),
	('A2_1_10',2010,'See A2.1.4 and 2.1.9.'),
	('A2_1_11',2008,'1. Rural Development Article 39 (1)-(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environmental measures which may support the rearing of \"farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming\", and the preservation of \"plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion\". Article 39(5) of Regulation 1698/2005, and Article 28 of Regulation 1974/2006 may also support the conservation of genetic resources in operations not covered by the above-mentioned measures supporting the preservation of endangered animal and plant genetic resources. 2. Community programme The Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, which has been established by Regulation (EC) No 870/2004, promotes genetic diversity in agriculture. The Community Programme has given rise to 17 actions, involving 179 partners located in 25 Member States and 12 non EU countries, and a total EU co-funding of EUR 8.9 million. 59% of the actions concern plant, 12% tree and 29% animal species. The actions started in 2007 and have a maximum duration of 4 years. For more details, see http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/geneticresources/ index_en.htm Preparation of Commission Directives on the acceptance and marketing of landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion covering seed of agricultural plant species, vegetables, vegetable propagating and planting material other than seeds and fodder plant seed mixtures. Adapting Community zootechnical legislation with view to protect animal genetic resources (zootechnical Decisions ensuring the protection of breeding programmes for domestic livestock, in particular cattle, sheep and goats).'),
	('A2_1_11',2010,'Commission Directives on the acceptance and marketing of landraces and varieties which are naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and threatened by genetic erosion covering seed of agricultural plant species (Directive 2008/62/EC), vegetables (Directive 2009/145/EC) and fodder plant seed mixtures adopted. \n\nAdaptation of Community zootechnical legislation with view to protect animal genetic resources (zootechnical Decisions ensuring the protection of breeding programmes for domestic livestock, in particular cattle, sheep and goats). \n\nIn 2008, €15.7 million out of EAFRD funding spent on agri-environment were used for the preservation of local and endangered animal and plant genetic resources, and €10 million for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture. \n\nIn June 2010, the Member States endorsed a Commission proposal providing for the placing on the market of certain types of wild plant seeds from conserved habitats, which should boost the efforts to conserve genetic diversity in the EU.'),
	('A2_1_12',2008,'See A 2.1.1 \n\nThis has been done within the framework of the RDPs assessment with taking account of the specific character of those areas and their problems and needs.'),
	('A2_1_12',2010,'This has been done within the framework of the RDPs assessment taking into account of the specific character of those areas and their problems and needs. \n\nSee also A 2.1.1'),
	('A2_1_13',2008,'The EU Forest Action Plan (2007-2011) was adopted as a Communication from Commission to Council and EP on 15 June 2006 (Council conclusions 24-25 October 2006). It contains 4 main objectives: 1) Improving longterm competitiveness, 2) Improving and protecting the environment, 3) contribution to the quality of life, 4) Fostering coordination and communication. Objective 2 is to maintain and appropriately enhance biodiversity, carbon sequestration, integrity, health and resilience of forest ecosystems at multiple geographical scales. Under Objective 2, Key action 7 is the contribution towards achieving the revised Community biodiversity objectives for 2010 and beyond. \n\nA work programme for implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan has been developed between COM and MS through Standing Forestry Committee and the latter adopted it in 2008 (29 February 2008). A Mid-term evaluation of the EU FAP to cover the implementation of actions and activities up to 2009 is now being developed. \n\nA European Forest Data Centre (http://efdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu) has been established at the JRC as part of the implementation of Key Action 8 of the FAP. EFDAC provides access to forest datasets and models, which are relevant for European policy making \n\nMeasures to enhance the protection of EU Forests (Key Action 9) have been implemented through the European Forest Fire Information System (http://effis.jrc.it).'),
	('A2_1_13',2010,'A Green Paper On Forest Protection and Information in the EU: Preparing forests for climate change was adopted by the Commission in March 2010 (COM(2010)66 final to trigger a discussion on the threats to EU forest and the role of forest to contribute to adaptation and mitigation of climate change and in halting biodiversity loss. [ I WOULD PUT THIS BULLET FIRST] \n\nThe work on the EU Forest Action Plan (2007-2011) continues. A Mid-term evaluation of the EU FAP to cover the implementation of actions and activities in 2007-2008 was completed by the Commission and discussed by the SFC in December 2009. Data from the forest biodiversity monitoring project Biosoil are included in the EFDAC and ESDAC data-centres of JRC-IES. Although a preliminary report is already available, the final report has been published in 2010 http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR24258.pdf.'),
	('A2_1_14',2008,'Objective 4 of the EU Forest Action Plan on \'Fostering coordination and communication\' includes a Key Action 16 to strengthen the EU profile in international forest-related processes. This action includes participation of MS and the Community in the MCPFE process (expert level meeting in Oslo, May 2008 and Working group, in Vienna April 2008), participation in the Advisory Group for the EEA report \"European forests ecosystem condition and sustainable use\". The latter was presented in the CBD COP 9 in 2008.'),
	('A2_1_14',2010,'The Commission actively takes part in the Forest Europe/MCPFE, including by contributing to the reporting on implementation of the Forest Europe/MCPFE declarations and resolutions and to the external review process performed in 2009'),
	('A2_1_15',2008,'Objective 2 of the EU Forest Action Plan (2007-2011) is on \'Improving and protecting the environment\' is to maintain and appropriately enhance biodiversity. Under Objective 2, Key action 9, which is to enhance the protection of EU forest, covers issues such as impact of afforestation (see work programme for implementation of the EU Forest Action Plan developed between COM and MS through Standing Forestry Committee). The \"Feasibility study on means of combating forest dieback in the EU\" executed in 2007 was presented in February 2008. \n\nTwo studies have been launched during 2008; \"Implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy: \"How to protect EU Forests against harmful Impacts?\" and a second one on \"Wilderness management in European forests\". The Forest Focus Regulation has also contributed towards the Objective 2, co- financing forest fires prevention activities and studies.'),
	('A2_1_15',2010,'The Forest Focus Regulation has also contributed towards Objective 2, co-financing forest fires prevention activities and studies on forest biodiversity (e.g. forest biota, Biosoil, monitoring of biodiversity in boreal forests, forest soil biodiversity).'),
	('A2_1_2',2008,'See A 2.1.1'),
	('A2_1_2',2010,'The Council adopted in 2006 Community strategic guidelines for Rural development (period 2007-2013), inter alia to help make the link with the main EU priorities (Lisbon, Göteborg) and translate them into rural development policy, and to ensure consistency with other EU policies, in particular in the fields of cohesion and environment. DG Agriculture published in 2006 a working document on agri-environmental measures and their verifiability to help Member States implement the agri-environmental measures. \n\nSee also A 2.1.1 \n\nFor high nature value farming guidance, see A2.1.3.'),
	('A2_1_3',2008,'See A 2.1.1; \n\n(High Nature Value) HNV farmland was element of work on agri-environmental indicators done by EEA under steering of the Commission (IRENA indicator report published in January 2006). Publication in September 2006 of a Communication on agri-environmental indicators (COM(2006(508)) based on IRENA work. Continuing work within the framework of a memorandum of understanding between Commission and EEA. In addition, the Commission has contracted a study on an HNV indicator for evaluation including a guidance document to the Member States on the application of the HNV impact indicator. This study has been completed in October 2007. A map of HNV farmland has been updated by the European Environment Agency and the Joint Research Centre (http://reports.eea.europa.eu/state_of_environment_report_2007_1/en/chapter4.pdf). Following consultations with the Member States, the guidance document on the application of the HNV impact indicator is currently being finalised in the context of the Evaluation Network for Rural Development under the auspices of the Commission. The final version is expected to be made available in December 2008 JRC has developed high-spatial resolution (25 m) forest maps for 1990 and 2000, which permit the identification of forest areas and the analysis of forest trends. Algorithms and GIS methods were developed by the JRC to assess forest pattern and fragmentation between 1990 and 2000.'),
	('A2_1_3',2010,'The Commission contracted a study on HNV indicators for evaluation including a guidance document to the Member States on the application of HNV indicators in the context of evaluating Rural Development Programmes. The aim of the document is to set out a best practice approach to applying the indicator which allows a degree of flexibility in the data used. Following consultations with the Member States, the guidance document on the application of the HNV impact indicator was finalised in December 2008 in the context of the Evaluation Network for Rural Development under the auspices of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf ). \n\nFollow-up on the development of this indicator in the Member States is ensured by the Evaluation Network. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/hnv/guidance_en.pdf \n\nThe JRC and the EEA have published the EU-wide HNV farmland indicator in 2008 (http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf). \n\nSee also A 2.1.1'),
	('A2_1_4',2008,'The EEA, under the steering of the Commission, has undertaken work on Cross-compliance Indicators in the context of the Farm Advisory System (CIFAS) http://www.ewindows.eu.org/cifas. The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) together with Oreade-Breche (Alliance Environnement), also under the steering of the Commission, provided, in July 2007, an evaluation of the cross-compliance application (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/index_en.htm) On 20 May 2008, the Commission published proposals to further modernise, simplify and streamline the Common Agricultural Policy (COM(2008) 306), i.e. the \"Health Check\" proposals. The Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) of cross-compliance are proposed to be amended. The Commission has proposed to strengthen the standard on landscape features under GAEC aimed at the promotion of biodiversity. This will contribute to retaining the environmental benefits of set-aside which the Commission proposes to abolish There is also a proposal for a new standard aiming at the establishment of buffer strips along water courses..'),
	('A2_1_4',2010,'In the “Health Check” of the CAP, adopted in 2008, the compulsory set aside was abolished and the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) of cross-compliance were amended. The standard on the retention of landscape features was amended to give more precise examples of features important for biodiversity. A new optional GAEC standard was introduced to favour the establishment and/or retention of habitats. In addition, the new compulsory standard on the establishment of buffer strips along watercourses could also provide benefits for biodiversity depending on the management applied on these areas. The aim was to compensate in part for the loss of market set-aside, which had provided benefits to set-aside and water quality.'),
	('A2_1_5',2008,'See A 2.1.1 \n\nMember States were requested in their Rural Development Plans to commit themselves that all actions undertaken under these programmes will have to be carried out in accordance with the then environmental legislation, with particular emphasis on the nature directives. Safeguard clauses had to be attached to those measures which can have potential adverse impact on biodiversity and NATURA sites.'),
	('A2_1_5',2010,'Member States\' draft Rural Development Programmes for 2007-13 were subject to an ex-ante evaluation as well as a strategic environmental assessment. Programmes had to be adjusted according to the conclusions of the assessments. \n\nIn addition, Member States were requested in their Rural Development Programmes to commit themselves that all actions undertaken under these programmes will have to be carried out in accordance with the environmental legislation, with particular emphasis on the nature directives. Safeguard clauses had to be attached to those measures which can have potential adverse impact on biodiversity and NATURA sites. \n\nSee also A 2.1.1'),
	('A2_1_6',2008,'See A 2.1.1 \n\nAll RDPs include the provision that the farm advisory services and system will cover standards and requirements of cross-compliance. The latter contains also some of the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directive. Moreover, promotion of sustainable farming respecting biodiversity needs and raising environmental awareness of farmers form part of most training to be provided under the RDPs.'),
	('A2_1_6',2010,'All Member States which provide support through their RDPs for farm advisory services include a provision that they will cover at the minimum the standards and requirements of cross-compliance. The latter contains also some of the provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directive. Member States plan to spend € 637 million from EAFRD on advisory services for the period 2007-2013. \n\nDuring the same period, MSs planned expenditures for training amount to € 1232 million. In 2008 around one third of the EAFRD funding for training was devoted to the r, promotion of sustainable farming respecting biodiversity needs and raising environmental awareness of farmers. \n\nSee also A 2.1.1'),
	('A2_1_7',2008,'Covered under rural development policy for 2007-2013; See A 2.1.1 the revision of the LFA scheme should be seen as a separate exercise which is supposed to be finalised in 2009 in order to be put in place in 2010. The Commission published in November 2006 an evaluation of the Less Favoured Area measure in the 25 Member States of the EU. The results indicate that the LFA measure has been part of a set of policies which have proved successful in maintaining farming but with variable results at the more specific land management level. The focus on livestock farms has helped to address the key issue of continued grazing on farms where profitability tends to be low and this is a major contribution to meeting nature conservation and landscape goals over a significant area. Other habitat types have benefited less from the LFA measure. The results of this study are used as an input in the discussions on the revision of the LFA scheme. Following the inclusion into axis 2 of the renewed rural development policy, natural handicap payments now have a stronger focus on land management, contributing, through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside and to maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems that deliver public goods, such as valuable landscapes, biodiversity, soil conservation and fire prevention in areas where farming is difficult. The services of the Commission published different options for revising the scheme for public consultation as of end May 2008. The Commission proposal is scheduled for the first quarter of 2009.'),
	('A2_1_7',2010,'Covered under rural development policy for 2007-2013. \n\nThe revision of the LFA scheme has been postponed until the CAP reform for the post 2013 period. \n\nSee also A 2.1.1'),
	('A2_1_8',2008,'See A 2.1.1; \n\nMandatory work on indicators ongoing (farmland birds, Natura 2000, Tree species composition) & working to 2010 target. Communication on agri-env. indicators adopted (COM(2006)508)); Council conclusions on the Communication give broad mandate to Commission for continuing work on indicators along the lines proposed in COM(2006)508. This work will be undertaken within framework of memorandum of understanding between Commission and EEA. 3 main objectives: consolidate selected set of indicators and extend it to new MS, correct existing weaknesses, establish a permanent and stable arrangement for management and long-term functioning of indicator system. All RDPs had to be accompanied by ex-ante evaluations and SEA whose evaluation was part of the assessment process; \n\nSome of the agri-environmental indicators developed under the work mentioned above have been integrated into the common monitoring and evaluation framework of the rural development policy.'),
	('A2_1_8',2010,'Work on improving the quality of indicators continues within the Evaluation Network on RD and in the context of a memorandum of understanding between Commission and EEA. Some of the agri-environmental indicators developed have been integrated into the common monitoring and evaluation framework of the rural development policy. \n\nA few studies on forest biodiversity have already provided information and can serve as a first benchmark for assessing forest biodiversity trends. They have been co-funded under the frame of the Regulation 2152/2003 Forest Focus: the forest-biota study, the Biosoil study etc. \n\nAll RDPs had to be accompanied by ex-ante evaluations and SEA whose evaluation was part of the assessment process. \n\nSee also A 2.1.1 and A2.1.5'),
	('A2_2_1',2008,'Publication in 2006 of the report elaborated by the Joint Research Centre (Inst. f. Environment and Sustainability, JRC-IES) on Common criteria for risk area identification according to soil threats (EUR 22185 EN see: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/eusoils_docs/esb_rr/n20_EUR22185.pdf). This report has been distributed to all Member States in March 2007. This work will be continued by the JRC in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy for the Framework Directive on soil protection when the latter will be adopted by the EU.'),
	('A2_2_1',2010,'As a major contribution to the International Year of Biodiversity, the new European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity has been compiled by the JRC (Inst. f. Environment and Sustainability, JRC-IES) and will be officially presented during the high-level meeting “Soils, Climate Change and Biodiversity-Where do we stand?” in Brussels, the 24th of September 2010. A specific side event at COP10 of CBD in Nagoya, Japan has been scheduled for the presentation and distribution of this atlas to the global biodiversity stakeholder community.'),
	('A2_2_2',2008,'Adoption of the Commission Proposal for a Thematic Strategy on soil protection (COM(2006) 231 and COM(2006)232 of 22.9.2006). The European Parliament adopted its first reading decision on the Soil Framework Directive in November 2007. The Council failed to reach a political agreement on the proposal in its meeting of December 2007. However, discussions are currently ongoing with the EU institutions for its adoption and subsequent implementation. \n\nIn order to gain more knowledge about soil biodiversity, the COM is exploring the possibilities of funding research projects in the context of the 2009-2010 calls under FP7. The Commission has launched a study on soil biodiversity to gather the most recent information available on soil biodiversity taxonomy, the role of the different species in contributing to or performing soil functions, the vulnerability of soil organisms to different impacts and pressures, indicators and monitoring schemes for detecting trends in soil biodiversity, policies and legislation to specifically protect soil biodiversity. The results of this study will be available at the end of 2009.'),
	('A2_2_2',2010,'The results of the study on soil biodiversity to gather the most recent information available on soil biodiversity taxonomy, the role of the different species in contributing to or performing soil functions, the vulnerability of soil organisms to different impacts and pressures, indicators and monitoring schemes for detecting trends in soil biodiversity, policies and legislation to specifically protect soil biodiversity were published in March 2010 and are available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/biodiversity.htm. In addition, two studies were co-funded under the Forest Focus Regulation on forest soil biodiversity (in France and Belgium).'),
	('A2_3_1',2008,'New work programme for common implementation strategy for WFD agreed for 2007-2009; Progress in monitoring - MS reporting due in March 2007; work on \'intercalibration\' (harmonising biological methods to assess ecological status) advanced; guidance on intercalibration application being prepared; Eutrophication guidance review underway. The progress in implementation was presented in a Communication (COM(2007) 128 and SEC(2007) 362). 26 Member States have reported the monitoring programmes in time under the newly established WISE. Assessment is underway and will be presented in the end of 2008. The intercalibration decision was adopted in October 2008. River Basin Management Plans (incl. ecological reporting) are expected to be reported to WISE for 110 river basin districts in March 2010. Commission will report on progress of this first planning cycle (incl. progress towards contributing to biodiversity goals) in the end of 2012.'),
	('A2_3_1',2010,'The new work programme for common implementation strategy for WFD was agreed for 2010- 2012 and the results of the \'intercalibration\' exercise were adopted (COM Decision of 30 October 2008 (2008/915/EC)). The results of intercalibration (harmonising biological methods to assess ecological status) phase 2 (2008-2011) are under way. \n\nGuidance on intercalibration process revised and updated. \n\nEutrophication guidance and policy summary completed. \n\nImplementation report on Member States\' monitoring programmes available (COM(2009) 156 and SEC(2009) 415). \n\nBetween December 2009 and March 2010, adoption and submission to the Commission by Member States of the River Basin Management plans (110 river basin districts) pursuant to Article 13 of the Water Framework Directive. The Commission is in the process of carrying out the full assessment of the Plans. These should aim at complying with the obligation to achieve good ecological status of waters by 2015.'),
	('A2_4_1',2008,'Implementation report for urban wastewater treatment directive (SEC(2007)363). After a 2 year review process, the Commission adopted on 21 December 2007 a package to improve the EU policy on industrial emissions. This includes a Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions [COM(2007) 843 final] [SEC(2007) 1679] [SEC(2007) 1682] that recasts seven existing Directives related to industrial emissions into a single clear and coherent legislative instrument. The recast includes the IPPC Directive, the Large Combustion Plants Directive, the Waste Incineration Directive, the Solvents Emissions Directive and 3 Directives on Titanium Dioxide. (see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/proposal.htm). The IPPC Directive (2008/1/EC) requires installations falling under its scope to operate in accordance with permits including emission limit values based on the best available techniques (BAT), designed to prevent and, where that is not practicable, generally to reduce emissions and the impact to the environment as a whole. The prevention or reduction of emissions to air, water and soil should therefore be dealt with in the environmental permits issued in accordance with the IPPC Directive. The key deadline for the full implementation of the Directive was 30/10/2007. \n\nEPER is the European Pollutant Emission Register, the first European-wide register of industrial emissions into air and water, which was established by a Commission Decision of 17 July 2000. According to the EPER Decision, Member States have to produce a triennial report, which covers the emissions of 50 pollutants to be included if the threshold values indicated in Annex A1 of the EPER Decision are exceeded. Reports (2001, 2004) are published on the internet (http://eper.ec.europa.eu). From 2007 reporting will be made according to Regulation 2006/166/EC concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers that replaces EPER. \n\nThe aim of the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) is to prevent or to reduce as far as possible negative effects on the environment caused by the incineration and co-incineration of waste. The WI Directive requires the Commission to report on the application of the Directive, in particular for new plants and on the progress achieved in emission control techniques and experience in waste management. The Commission\'s Communication \'Towards on improved policy on industrial emissions\' summarises this report. The 4th Implementation Report on Urban Waste Water Directive (91/271/EEC) was published on 22 March 2007 linked to the Communication “Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union”. The Executive Summary presents the overall picture in the EU, whilst a more detailed report presents the status of implementation in each Member State. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterurbanwaste/ implementation/implementationreports_en.htm) \n\nIn order to streamline and facilitate the reporting and sharing of information on the water environment between the Member States, the European Commission, the European Environment Agency (EEA), EUROSTAT and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) was set up. The first reporting obligation for which the new electronic system is used is the reporting of monitoring networks under the Articles 8 and 15 of the Water Framework Directive (2007). \n\nThe Commission adopted a \'Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive\' in 2006 as the progress and work programme for 2007-2009 for the implementation of Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).'),
	('A2_4_1',2010,'Under the \'Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive\' a new work programme has been adopted for 2010-2012 for the implementation of Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), including Dangerous Substances Directive (2006/11/EC) \n\nDangerous Substances Directive (Directive 2006/11/EC) – codified version of Directive 76/464/EEC complements the scope of the WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC). It lays down the strategy against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances into aquatic environment. According to this directive, Member States shall take appropriate steps to eliminate/reduce pollution of waters by dangerous substances listed in Annex I to the directive. Annex I substances have to be seen in relation to Annex VIII of the WFD as well as to Annex I and II of the new Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (Directive 2008/105/EC).'),
	('A2_4_2',2008,'COM preparing legislative proposal for a revision of the NEC Directive in order to lay down national emission ceilings for 2020 achievable with cost-effective measures at national level on top of recent Commission policy proposals for industrial installations, new emission standards for heavy duty vehicles, the Climate action and renewable energy package and the recent IMO agreement, which all together already will reduce emissions significantly, but not sufficiently to meet all the objectives of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. The proposal will also include a provision to monitor the effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems within all types of Natura 2000 sites. Background documentation prepared for the revision of the NECD http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/iam_nec_dir.htm.'),
	('A2_4_2',2010,NULL),
	('A2_4_3',2008,'A report on implementation of Nitrates Directive based on the information transmitted by EU 15 Member States in the period 2004-2006 (3rd reporting exercise 2000-2003) produced (COM(2007) 120 final); preparations now underway for the implementation report for the period 2004-2007, with Commission report in 2010. \n\nA Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides was proposed to reduce the risks to human health and the environment from the use of pesticides. This new proposal is accompanied by a revision of existing legislation regarding the placing of plant protection products on the market and by two additional legislative proposals: one on the environmental protection requirements to be met by new pesticide application equipment placed on the market and the other one on the collection of statistics on plant protection products. The legislative adoption procedure of the Framework Directive has started in 2006 and should be terminated in 2009.'),
	('A2_4_3',2010,'A report on implementation of Nitrates Directive based on the information transmitted by 27 Member States during 2008 (4th reporting period 2004-2007) was published by the Commission in 2010. Based on the feedback from this reporting period as well as following developments in other directives and IT preliminary work for next reporting period has started. \n\nA Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides entered into force on 25th November 2009 to reduce the risks to human health and the environment from the use of pesticides. The new Directive is accompanied by a Regulation on the placing of plant protection products on the market, revising Directive 91/414/EEC and by two additional pieces of legislation: the Regulation concerning the statistics on pesticides and the revision of the Machinery Directive. \n\nThe Nitrates Directive and Directive 91/414 have been part of cross-compliance under the Common Agricultural Policy since 2003. This has contributed to a better application of these directives. In addition, agri-environmental measures aimed at i.a. input reduction have provided incentives to reduce pollution in the agricultural sector. \n\nThe Commission is currently reflecting on the need to have specific measures addressing sustainable use of biocidal products. A study on the assessment of different options to address risks from the use phase of biocidal products was carried out in 2009 and another study on best practices in the area of sustainable use of biocides is being carried out at the moment. In June 2009, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation concerning the placing on the market and use of biocidal products. The proposal, which is currently discussed in the codecision, does not contain provisions on sustainable use.'),
	('A2_4_4',2008,'Agreement in 2nd reading was achieved in June 2008 for the Daughter Directive under the Water Framework Directive setting environmental quality standards for 41 dangerous chemical substances (including 33 priority substances and 8 other pollutants) that pose a particular risk to animal and plant life in the aquatic environment and to human health. Publication of the new Directive is foreseen in early 2009. \n\nA review of the Paints Directive (2004/42/EC) in line with the provisions of Article 9 of the Directive is under completion and is likely to come into force in 2010. The directive obliges Member States to establish systems to monitor compliance of products with the requirements of the directive, the first of which was due by 31 June 2008. \n\nStudy to complement the priority list of endocrine disruptors with a focus on Low Production Volume Chemicals (LPVC) was completed end of December 2006; The third implementation report of the Community Strategy for Endocrine Disrupters was published in November 2007 (SEC (2007) 1635). REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances) (EC 1907/2006) entered into force on 1 June 2007. The Regulation will result in assessing risks to human health and the environment of ca. 30 000 chemical substances being currently used in the EU. The most risky substances, including those having persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties (or very persistent and very bioaccumulative), may be banned and specific uses may only be authorised if socio-economic benefits of a use outweigh risks and there are no suitable alternatives. \n\nThe 2nd triennial report (2003-2006) in line with the Biocidal Products Directive (98/8/EC) is under finalisation.'),
	('A2_4_4',2010,'Environmental Quality Standards Directive (Directive 2008/105/EC) has been adopted. This directive has to be seen in the context of the Water Framework Directive and not as an independent directive. It establishes environmental quality standards for 41 dangerous chemical substances (including 33 priority substances and 8 other pollutants) that pose a particular risk (hazard and exposure) to animal and plant life in the aquatic environment and to human health. \n\nIn addition, the Commission is working on the preparation of a new proposal that need to be ready by January 2011 in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Quality Standard Directive. \n\nUnder the \'Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive\' a new work programme has been adopted for 2010-2012 for the implementation of Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), including the implementation of Environmental Quality Standards Directive (2008/105/EC).'),
	('A2_5_1',2008,'Adoption of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23.10.2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p.27); 1st milestone will be preliminary flood risk assessment (for 2011); second step flood hazard maps and flood risk maps (for 2013). Information exchange on different topics in relation to implementation of this Directive is ongoing with thematic workshops organised under an expert working group established to support the implementation of the Directive. Issues addressed in 2008 are sustainable land use planning and flood risk management (April 2008) as well as on flood mapping (September 2008). Within the first topic the issue of working with natural processes is also addressed, and in the second topic the issue of mapping potential adverse consequences for the environment will be considered.'),
	('A2_5_1',2010,NULL),
	('A2_5_2',2008,'See 2.5.1.; \n\n1st management plans set for 2015; To be co-ordinated with implementation of WFD. Certain aspects of flood risk management are also foreseen to be considered in the 1st river basin management plans currently in preparation to be established by 22.12.2009, in particular as far as prevention of pollution as a result of floods, as well as hydromorphology and the need to assessing better environmental options before undertaking a new modification to a water body which could hinder the achievement of the WFD objectives of the water body in question.'),
	('A2_5_2',2010,'Expert group on rivers set up by DG ENV and DG TREN in 03/2009.'),
	('A3_1_1',2008,'The Marine Strategy Framework Directive was adopted in June 2008 (OJ L 164 of 25.6.2008, p.19). It provides the basis for achieving good environmental status in the marine environment and includes provision for the further development of marine protected areas. Adaptive management, on the basis of the ecosystem approach, will be applied to attain good environmental status. \n\nEuropean Marine Monitoring & Assessment (EMMA) led by COM & EEA, helping prepare ground for future implementation - will include initial assessment of state of marine. Physically Sensitive Areas and high Oxygen Depletion Risk Areas mapped, see: http://emis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/4_1_gismap.php.'),
	('A3_1_1',2010,'The Marine Strategy Framework Directive was adopted in June 2008 (OJ L 164 of 25.6.2008, p.19). A Common Implementation Strategy has been adopted, entailing the set in motion of a Strategy Coordination Working Group as well as working groups to further develop the \'good environmental status\' concept and data handling and monitoring activities. \n\nThe Commission is expected to adopt a decision specifying parameters and criteria to make operational the descriptors listed in the Directive by July 2010. To this end, preparatory work is being carried out by the International Council for the exploration of the Seas and the Joint Research Centre\'s Institute for Environment and Sustainability (JRC-IES). \n\nThe reports prepared from different working groups of experts include one on biodiversity (available at http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/13642 scrolling down and using the View/Open option).).'),
	('A3_1_2',2008,'See A 3.1.1.'),
	('A3_1_2',2010,'See A 3.1.1.'),
	('A3_1_3',2008,'Green paper adopted (June 2006). Stakeholder consultation concluded with over 490 contributions received. Impact assessment also concluded end 2007. \n\nIn October 2007 the Commission adopted a Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the EU together with a detailed Action Plan (COM (2007) 575 final) setting out an ambitious work programme for the years ahead. It ensures the key biodiversity and ecosystem provisions of the Marine Thematic Strategy while the Action Plan lists further actions towards the protection of marine. The Com is now working on the implementation of the action plan. \n\nA European Monitoring and Data Network for the Seas (EMODNET), to be established (see A3.7.1).'),
	('A3_1_3',2010,'The recently adopted Commission progress report on the Integrated Maritime Policy (COM/2009/0540 final) consolidates the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as the environmental pillar. Moreover, the definition of the boundaries of sustainability of human activities that have an impact on the marine environment, in line with the Directive is considered one of the six strategic directions to deliver the IMP objectives.'),
	('A3_1_4',2008,'See A.2.3.1.'),
	('A3_1_4',2010,'See A.2.3.1.'),
	('A3_1_5',2008,'An external evaluation of the implementation of the ICZM Recommendation was carried out in 2006. It concluded that the Recommendation has had a positive effect in stimulating progress towards a more integrated planning and management of Europe\'s coastal zones. In its Communication (COM (2007) 308), COM presented broad policy directions for the further support of ICZM at EU level. These include the development of guidance and sharing of good-practices, and the identification of 2 priority themes, being (1) adaptation to coastal risks and climate change impacts and (2) cooperation in regional sea context, including management of the land-sea interface and marine spatial planning. Specific actions to be designed in coherence with the Maritime Policy and the Marine Strategy Directive in particular. \n\nThe evaluation of the EU ICZM Recommendation concluded that more support to the implementation of ICZM needed to be given. A call for tender (1M€) was launched in 2008 to support the exchange of experience and comparative analysis of ICZM. The contract should start 1/2009 and run through to 2/2012. \n\n- In the framework of the Cohesion policy, the transnational operational programmes were adopted by the end of 2007. The programmes of all the European regional seas provided funding opportunities for ICZM. The implementation started in 2007/2008 with the first call for projects by the decentralised managing authorities. \n\n- The negotiations on the Protocol on ICZM in the framework of the Barcelona Convention were successfully concluded. By June 2008 all EU Member States (except Cyprus) signed the Protocol. The Proposal for the Community signature of the Protocol was put forward by the Commission The French Presidency organises a stakeholder and Ministerial conference to promote the Protocol (18/19 December 2008) with specific attention for the role the Protocol can play in stopping biodiversity decline. \n\n- The 6th RTD Framework programme supported a number of key projects to support ICZM which are to deliver results in the course of 2009/2010 (ENCORA, strategic coordination action to overcome the fragmentation of the coastal research and to facilitate research-education-user links; CONSCIENCE policy support project to make operational the concepts of sound coastal erosion management developed by the EUrosion project in 2004; SPICOSA, integrated project to support decision making and assessment of policy options in the coastal zones). In the context of the 7th Framework programme, calls for projects were launched end 2007 and in 2008 on marine spatial planning and ICZM, research to support ICZM in the Mediterranean and Black seas and coastal cities.'),
	('A3_1_5',2010,'Following the evaluation of the ICZM Recommendation (COM (2007) 308), the Commission launched the process towards a follow-up proposal to the Recommendation in 2011. A working group report on strategic directions and scoping of the impact assessment was produced in 2009. \n\nThe ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention was signed by the EU in 2008 (Council Decision 2009/89/EC) with a ratification proposal to follow in 2010. \n\nTo support implementation of ICZM the OURCOAST initiative was launched in 2009. OURCOAST focuses on exchange of experience and comparative analysis for ICZM. The first phase of the initiative runs from1/2009 through to 2/2012 (1M€). \n\nIn the framework of the Cohesion Policy, the transnational operational programmes 2007-2013 of all the European regional seas provide funding opportunities for ICZM. Relevant coastal projects have been selected in the first rounds and are being implemented (e.g. COASTANCE, ANCORIM, SUSCOD, CAMIS, C-SCOPE, TIDE? BLAST, COASTADAPT, IMCORE, BALTCICA, BALTSEAPLAN, LITOMAC), \n\nThe 6th RTD Framework programme supported a number of key projects to support ICZM which are to deliver results in the course of 2009/2010 (e.g. CONSCIENCE, SPICOSA,). In the context of the 7th Framework programme, a research project to support ICZM in the Mediterranean and Black seas was selected in 2008 (PEGASO).'),
	('A3_2_1',2008,'See A.2.4.1; \n\nCOM communication (2006/0863) presenting the current state of Community action in terms of preparedness and response to marine pollution, and indicating how the Commission intends to continue and promote its activities to the full in this field from 200; European Union established the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) (1406/2002/EC) to strengthen its role in the field of maritime safety and pollution by ships. The Agency provides technical and scientific assistance to the COM and Member States on related matters and fulfils tasks on oil pollution response. \n\nBeyond the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (which covers coastal waters), 2008 saw the adoption of the Marine Strategy Directive 2008/56/EC, expanding the scope of water protection to all marine areas, with the objective of good environmental status for all marine waters, and an obligation for Member States to cooperate and coordinate action in shared marine regions or subregions, across administrative and political boundaries.'),
	('A3_2_1',2010,'Pollutants are already included within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). \n\nSee A.3.1.1.'),
	('A3_2_2',2008,'See A.2.4.2.'),
	('A3_2_2',2010,'Eutrophication and acidifying pollution are already included within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). \n\nSee A.3.1.1.'),
	('A3_2_3',2008,'See A.2.4.3.'),
	('A3_2_3',2010,'See A.2.4.3.'),
	('A3_2_4',2008,'See A.2.4.4.'),
	('A3_2_4',2010,'Toxic chemicals are already included within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). \n\nSee A.3.1.1.'),
	('A3_3_1',2008,'Measures being introduced into CFP – e.g. legislation implementing fisheries restrictive areas to protect vulnerable deep sea habitats in the Mediterranean & recovery plan for certain fish stocks in the Baltic Sea; Council Regulation fixing for 2007-2008 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deepsea fish stocks; Council Regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean; Legislation implementing fisheries restrictive areas to protect deep-sea habitats in the Mediterranean and in the North East Atlantic included in the proposed 2008 TAC & Quota Regulation.'),
	('A3_3_1',2010,'Regional Marine Strategies will only be operational by 2016'),
	('A3_4_1',2008,'Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the EFF. Designed to help implement the reformed CFP principles and to promote sustainable fisheries; National strategic reference frameworks and OPs being prepared; Member States have adopted National Strategic Plans for fisheries and aquaculture and proposed for approval by the Commission the Operational Plans. The Commission is checking their compliance with EU environmental acquis and their contribution to the sustainable exploitation of fisheries and aquaculture. The EFF may provide, opportunities to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. This can be done by the implementation of many different types of operations included in 4 of the 5 Priority Axes defined by regulation 1198/2006. However, in every OP these operations are grouped together with many other measures belonging to the same Axis and not linked to biodiversity and NATURA 2000. The financial information provided by the EFF OPs does not include the amount allocated to measures or operations. The only available information concerns the total allocation of the EFF plus the national public contribution for each Priority Axis, and the total annual commitment of the EFF in the operational programme.'),
	('A3_4_1',2010,'The European Fisheries Fund Regulation offers the MS the possibility, to co-finance actions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. However, the information provided by MS in their Operational Programmes does not include the amount allocated to specific actions. At present it is not possible to know the amounts allocated to actions beneficial to marine biodiversity. However, the guidelines for the interim evaluation of the EFF should include questions related to this topic. The synthesis of these evaluations should be available by the end of 2011.'),
	('A3_5_1',2008,'Communication on implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) COM(2006)360; SEC(2006)868, the Council received the Communication and issued conclusions on the 17/12/2007; ongoing measures to introduce this objective into management of different stocks. \n\nThe following relevant Council Regulations have been adopted in 2007: multiannual plan for fisheries exploiting stocks of plaice and sole in the North Sea, recovery plan for blue fin tuna, multiannual plan for sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Western Channel and a recovery plan for eel. Council Regulation for a recovery plan for Eastern Baltic Sea cod stocks and a multi-annual plan for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea adopted in September 2007. \n\nThe Commission\'s Communication on \'The role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine management\' was adopted in April 2008; This shows how measures taken under the CFP will be guided by the ecosystem approach as the overarching principle.'),
	('A3_5_1',2010,NULL),
	('A3_5_2',2008,'On 18 September 2007 Council adopted Regulation 1100/2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel COM (2005) 472 final; COM has produced a Guidance Document on preparations of Eel Management Plans in accordance with the regulation 1100/2007. The 19 concerned MS have submitted their Eel Management Plans to the COM, which the COM is scientifically assessing before adoption (15 EMP have been adopted so far). \n\nLong-term management plan for the Baltic Salmon to be adopted in 2011.'),
	('A3_5_2',2010,NULL),
	('A3_5_3',2008,'Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the EP on MSs efforts to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Ongoing discussions with MSs to improve the framework of the annual report by ensuring a better evaluation of the over-capacity concept, according to data on fishing possibilities allocations, status of exploited fishing stocks and economic results of the fleet segments.'),
	('A3_5_3',2010,'Improved reporting by Member States and the Commission in the Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the EP on MSs efforts to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities during 2008. Commission continues to work with MSs and STECF to provide a better evaluation of the EU over-capacity, according to data on fishing possibilities allocations, status of exploited fishing stocks and economic results of the fleet segments. \n\nOn-going external study in order to assess the extent of over-capacity.'),
	('A3_5_4',2008,'Technical workshops on Marine protected areas appropriateness as management tool for management of fisheries activities carried out by the Commission supported by Community experts. Measure being introduced to protect sensitive habitats (e.g. deep sea coral reefs) may result in no-take areas; Council Regulation concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries in the Mediterranean. Chapter III includes fishing protected areas.'),
	('A3_5_4',2010,NULL),
	('A3_5_5',2008,'Commission Regulation (EC) No 1262/2006 of 23 August 2006 has amended Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 as regards the list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries in the north-east Atlantic. \n\nA Communication on \"a new strategy for the Community to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing,\" COM(2007)601, as well as a proposal for Council Regulation Establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, COM(2007) 602, have been adopted by the Commission in October 2007. On 29 September 2008, the Council adopted the Regulation establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. \n\nA stakeholder consultation has recently been launched on the reform of the CFP control system. Overcoming the shortcomings of the current control system, which dates back to 2003, will significantly help to ensure effective application of fisheries measures and deter illegal operations. The consultation exercise was open until 5 May 2008 and the Commission has adopted on 14 November 2008 a proposal for a Council Regulation on the reform of the control system of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It is designed to strengthen the current regulatory framework in order to ensure a level playing field and to develop a culture of compliance within the fisheries sector across the European Union (COM(2008) 721 final).'),
	('A3_5_5',2010,NULL),
	('A3_6_1',2008,'Simplified technical measures through the New Technical Measures Regulation proposed in 2008 will improve selectivity of fishing gear. Ongoing work. e.g.: article 9 by-catch provisions of the Council Regulation Establishing a multi-annual recovery Plan for Bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. \n\nIn March 2007 the Commission adopted a Communication (COM 2007 (136)) on reducing unwanted catches and eliminating discards in European fisheries, for which the EP expressed broad support in its plenary session of the 31 January 2008. Legislation implementing fisheries restrictive areas to protect vulnerable deep-sea habitats in the Mediterranean and in the North East Atlantic is included in the 2008 TAC and Quota Regulation. \n\nCouncil Regulation 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries in the Mediterranean includes prohibition of fishing with devices impacting sensitive habitats (e.g. sea grasses) in areas known to host such habitats.'),
	('A3_6_1',2010,'Ongoing work. e.g.: article 9 by-catch provisions of the Council Regulation Establishing a multiannual recovery Plan for Bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. In October 2009, the Council Regulation No 1288/2009 for transitional technical measures in the Atlantic was adopted. \n\nLegislation implementing fisheries restrictive areas to protect vulnerable deep-sea habitats he North East Atlantic is included in the NEAFC Regulation. Deep water coral reefs in the Atlantic are protected through several Council Regulations No 1568/2005, 602/2004 and 734/2008. \n\nCouncil Regulation 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries in the Mediterranean includes prohibition of fishing with devices impacting sensitive habitats (e.g. sea grasses) in areas known to host such habitats.'),
	('A3_6_2',2008,'Community Action Plan for Sharks; Shark Action Plan was opened for consultation until 15 February 2008, an impact assessment of the Shark Action Plan has been undertaken and is foreseen to be adopted in early 2009; COM following work of FAO/ IPOA on sharks.\n\n COM is gathering information and scientific advice with a view to completing a Community plan of action for reducing seabird by-catch in the context of FAO by end 2009. \n\nSee also comments under A.1.1.1 in relation to the marine Natura 2000 and fisheries management'),
	('A3_6_2',2010,'COM adopted the Community Action Plan for Sharks in February 2009, COM(2009)40 final. The Council welcomed the Action Plan and supported an approach to implement elements of the Plan. COM is working on the amendment of the finning Regulation and proposed to the Council the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and quotas Regulation for 2010, which was adopted with a zero TAC for porbeagle and limited by-catch for spurdog. Measures have been taken on the improvement of data collection. Progress has been made in several Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), although in this particular aspect it should be noted that results of EU action are dependent also on other non-EU parties. COM supported the listing of several shark species in the annexes of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD) Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. COM is preparing proposals to list two shark species in Appendix II of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). \n\nCOM did not develop a Community plan of action for reducing incidental catches of seabird in the context of FAO by end 2009. The COM services have already initiated the impact assessment procedure. Such a process foresees, among other actions, a consultation with experts/stakeholders and an impact assessment study aimed to deliver recommendations on best practices to reduce incidental catches and, in parallel, the economic/social and environmental impacts associated to the use of mitigation measures. The study will focus in the pelagic and demersal longline fisheries at Gran Sol area (southwest of Ireland) and Mediterranean Sea, and in gillnet fisheries taking place in the Baltic and North Sea. COM is also planning to promote communication on easy-to-implement measures at RAC level and to promote management measures within RFMOs (such as General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) to alleviate the problem. \n\nSee also comments under A.1.1.1 in relation to the marine Natura 2000 and fisheries management.'),
	('A3_6_3',2008,'Protection measures for four Irish SACs included as an amendment to 2008 TAC & QUOTA Regulation adopted in December 2007. \n\nDG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf) \n\nCOM is responding to MS requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites. New request from Spain for El Cachucho area is submitted. \n\nMeasures included in the Mediterranean Regulation. [ The Darwin Mounds: in 2003 and 2004 the Commission adopted, under the emergency procedure, two Commission Regulations (EC) 1475/2003 and (EC) 263/2004 for the protection of deep-water coral reefs from the effects of trawling. In 2004 these measures were made permanent by Council Regulation (EC) 602/2004. \n\nIn December 2007 temporary protection measures were adopted for four candidate Natura 2000 sites in Irish waters (amendments to the 2008 and 2009 TAC and Quota Regulations (40/2008 and 43/2009 respectively).'),
	('A3_6_3',2010,'The Voordelta: Commission Decision of 11 June 2008 on the confirmation of measures proposed by the Netherlands for the conservation of marine ecosystems in the Voordelta area 2008/915/EC. Fisheries restrictions for certain areas within the 12 nm of Dutch waters (Compensation for Natura 2000 areas following the extension of Rotterdam harbour). \n\nEl Cachucho (offshore area 25km from the Spanish coast in the Cantabrian Sea: Protection measures adopted in December 2008 by amendment of the TAC and Quota Regulation (EC) No 43/2009).'),
	('A3_6_4',2008,'Ongoing'),
	('A3_6_4',2010,'Expert group on rivers set up by DG ENV and DG TREN in 03/2009. \n\nStudies to provide tools for better integration of biodiversity issues in EIAs (local level) and SEAs (strategic level) launched under Preparatory Actions 2008.'),
	('A3_7_1',2008,'Study and expert workshops carried with STECF and ICES to identify improved indicators for reporting on impact of fishing on marine ecosystem (report released in July 2007). The Council adopted on 25 February 2008 the Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. This new framework also introduces provisions to meet the new developments following the 2002 Reform of the CFP, in particular the move towards fisheries- or fleet-based management as opposed to managing individual stocks, the integration of environmental data, and the shift towards an ecosystem-based approach. \n\nThe new Data Collection Regulation (DCR) includes the obligation for MSs to collect environmental data. The collection of basic scientific information will support periodic assessments of the progress of the CFP in integrating biodiversity protection requirements. The new DCR also includes access to and use of detailed data, in particular, access to satellite monitoring (VMS) data will provide detailed information at the high level of resolution required for effective spatial planning. This will play a major role in enabling effective action to protect vulnerable marine habitats both under the EU\'s Habitats Directive, and in fulfilment of the EU\'s international commitments. In August 2008 the Commission adopted technical implementing rules (COM 665/2008). In addition the Commission has recently proposed detailed implementing rules concerning the Commission\'s financial contribution to the Data Collection National programmes. \n\nA European Monitoring and Data Network for the Seas (EMODNET), to be established in the context of the new Integrated Maritime Policy, will monitor indicators on the natural state of the seas, including biodiversity.'),
	('A3_7_1',2010,'The basic data and information that could be used to assess progress on the actions foreseen for environmental integration (see COM(2002)186) is to a large extent routinely collected in the framework of the Data Collection Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, formerly Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000). \n\nAs far as reporting is concerned, the services of the Commission had also developed a system of indicators of environmental integration for the CFP (SEC(2004)892). However, in absence of a legal reporting obligation, no comprehensive report to the Council and the Parliament has been done on progress towards environmental integration. \n\nConversely, regular reports are done on the reduction of fishing pressure in the context of multi-annual management plans, which was the most important action foreseen in the 2002 communication on integration. These reports, which range from scientific assessments to political guidelines to establish annually the fishing opportunities for Member States\' fleets, are regularly made available to the Council, the Parliament and all stakeholders.'),
	('A4_1_1',2008,'Funding possibilities included in ERDF Reg. 1080/2006 (Art.5, part B); guidance on Financing Natura 2000 includes ERDF; seminars on financing NATURA 2000 provided in MS; The 27 MS have planned to invest a total amount of €5,2 billion (in practice from ERDF, CF and ETC funds), which represent in average 1,5% of the total financial allocations of the programmes. This amount covers only the Community participation to be completed by national and private funds. The Community participation varies according to the level of development of the regions or countries and can reach 85% in the convergence regions and in the new MS. Member states have made allocations to several categories of spending related to the protection of biodiversity and management of natural resources. The most relevant category is the “Promotion of biodiversity and nature protection” (code 51) for which €2719 million has been allocated. Also highly relevant is the \"protection of natural assets\" (code 55) for which €1146 million is allocated. A total of €1376 million, foreseen for the protection and development of natural heritage\" (Code 56) in the framework of tourism, will also include some spending for nature and biodiversity. With exception of Cyprus, Ireland and Luxembourg all MS have allocated some funds for nature and biodiversity protection although this varies considerable between countries. Lithuania and Malta have used more than 3% of their allocated funds for biodiversity. Biodiversity benefits can also be expected from measures in the urban context (quarters/brownfield rehabilitation, re-establishment of green areas/open space etc.) and, more directly, from landscape conservation measures where they accompany major infrastructure projects to compensate for biodiversity losses. \n\nEuropean Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programmes (former INTERREG) compared to national programmes, show higher allocations for specific action in favour of biodiversity and / or Natura 2000, approximately 5.6 % of the ETC programmes budget. They include a wide variety of cross-border cooperation measures within transnational partnerships.'),
	('A4_1_1',2010,NULL),
	('A4_1_2',2008,'No explicit mention to biodiversity funding but relevant opportunities (e.g. life long learning, training) exist for MS - outlined in COM guidance doc on financing NATURA 2000. Under the ESF, no funds are planned to be spent under the categories 51, 55 and 56. However, on initiative of some MS regions, the ESF will support training/education measures for specific projects at regional and local levels (examples: co-funding of regional programmes under the UNESCO Decade for Education for sustainable development1, supporting schemes like the German ecological year for young people, training of park rangers). The ESF programmes offer a wide range of other funding opportunities but they need to be identified and proactively by the interested parties at national levels. Many Convergence programmes allow for using the technical assistance to support measures that indirectly promote Natura 2000/ biodiversity activities. This is for instance the case in DE, FR, IT, BG, RO or MT where technical assistance (or the OP on technical assistance or directly the technical assistance of the OP) allow funding of measures in relation to the implementation of the environmental measures; this can concern environmental monitoring, development of GIS, evaluation activities, reinforcement of capacity building and assistance to prepare Natura 2000 management plans.'),
	('A4_1_2',2010,NULL),
	('A4_1_3',2008,'All the NSRFs and most of the OP are now adopted (June 2008). The conformity of NSRFs and Operational Programmes with environmental acquis has been checked during the negotiations which are now completed.'),
	('A4_1_3',2010,NULL),
	('A4_1_4',2008,'Most ERDF and CF supported OPs (326 out of 335) have been adopted (as of 01/04/08). COM (DG REGIO and ENV) wrote to MS (February 2006) regarding their obligations regarding SEA directive. In the process of adoption, all relevant DGs have been consulted on the OPs and their accompanying documents, among them, the justification on how SEA finding have been taken into account in the OPs. The biodiversity dimension has been assessed, although in general terms. The level of detail of the assessment of the OP on biodiversity varies between countries and from one OP to the other, and is closely related to the level of detail of the programme. \n\nThis is not the case for the major projects i.e. those over Euro 50m (25m for environmental projects) and for the TENs projects, where more information on the location of the projects was available at the level of the programme. It seems, that the experience of common practice on how to deal with the biodiversity dimension in a SEA context is limited, especially at the intermediate geographical level of the regions where the OP intervenes. In general, the SEA of the regional programmes did not contain specific recommendations concerning biodiversity, except for most OPs on transport or large infrastructures when projects were likely to cross Natura 2000 areas. The SEA has also proposed additional monitoring and evaluation criteria to be incorporated in the programmes. In a few OPs clauses conditioning the funding to the respect of nature protection legislation with the focus on Natura 2000 sites, were introduced. For example, this is the case of Poland (Co-financing of projects having negative impact on the potential Natura 2000 sites which have not been designated shall not be eligible), Bulgaria (co-financing of projects having negative impact on potential Natura 2000 sites not permitted).'),
	('A4_1_4',2010,'Modification of Operational Programmes might be undertaken by the relevant Managing Authorities in agreement with the European Commission. \n\nFurther reflexion is needed on how to deal with the biodiversity dimension in a SEA context, especially at the intermediate geographical level of the regions where the OP intervenes.'),
	('A4_1_5',2008,'The major projects\' form includes an explicit reference to the EIA and Natura 2000 sites Evaluations of Major Projects for the period 2007-2013 begun as soon as the projects submitted to the Commission. EIA includes a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the project, including fauna, flora, and landscape. The EIA provides also for the assessment of alternatives to take into account environmental effects. DG ENV will verify that the EIA takes duly into account impact on nature and biodiversity (including ecosystems) and the measures foreseen to avoid, minimise and compensate. \n\nAdditional efforts to address also climate change effects in combination with the OP investments and the interrelations between them and biodiversity and the possible needs for adaptation.'),
	('A4_1_5',2010,NULL),
	('A4_1_6',2008,'The SEA process has allowed the participation of civil society (in conformity with the provisions of the SEA Directive). When the public (including NGOs) had expressed comments on the programmes or the SEA, the Authority responsible for the programmes had the obligation to explain how the opinions expressed during the consultation had been taken in consideration. In practice, even if the timeframe of the consultations were not always sufficient to allow a large public to take part in the consultation, the SEA process has given to NGOs interested in the programme an opportunity to express their voice.'),
	('A4_1_6',2010,'Ongoing action for the modification of Operational Programmes'),
	('A4_2_1',2008,'See A.1.1.4 re SEA study.'),
	('A4_2_1',2010,'See A.1.1.4 and the Commission report (COM(2009)469) regarding the SEA study.'),
	('A4_2_2',2008,NULL),
	('A4_2_2',2010,NULL),
	('A4_3_1',2008,'Promoting correct application of SEA, which covers land use plans. New initiative - \"Territorial Agenda for the European Union\" - agreed in May 2007, provides an opportunity for planning and implementation of European ecological networks, especially stressing its role for opportunities for sustainable development in marginal areas and preservation of traditional cultural landscapes of Europe.'),
	('A4_3_1',2010,'The concept of territorial cohesion, which is part of the Lisbon Treaty, will also look at its environmental dimension, within the context of Cohesion Policy. Exchange of best-practice examples on integrated spatial planning at workshop on Green Infrastructure held in 03/2009. More information on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm'),
	('A4_4_1',2008,'To be considered under new EU Business and Biodiversity Initiative (See B 3.1.6).'),
	('A4_4_1',2010,'On the broader \'Business and Biodiversity\' initiative for business engagement see B 3.1.6 \n\nGuidance on sustainable tourism and Natura 2000 published (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/nat2000/sust_tourism.pdf) \n\nThe \'European Destination of Excellence\' award initiative of the COM includes nature related criteria. The theme of 2009 was dedicated especially to \'Tourism and Protected areas\' (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/eden/themes-destinations/index_en.htm)'),
	('A4_5_1',2008,'Approach as for EU27 + Canaries, Azores & Madeira subject to EU nature legislation.'),
	('A4_5_1',2010,'The concept of territorial cohesion, which is part of the Lisbon Treaty, will also look at its environmental dimension, within the context of Cohesion Policy.'),
	('A4_6_1',2008,'See A.1.1.4.'),
	('A4_6_1',2010,'See A.1.1.4.'),
	('A4_6_2',2008,'See A.1.1.4.'),
	('A4_6_2',2010,'See A.1.1.4.'),
	('A4_6_3',2008,'Ongoing'),
	('A4_6_3',2010,'Ongoing'),
	('A4_6_4',2008,'See A.1.1.4.'),
	('A4_6_4',2010,'See A.1.1.4.'),
	('A5_1_1',2008,'A gap assessment of the current legal and policy framework applying to invasive species (IS) was completed in July 2006. A Council Regulation dealing specifically with alien species in aquaculture was agreed on 11 June 2007 (Council Regulation 708/2007) and a new permit system will enter into force for this sector no later than 1 January 2009.In June 2008 the Commission adopted two Regulations: Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture; and Commission Regulation (EC) No 506/2008 amending Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. COM adopted in 2008 a Communication \"towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species\". This Communication will identify policy options to tackle IAS. An ongoing study for the Commission assessing environmental, economic, and social impacts of IS, assists with the development of this policy. An evaluation of the impacts of invasive species on the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, and how these species should be considered in the definition of the good ecological quality of waters, is being carried out under the coordination of the Joint Research Centre. Several projects help inform EU policy development on IAS, funded under EU Research and Technological Development programmes e.g. DAISIE (http://www.daisie.se/), which delivered a pan European inventory of invasive species. '),
	('A5_1_1',2010,'Following the Commission\'s Communication adopted in 2008 \"towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species\", there have been Council conclusions from June 2009, giving the Commission a mandate to present a comprehensive EU strategy against IAS by 2010. The EESC and Committee of the Regions stated that legislation will be needed. The strategy is currently being prepared. Information on the latest scientific findings on invasive alien species is provided in the \"Science for Environment Policy\" thematic issue on Invasive Alien Species. \n\nIn the frame of the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy, the JRC\'s Inst. f. Environment and Sustainability (JRC-IES) has published a report addressing how Member States apply data on alien species for water body classification of ecological status. This report EUR 24257 EN is available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/13564 scrolling down and using the View/Open option). A stakeholder consultation to develop the EU Strategy on Invasive Species will be held in September 2010. \n\nCOM is reviewing the current Plant Health regime which could also have a bearing on the Strategy to combat invasive species.'),
	('A5_1_2',2008,'No specific measures yet taken.'),
	('A5_1_2',2010,'No specific measures taken on COM level.'),
	('A5_1_3',2008,'Yet to be decided if Community action in environment or transport policy will be followed.'),
	('A5_1_3',2010,'Limited action on Community level. The Commission has strongly recommended the ratification of the convention. The European Maritime Safety Agency EMSA has presented a Ballast Water Action Plan.'),
	('A5_1_4',2008,'An effective early warning and information system (EWIS) is an integral part of the policy options suggested in Commission Communication \"Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species\". The EWIS shall be based on the DAISIE inventory and other relevant initiatives (NOBANIS, CABI...). The use of scientific online journals is explored. The European Environment Agency has launched a feasibility study of developing an EU Early warning system for IAS.'),
	('A5_1_4',2010,'The JRC is analysing databases for aquatic alien species (including DAISIE, NOBANIS) for identifying gaps and complementarities in existing data. The report, expected to be ready by the end of 2010, intends to evaluate the potential use of existing data in the Water Framework Directive.'),
	('A5_2_1',2008,'Regulatory framework in place. First regular implementation report of the European Community submitted in autumn 2007.'),
	('A5_2_1',2010,'Regulatory framework in place.'),
	('A5_2_2',2008,'A study on long-term effects of GM crops on health, biodiversity and the environment was launched in 2007 to be reported on end 2008/start 2009.'),
	('A5_2_2',2010,'The European Food Safety Authority is working on a revision of the guidelines on environmental risk assessment, which is designed to prevent risk to biodiversity from GMOs. The revised guidelines are expected to be available by November 2010 and be followed by discussions with MS.'),
	('A6_1_1',2008,'The EU is strongly promoting these objectives in international meetings. The 9th Conference of the Parties to the CBD (CBD COP9) in Bonn in May 2008 adopted decisions that significantly advance international efforts to reach the global 2010 target. Biodiversity has also been taken up by the G8, both in 2007 under German and in 2008 under Japanese G8 Presidencies. Both times it was discussed by the G8 environment ministers (which adopted the \'Potsdam Initiative\' and the \'Kobe call of action\' and is addressed in the respective G8 Summit statements. The European Commission has worked actively with the respective EU Presidencies and the EU Member States and was an important contributor to these outcomes. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, the Commission has made specific grants supporting the CBD Secretariat in implementing CBD COP decisions, to the IUCN Countdown 2010 global project and the UNEP-WCMC work on 2010 indicators and the world database on protected areas and to the AEWA Secretariat.'),
	('A6_1_1',2010,'Funding was also provided to CAB International for the establishment of the Global Taxonomy Partnership and Fund. The European Commission submitted the 4th National Report of the European Community to the Convention on Biological Diversity on 15 May 2009. \n\nIn June 2010 a decision on the 2010 Annual Action Programme for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources including Energy has been taken which foresees 1 million € for the support of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in implementing CBD COP 10 decisions and a further 1 million € for support for the implementation of the CBD Work Programme on Protected Areas with a focus on marine protected areas in developing countries, least developed countries and small island developing states through targeted capacity development. \n\nIn 2009 the European Commission has started to make preparations for CBD negotiations in 2010. Council Conclusions on international biodiversity beyond 2010 were adopted December 2009. The new EU 2020 biodiversity target that was adopted in March 2010 foresees to step up the EU\'s efforts to avert global biodiversity loss. \n\nThe European Commission and Member States participated in the fourteenth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice and the third Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nairobi in May 2010. \n\nThe global Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) supported by the EC has contributed to the 2010 Millennium Development Goals Report and the Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. \n\nFollowing the successful if slow steps achieved on synergies for chemicals and waste cluster, UNEP’s work to promote synergies between biodiversity-related conventions is starting.'),
	('A6_1_2',2008,'The integration of the biodiversity 2010 target into the Millennium Development Goals targets was announced by the UN Secretary General. Progress was made in integrating further biodiversity indicators into the EU SDS indicators. The G8+5 Potsdam initiative has been welcomed by the G8 Summits in 2007 and 2008. Several activities are ongoing to integrate biodiversity into Climate Change with the aim to maximise co-benefits between Biodiversity and Climate change adaptation and mitigation measures (e.g. joint meeting of SBSTTA/SBSTA chairs, work on biofuels standards, work on reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, IPCC WG2 report results on biodiversity). The EU has been instrumental in achieving at COP9 global recognition for the principle that the production and use of biofuels should be sustainable in relation to biodiversity. COP9 also supported a de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilisation and put on track a process for feeding biodiversity considerations into the ongoing negotiations for a post 2012 international climate regime with focus on REDD and climate change adaptation activities. \n\nThe International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IT-PGRFA) aims at supporting the conservation and sustainable use of the PGRFA and at sharing the benefits of this use. The legal basis for the accession of the Community is Council Decision 2004/869/EC of 24 February 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The adoption in June 2006 of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement at the 1st session of the Governing Body of the IT was a cornerstone for the implementation of this Treaty \n\nThe Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources was adopted at the 1st International Technical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in Interlaken in June 2007.'),
	('A6_1_2',2010,'The second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change (AHTEG) under the CBD convened two meetings in 2008 and 2009 one of which was attended by an expert from the European Commission. The findings of the group have been presented at UNFCCC COP 15. \n\nThe Commission Staff Working Document \"Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010- 2013\" accompanies the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on \"A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals identifies biodiversity related targets and indicators to address the global challenges of food security and climate change\". \n\nIn 2009 under the Italian G8 Presidency, Environment Ministers adopted the “Siracusa Carta” on Biodiversity, which list priority actions to be taken on biodiversity. In September 2010, there will be for the first time a High-Level meeting of UN General Assembly (UNGA) as a contribution to the International Year of Biodiversity.'),
	('A6_1_3',2008,'COM and MSs actively participated in the UNCLOS process which led to adoption in December 2006 of Resolution 61/105 of the UN General Assembly on Sustainable Fisheries, where a commitment was made by the UN members to ensure the protection of vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems in the high seas. The Resolution calls on States and RFMOs to take measures to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from the potential destructive impact of bottom fishing practices. In October 2007 the Commission adopted a Communication on \"destructive fishing practices in the High Seas and the protection of vulnerable deep sea ecosystems\" and a proposal for a Council Regulation aiming at implementing the UNGA recommendations of December 2006. On 15 July 2008 the Council adopted Regulation 734/2008. In accordance with the policy line laid down in the Commission\'s Communication, the EC will continue to push for international measures to address this issue within Regional Fisheries Management Organisations, taking into account that the UNGA will review the response given to its recommendations in 2009. Also of relevance is the active contribution of the EU to the development of FAO technical guidelines for deep sea fisheries in the framework of the code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The guidelines were adopted in August 2008. \n\nCBD COP9 adopted criteria for the identification of marine protected areas in the high seas. COP9 also launched a process for gathering information on marine areas that meet the agreed criteria. It also agreed to develop guidelines for environmental impact assessment of activities in the high seas.'),
	('A6_1_3',2010,'COM and MSs actively participated in the review of the measures of UNGA Resolution 61/105 on the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the context of the annual negotiations on the 2009 UN Sustainable Fisheries Resolution. The new measures included in the Resolution aim to improve the protection of these ecosystems. \n\nSeveral actions were approved under the ENRTP that are relevant to this priority:'),
	('A7_1_1',2008,'The global amount allocated for biodiversity and related sectors (sustainable forest management etc.) remains at a similar level in absolute terms between former period (2000-2006) and the one following the Communication (2007-2010) – with a yearly allocation of about €38 millions. \n\nThe global increase of the budget of thematic instrument for environment (from EUR 323 million for 7 years (2000-2006) to EUR 470 million for 4 years (2007-2010)) has not benefited biodiversity, as some new themes within the energy and climate change sectors have been included. \n\nA total of €30.6 million has been allocated to biodiversity for the four year period from 2007-2010 under the EC Thematic Programme for Environment and Natural Resources (ENRTP). Furthermore, some other headings of ENRTP are strongly linked to biodiversity. A total of €72 million is earmarked for the promotion of Sustainable Forest Management. €34 million is available for implementation of the initiative on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). €6.4 million is earmarked for fisheries & marine/coastal resources. €12,3 million is earmarked for climate change and biodiversity projects for countries covered by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). In total, approximately €155 millions will be available for biodiversity related matters under 2007-2010 ENRTP. In January 2008 EuropeAid launched a restricted Call for Proposals for the period 2007 – 2008 under the ENRTP. \n\nAbout € 9 million has been reserved for biodiversity and about € 20 million for forests. In addition € 4.2 million and about € 8 has been reserved for targeted proposal for biodiversity and forests respectively for 2007 - 2008.'),
	('A7_1_1',2010,'The ENRTP Call for Proposals for 2009 includes several specific envelopes closely related to biodiversity: 14 Mill EUR for forests, 10 Mill EUR for FLEGT, 5 Mill EUR for land biodiversity, 3 Mill EUR for fisheries and 4 Mill EUR for biodiversity and climate change in ENPI countries. In addition to the Call for Proposals, two direct agreements on biodiversity projects (1 South ENP, 1 East ENP) have been financed from the 2009 ENRTP Annual Action Programme with a total value of EUR 3.48 million. \n\nThe 2009 call for proposals was topped up in 2010 with equivalent amounts for each priority. \n\nThe Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP) mid-term review said that the programme was highly relevant to its objectives, which include the protection of biodiversity, however the external evaluatos called for better integration of the work achieved under the ENRTP in the main geographic programmes. Its second phase will be from 2011 to 2013. \n\nUNEP: Strengthening the regional environmental governance capacity of the Caspian states 2010 Annual Action Programme (Part I) for Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources including Energy adopted in June 2010 see http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/aap/2010/aap_2010_dci-env_en.pdf'),
	('A7_1_2',2008,'For the 2007-2010 period, the actual previsions show that more than EUR 220 millions would be allocated to programmes with a focus on biodiversity (EUR 55 millions yearly). The global amount is comparable to the former period 2002-2006. A slight increase in foreseen for ACP countries and Latin America, while a decrease is expected in Asia. This stability in real terms has to be put in perspective with the general increase of EC external aid. \n\nIn Asia, the following strategy papers promote biodiversity objectives: the RSP (Regional Strategy Paper) for Asia and the CSP (Country Strategy Paper) for Malaysia promoting the FLEGT process (approx. amount respectively €6 & €4 millions). The CSP for Pakistan mentions water and forest management activities within its focal area ‘Rural development and natural resource management’ that receives 54% of the total country allocation. Additionally, the CSPs of Bangladesh, India, China and Bhutan have environment as a focal sector, thus biodiversity is not specifically targeted. The RSP for Central Asia and in particular its focal sector on environment promotes the management and governance of water and forests. \n\nIn Latin America, the CSPs of Brazil, Honduras and Bolivia address biodiversity, the latter two country programmes having natural resources management as a focal area. For Brazil, the focal sector in question targets the promotion of the environmental dimension of sustainable development, and foresees among its priority objectives the curbing of deforestation, the prevention of biodiversity loss and the improvement of governance in natural resource utilization. For Bolivia, the focal sector on sustainable water management targets inter alia to improve conservation and preservation of water and to increase the government capacity for the integrated management of water resources. The foreseen allocation in Latin America would be around € 115 millions within National Indicative Programmes. \n\nFor ACP countries, programming is in its final phases and all CSPs still need final official adoption. However, general trends can be drawn from the process and show that biodiversity is very rarely selected as a priority sector (these need to be limited to 2 only). Globally, an increase is foreseen with €34 millions per year on average for 2007-2010 compared to €24 millions during the 2002-2006 period (However, the annual EDF allocation has been approximately doubled between the two periods). \n\nThe African CSP is the one for which biodiversity appears in most cases in non-focal sectors. However, around 20 draft CSPs include biodiversity as non-focal sector or as a component of a wider action (mainly in rural development programmes). Central African region, Malawi and Ethiopia are the countries where CSPs/RSPs present the highest focus on biodiversity. In the Caribbean and Pacific, biodiversity has not been included as a focal sector, even if some sectors such as waste or water management are expected to have a positive impact on ecosystems (including marine ecosystems). Two Intra-ACP programmes have also been included in the 10th intra-ACP EDF Strategy Paper: Support to FLEGT (€ 10 M) and to protected area network (€20 M). \n\nCSPs are drafted jointly with the partner country and follow the ownership principle. In partner countries, environment ministers are often weak meaning that environment rarely appears among the cooperation priorities presented by the governments. A number of ACP CSPs include commitments to undertake SEAs, which will allow biodiversity issues to be adequately taken into account in other sectors and programmes. \n\nFor information on ENPI, see A7.1.5.'),
	('A7_1_2',2010,'In the context of the midterm review of external cooperation, a new focal sector on Climate Change has been introduced for 2011-13 for the Andean Community, with an indicative amount of € 7 million. It foresees activities for institutional reinforcement, legal development at regional level and cross-border cooperation, and as such, would indirectly contribute also to fostering biodiversity objectives. \n\nA 20 million € Financing Agreement for Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management in ACP countries (BIOPAMA) that is expected to be approved in 2010, addressing capacity building for protected areas management as well as for Access and Benefit Sharing in the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries.\n\nOther envelopes in the Intra-ACP program are closely related to biodiversity: 20 million for desertification in which the focus is put on sustainable land management (which benefits to biodiversity) and the funds for agriculture and food security in which proposals for sustainable agriculture are currently assessed and, if approved, will greatly benefit to agro-biodiversity. \n\nFor information on ENPI, see A7.1.5.'),
	('A7_1_3',2008,NULL),
	('A7_1_3',2010,NULL),
	('A7_1_4',2008,NULL),
	('A7_1_4',2010,'Globally, there is a 34% increase on the overall envelope for the 4th replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. \n\nThe replenishment of the 5th Global Environment Facility has been concluded (see http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/3010). If all allocations had received the same priority as in GEF 4 they would all have increased by 34%. \n\nBiodiversity $1.2 billion (28% increase) including $130 million for sustainable forest management REDD+ $700 million for protected areas $250 million for sustainable land use of productive land and seascapes \n\n * $40 million for biosafety capacity building \n * $40 million for ABS capacity building \n * $25 million for marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction( to be used in a joint programme with international waters money) \n * $15 million for enabling activities and regional actions to supplement national allocations. IPBES is mentioned as a candidate for support.'),
	('A7_1_5',2008,'As regards the ENPI, environment is included as a focal sector in several ENPI CSPs and NIPs (National Indicative Programmes) for 2007-2010, and both the RIP (Regional Indicative Programme) ENPI South and the RIP ENPI East contain environment protection as one of their priorities. But in the vast majority of cases there is no earmarking for the different environmental sectors. For this reason, it is so far difficult to foresee if activities will be implemented as regards biodiversity in this region. Moreover, regular sectoral policy dialogue, including on biodiversity issues, takes places with ENP partner countries.'),
	('A7_1_5',2010,'Under the ENRTP, two biodiversity projects (I South, I East) have been financed with a total value of €3.48 million and an additional €3.6 million is allocated for the region for the topics of biodiversity and climate change within the 2009 ENRTP call for proposals. Following a midterm review of CSPs, the vast majority of new IPs for 2011 to 2013 have been adopted. They include opportunities to address biodiversity related actions in several national programmes. The new RIP for ENPI East also contains opportunities to address environment protection and natural resources, including biodiversity protection. Some of the ENP partners have also used the TAIEX instrument with a view to enhancing capacity to address biodiversity related issues, through expert missions, workshops or seminars and study visits. \n\nThe IPs for 2011 to 2013 are still under preparation. \n\nUnder IPA component I (national and multibeneficiary) it is possible that the beneficiary countries receive assistance related to biodiversity nature protection. Under assistance programmes 2007 – 2009 there are three projects related to these topics: Serbia 2007 – strengthening administrative capacities to protect natural resources; FYROM 2009; Strengthening of administrative capacity in the area of water management and nature protection and Croatia 2009 Capacity building for preparation of management plans and strengthening of nature protection inspection for proposed Natura 2000 sites. The Regional Environmental Network for Accession (IPA multi-beneficiary project 2009) will have a working group on cross border cooperation which will be focusing on nature protection issues in the transboundary context.'),
	('A7_1_6',2008,'The programming for OCTs is under way. A Country Environmental Profile has been prepared which identified the importance of biodiversity in these countries and territories. The Commission participated in and actively contributed to the European Conference on Biodiversity and Climate Change in Outermost Regions held in La Réunion on 7-11 July 2008. This conference brought together for the first time representatives of all OR and OCTs and stressed inter alia the need for earmarked additional funding for biodiversity conservation as currently the available funds for environmental protection are not sufficiently allocated to biodiversity.'),
	('A7_1_6',2010,'The Commission is engaged with concerned MS (UK, FR, DK and NL) to develop a voluntary scheme to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in European Overseas inspired by the experience of Natura 2000.'),
	('A7_2_1',2008,'From 2007, CEPs and REPs have been established systematically as part of preparation of cooperation strategies for individual development partner countries/regions. Some 75 of these were developed in a detailed form, broadly in accordance with the standard terms of reference, while in some cases a shorter version was prepared. Work is ongoing to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of these CEPs, and the level of uptake of findings and recommendations in country analyses, response strategies and indicative programming. Standard terms of reference for CEPs and REPs include an assessment of the biodiversity concerns, and the identification of possible response measures. \n\nWhile CEP are structured to meet the specific needs of EC cooperation programming, the EC is committed to work with other EU donors and other development agencies to promote greater harmonisation of analytical work and joint analytical work when possible. \n\nConsistent biodiversity indicators are now developed by the JRC. CSPs/RSPs show variable level of environment integration. Very few countries identify biodiversity as sector for cooperation. SEAs are planned to be carried out when relevant and will be the main tool to take biodiversity into account in sector programs.'),
	('A7_2_1',2010,'Within the EC work with other EU donors and development agencies to promote greater harmonisation of analytical work and joint analytical work, a specific initiative is under way with UNEP to draft joint environmental profiles. \n\nConsistent biodiversity indicators are now developed by the JRC. CSPs/RSPs show variable level of environment integration. Very few countries identify biodiversity as sector for cooperation. SEAs are planned to be carried out when relevant and will be the main tool to take biodiversity into account in sector programs.'),
	('A7_2_2',2008,'A screening questionnaire has been established applicable to all EC programmes/projects during identification and formulation stages of the operations cycle to help identify the most appropriate measures to take in relation to environmental aspects - including the possible need for an SEA/EIA. \n\nAccording to the DCI Regulation (Art 22(4)) and as foreseen in a number of Country Strategy Papers of the last generation, SEAs will be/are being carried out when relevant, i.e. in relation to environmentally sensitive cooperation sectors. Alongside with more common, traditional project-level EIA, a number of SEAs have been carried out or are actively planned as part of preparation of EC-supported sector-wide programmes in areas such as transport and infrastructure development (Mali, Ghana, Zambia), sugar sector reform,(Mauritius, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize etc) regional development planning (Maldives). \n\nImpacts on biodiversity are expected to be addressed as a rule under the terms of reference for these studies and mitigation measures are to be identified as appropriate'),
	('A7_2_2',2010,'Although many National Indicative Programs (NIPs) referred to SEAs and committed to undertake them if deemed necessary, the current state shows that it has not systematically been the case. \n\nOnly 9 SEAs have been carried out so far. These SEAs have mainly been carried out in countries receiving funds under the Sugar protocol to ensure that the restructuring of the sugar sector is consistent with the environmental criteria.'),
	('A7_2_3',2008,'Capacities within the EC and partner countries have been strengthened as a result of an ambitious seminar programme on environmental integration in development cooperation put in place since 2005 including seminars in EC Delegations overseas and at EC Headquarters. Seminars have been open to participation from staff of MS agencies. Methodological support has been made on request to operational staff. Environmental Integration Handbook is increasingly used by desk officers. \n\nUnder the ENV/TROP FOR budget line, a number of projects have been carried out to support capacity building in the area of biodiversity, including projects for: \n- Conservation and sustainable development in the Chocó Biogeographic Region: Building Capacities for livelihood improvement and environmental \n- Capacity Building of Developing Country NGOs to Achieve Sustainable Development through Implementation of Principle 10 - Strengthening the African Biodiversity Network (ABN) \n- Capacity building within formal and non-formal education systems to support the implementation of national biodiversity strategic action plans in the South Pacific \n- \'Renforcement des capacités nationales en matière d’éducation et de sensibilisation à l’environnement dans les domaines de la biodiversité, des changements climatiques et de la désertification\' (Morocco) \n- Strengthening and Capacity Development for the Long-term Management and Conservation of MCPAs encompassing coral reef resources in South Asia \n- Capacity building in the Congo Basin and implementation of Independent Monitoring of Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (IM-FLEG) in the Republic of Congo \n- Strengthening civil society networks to address dryland degradation and poverty issues in the context of strategic development frameworks and the UNCCD \n- Conference on Integrating Biodiversity into Development Co-operation \n– “Support the Sustainable Management and Preservation of Natural Resources” \n- Ensuring international trade in CITES-listed timber species is consistent with their sustainable management and conservation \n- Consumer Organisations and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – protecting the consumer\'s right to a healthy environment in the developing world In addition, € 19 million environmental capacity building programme is under preparation under the intra-ACP envelope. \n\nFinally, a contract for the EC environment helpdesk has been concluded for an additional period up to the end of 2008, and this will be extended.'),
	('A7_2_3',2010,'In support to Target A7.1. of this document, the MONDE action (Monitoring of Natural Resources for Development) of the JRC has developed an experimental tool for assessing the state of more than 700 African Protected Areas (http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/PA/). The purpose of the work is to provide to decision makers a tool for prioritizing Protected Areas (PAs) according to biodiversity values and threats so as to support decision making and fund allocation processes. \n\nIn the frame of competitive activities (2009-2012), and in partnership with Birdlife Int., UNEPWCMC, GBIF and RSPB, current efforts in MONDE focus on setting up the DOPA, a Digital Observatory for Protected Areas, which will allow end-users to assess, monitor and forecast biodiversity in Protected Areas at the global scale, although with a priority for ACP countries. \n\nBiodiversity training of EU staff. Training for EU staff in EU delegations and headquarters geographical desks has been initiated to contribute to outreach activities on biodiversity with third countries network.'),
	('A7_2_4',2008,'A screening questionnaire has been established applicable to all EC programmes/projects during identification and formulation stages of the operations cycle to help identify the most appropriate measures to take in relation to environmental aspects - including the possible need for an SEA/EIA. \n\nJRC develops systems for monitoring the trends in biodiversity in EU-funded African protected areas.106 ‘critical’ protected areas in ACP countries have been identified.'),
	('A7_2_4',2010,NULL),
	('A7_2_5',2008,'Programming is still under way; OCTs have launched a study including the organisation of SEA workshop.'),
	('A7_2_5',2010,'OCTs have organised an SEA workshop in Brussels, which led to very interesting discussions and exchanges of good practices. The complexity and high cost of SEAs is however clearly a challenge for the limited resources and capacities of most of the OCTs.'),
	('A8_1_1',2008,'Work on FLEGT is described below in 8.1.6. \n\nAs part of its trade-related Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) Programme, the Commission is in the process of conducting SIAs for all its planned regional and bilateral free trade and partnership agreements, be they in Asia, Africa or Latin-America. These studies include an assessment of potential impacts on biodiversity (e.g. as a result of trade liberalisation in biofuels) and identify possible preventive or mitigation measures. The challenge facing trade negotiators on both sides is to translate the results and recommendation of sustainability impacts assessments into negotiations. \n\nRegardless of SIA results, sustainability and environment issues are important aspects of most if not all regional and bilateral free trade, association and partnership agreements under negotiation.'),
	('A8_1_1',2010,'The EU plays a leading role within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), notably the Conference of Parties held in March 2010, where it was not very successful in particular in relation to the conservation of marine species. \n\nTwo projects under ENRTP have been launched: one aiming at \" Strengthening the CITES implementation capacity of developing countries to ensure sustainable wildlife management and non-detrimental trade\" and the other is a Country focused project (2nd phase) to strengthen the CITES implementation capacity of developing countries to ensure sustainable wildlife management and non-detrimental trade \n\nFor work on FLEGT please see 8.1.6.'),
	('A8_1_2',2008,'Ongoing discussions in the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment, but little progress to date.'),
	('A8_1_2',2010,NULL),
	('A8_1_3',2008,'Further efforts at EC level to raise awareness of the Bonn Guidelines throughout the Commission and by stakeholders. Commission contributed to successful adoption of the standard MTA under the FAO International Treaty in June 2006. Furthermore, the Commission has held a series of expert meetings on technical aspects of the international ABS negotiations in the CBD framework and continues to play a leading role in EU efforts to conclude these negotiations by 2010 in line with the respective decision adopted by the Eighth and Ninth Conferences of the Parties to the CBD in March 2006 and May 2008 respectively. \n\nNote: the mandate adopted at the 7th Conference of the Parties of the CBD has been amended by the Eighth and Ninth Conferences of the Parties in March 2006 and May 2008 respectively'),
	('A8_1_3',2010,'Final text-based negotiations on the international ABS regime started in April 2009. The EU is fully engaged in this process and committed to finalise the international regime in time for its consideration and adoption by CBD COP10 in October 2010. The Council in October 2009 conferred a negotiating mandate upon the Commission to formally represent the EU in the eighth and ninth meeting of the ABS Working Group (11/2009; 03/2010). The EU has submitted proposals for ABS compliance measures of legally binding nature. It also continues to argue that the international regime must build on the Bonn Guidelines. \n\nThe Commission seeks to ensure consistency in EU positions in negotiations on ABS matters across international fora (CBD, WHO, FAO, UNGA/ UNCLOS, WIPO IGC, WTO/ TRIPS) \n\nThe Commission contributed to successful adoption of the standard MTA under the FAO International Treaty in June 2006. \n\nThe Commission and MS hold regular meetings with indigenous representatives and other stakeholders from research and industry. \n\nSee also A7.1.2: a 20 Mln € Financing Agreement for Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management in ACP countries (BIOPAMA) is expected to be approved in 2010 which includes a 5 Mln € component for Access and Benefit Sharing in the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries'),
	('A8_1_4',2008,'The 14th Conference of Parties added Brazilwood to CITES control, but did not adopt EU proposals for listing additional tree species under CITES Appendices. CoP agreed however on further development of these and new proposals for CoP15 (2010). Import restrictions in EU in place for mahogany and ramin of non-sustainable source. Commission supports ITTO-CITES project on capacity building on the implementation of CITES listed timber species. \n\nIn February 2008, the Commission adopted an Action Plan on \"Innovative and Sustainable Forest-based Industries in the EU\" that, among other things, encourages private initiatives and engagements to help prevent illegal logging and promote sustainable forest management.'),
	('A8_1_4',2010,'The EU monitors closely the implementation by range States of the listing under CITES of timber and tree species. This includes regular exchange of information with those States and can lead to temporary suspension of trade, like was the case for Afromosia from Democratic Republic of Congo until December 2009. \n\nAt EU level, each Member State is encouraged by the European Commission (COM (2008) 400) to reach the target of 50% green public procurement by 2010, where \"green\" means tendering procedures compliant with endorsed 10 common \"core\" GPP product criteria. Many of the identified priority GPP product groups are referring to the \"sustainable and legal\" timber / wood. Exchanges of best practice on procurement policies for wood have taken place in the Standing Forest Committee and in the Advisory Committee on Community Policy regarding Forestry and Forest-based Industries.'),
	('A8_1_5',2008,'Ongoing, including in EU-Mercosur SIA. The challenge facing trade negotiators on both sides is to translate the results and recommendation of these SIA studies into concrete provisions.'),
	('A8_1_5',2010,'In its 2008 Communication on \"Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss\" (COM(2008)645) the Commission identified profitable alternative uses of land with a high market value, such as obtaining commodities as a potential driver of deforestation, and undertook to conduct a study on this issue.'),
	('A8_1_6',2008,'Negotiations successfully finished and the first FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement was initialled with Ghana in September 2008. Other negotiations of FLEGT VPA are underway were officially launched with Malaysia, Indonesia, Cameroon and Congo Brazzaville. The Commission works to start negotiations with several other countries. To complement FLEGT VPAs, the Commission has also proposed a Regulation laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the Market (COM(2008) 644/3).'),
	('A8_1_6',2010,'Progress has been made in implementing the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. The first Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) was ratified with Ghana in November 2009. Negotiations on FLEGT VPA are ongoing with (Malaysia, Indonesia, Liberia and Central African Republic. Agreements are being finalised with Cameroon and Congo Brazzaville. A new regulation on Due Diligence aiming at eliminating illegal timber in EU market is expected to be adopted by the end of the year.'),
	('A8_1_7',2008,'The Commission is at the final stage of renegotiation of the new Fisheries Partnership Agreements which will allow to support the sectoral fisheries policy of the third countries with a view of establishing a sustainable and responsible fisheries policy in their waters. Therefore, the biodiversity (and impact on non target species or habitats) which are elements of a sustainable and responsible fisheries policy could be covered by the actions undertaken in the framework of the FPAs. \n\nIn 2007, the fisheries partnership agreements with Ivory Coast, Madagascar and Guinea Bissau were successfully renegotiated. In March 2007 the mid-term modification of the FPA with Seychelles was finalised. In March 2008, the Commission negotiated a new fisheries protocol (1st August 2008 to 31 July 2012) with Mauritania. \n\nThe current Fisheries Partnership Agreements in force (as from 1.03.2008) are: Cap Verde, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Greenland, Kiribati, Madagascar, Mozambique, Morocco, Mauritania, Micronesia, Solomon, Sao Tomé, Seychelles. \n\nThe Commission is in the process of negotiating agreements with Guinea Conakry and Mauritius as these are the only two remaining countries that do not yet benefit from a FPA.'),
	('A8_1_7',2010,NULL),
	('A8_1_8',2008,'Regular meetings by the EU Scientific Review Group meeting were held and several positive and negative opinions were established for imports into the EU of specific CITES species of certain countries. They were followed up with consultation by the Commission with Range States, where necessary. SRG negative opinions were published in Commission Suspension Regulations. Reviews and studies were undertaken to assist SRG. A Commission study of the enforcement of the EC CITES Regulations in EU-25 was finalised in December 2006. As a result of the study the Commission adopted on 13th June 2007 a Recommendation to the Member States identifying a set of actions for the effective enforcement of the EC CITES Regulations. The recommendations were formally sent to Member States (Autumn 2007). Several MS replied formally and further replies are awaited for follow up action. In its December 2006 conclusions, the Council also underlined the importance of effective implementation of the CITES Convention and EC CITES Regulations, it stressed the need for capacity-building on CITES in developing countries and called upon Member States to reinforce efforts to combat illegal trade. The Commission concluded in 2008 under its ENRTP programme 2 grant agreements with the CITES Secretariat to implement CITES CoP14 decisions on national legislation, enforcement and species programmes (0,5 mln euro) as well as the first phase of a CITES capacity building programme in developing countries (1 mln euro). A Study on Effectiveness of EU regulations has been finalised and a stakeholder meeting has been organised as well as Member States experts to discuss the findings. The Commission is currently considering its follow-up.'),
	('A8_1_8',2010,'The Commission is the main donor for the implementation of CITES, through funds granted to implement decisions adopted by the CITES CoP (0.5 Mln €), to improve capacity building in developing countries (1 mln €), for the monitoring of illegal killing of elephants and for the partnership between CITES and the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO). A Study on Effectiveness of EU regulations has been finalised and a stakeholder meeting has been organised as well as Member States experts to discuss the findings. \n\nThe EU plays a leading role within the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), notably the Conference of Parties held in March 2010. However, the meeting failed in relation to the conservation of marine species.'),
	('A8_1_9',2008,'COM is raising awareness of Article 8j CBD and relevant parts of the Bonn Guidelines throughout its services and in EC delegations in third countries. \n\nA special Interservice Group on Indigenous Issues regularly reflects on indigenous issues in the Commission\'s work. \n\nSince 2005, the Commission external relations directorate general has convened regular trainings for staff of Commission delegations in third countries, including a module on the CBD and Article 8j. Traditional knowledge is recognised as part of biodiversity related research. \n\nThe EC provides financial support to enable representatives of indigenous groups to participate as observers in the meetings of the Convention on Biological Diversity including the international ABS negotiations. \n\nThe EC and MS also follow closely the work on the protection of traditional knowledge in the World Intellectual Property Organization and push for recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People adopted on 13 September 2007 in relevant CBD negotiating fora.'),
	('A8_1_9',2010,'In the ongoing negotiations of the international ABS regime (see 8.1.3 above), the EU defends the view that the prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities must be obtained whenever traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is accessed. \n\nThe EC and MS in September 2009 supported the adoption by the WIPO General Assembly of a mandate to undertake text-based negotiations in WIPO on a legal instrument (or instruments) to effectively protect genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expresses. \n\nThe EU seeks to strengthen international recognition of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People adopted on 13 September 2007 in relevant international fora.'),
	('A9_1_1',2008,'Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Community (EC) has agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 8% by 2008–12 compared to base year levels. Based on the latest available inventory data of 2006, total GHG emissions in the EU-15 were 2.7% below base year levels when excluding Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). In 2006, EU-15 GHG emissions decreased by 0.8% compared to 2005 while the EU-15 economy grew by 2.8%. Total EU-27 GHG emissions were, in 2006, 10.8% below base year level without emissions and removals by LULUCF and 0.3% lower compared to 2004. 2007 projections have indicated that the Community will reach its Kyoto target on the condition that MS put in place and implement as soon as possible their additional policies and measures. As for future action, in spring 2007, the European Council endorsed the EU\'s independent commitment to reduce GHG emissions by at least 20% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels even if no international agreement is reached. The EU would be prepared to increase this reduction to 30%, provided that such an agreement would indeed materialize. This underlines the need for the EU and its MS to put as soon as possible the necessary legislation in place to implement all the new policies and measures identified in the climate change and energy package.'),
	('A9_1_1',2010,'Copenhagen Accord. Further to the Copenhagen Accord under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2009, and in particular provisions on financial assistance from industrialised countries, the Commission is exploring options to enhance biodiversity co-benefits.'),
	('A9_2_1',2008,'Major EU priority activity; Target to limit global climate change to 2° Celsius reconfirmed by Council. In order to achieve this target a global deal on climate change will be needed; European Council (March 2007) endorsement of EU objective of 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 (provided similar commitments of developed countries & economically more advanced developing countries are contributing adequately) - notwithstanding EU makes a firm independent commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction; Commission (Dec. 2007 and Jan 2008) put forward legislative proposals for achieving at least 20% emission reduction in the EU and 30% in the context of an international agreement as part of comprehensive package of measures to establish new climate and energy policy for EU.'),
	('A9_2_1',2010,'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Based on the Communication on deforestation from 2008, the EU calls for halting global forest cover loss by 2030 at the latest and reducing gross tropical deforestation by at least 50% by 2020 from current levels. The key tool to deliver on this objective, which would entail major climate/biodiversity co-benefits, is REDD. Achieving an agreement on REDD by the UNFCCC COP in December 2010 in Cancún is a core EU objective.'),
	('A9_3_1',2008,'COM Green Paper on climate change adaptation (COM(2007) 354 final) recognises the central importance of maintaining healthy functioning ecosystems and emphasises the need for practical and early implementation of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan; ongoing work to minimise negative effects of CC mitigation measures, New COM contract launched in 2007 will help prepare guidelines on wind, hydro & tidal barrages. Policy option of including Avoided Deforestation into the post 2012 climate regime explored, methodology discussed at SBSTA under the UNFCCC. White paper on adaptation to climate change to be adopted in the Spring of 2009. This will emphasise the importance of maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity and the development of a \"green infrastructure\", an interconnected network of natural areas, including some agricultural land, wetlands, forests, marine areas. This would help ensure vital ecosystem services such as the regulation of storm water, temperatures, flooding risk, water, air and ecosystem quality. The MACIS project supported by RTD FP6 (see http://www.macis-project.net/links.html) will deliver a detailed report on adaptation and mitigation measures in different sectors and their impact on biodiversity.'),
	('A9_3_1',2010,'White paper on adaptation to climate change (COM (2009) 0147) was adopted by the Commission on 1 April 2009. It emphasises the importance of maintaining and restoring ecosystem integrity and the development of a \"green infrastructure\", an interconnected network of natural areas, including some human made, agricultural land, wetlands, forests, marine areas. The White Paper recognises the important role played by ecosystems and notes that \"a comprehensive and integrated approach towards the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is needed\". This should help ensure vital ecosystem services such as the regulation of storm water, temperatures, flooding risk, water, air and ecosystem quality. The MACIS project supported by RTD FP6 (see http://www.macisproject. net/links.html) delivered a detailed report on adaptation and mitigation measures in different sectors and their impact on biodiversity. \n\nGreen Infrastructure promoted as tool for adaptation and mitigation measures. More information on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm.'),
	('A9_3_2',2008,'EEA report ‘How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment?’ launched (June 2006); Ongoing debate (including in Council WPIEI and COP9 CBD) on bio-energy. As a follow-up to the Biomass Action Plan, the Commission published a Communication on an EU strategy for biofuels (COM(2006)34) which looks at the issue of the sustainability of biofuel feedstock cultivation. In addition, in its proposal for a directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, tabled on 23 January 2008 (COM(2008) 19), the Commission included a set of environmental sustainability criteria for biomass for fuel use which aim inter alia at protecting biodiversity both inside and outside the EU..'),
	('A9_3_2',2010,'Directive 2009/28//EC including environmental sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids entered into force in 2009 and requires the Commission to provide guidance to MS regarding the implementation of these criteria. In addition, it requires the Commission to report by the end of 2009 on sustainability criteria for biomass energy use other than biofuels and bioliquids. This report was adopted in December 2009 with relevant follow-up processes. \n\nThe Report on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in electricity, heating and cooling (COM (2010)11) was adopted by the Commission on February 25th 2010. The report makes recommendations on sustainability criteria to be used by those Member States that wish to introduce a scheme at national level.'),
	('A9_4_1',2008,'Forthcoming White Paper on climate change adaptation (see A9.3.1) provides impetus for follow up debate on policy responses. An ad hoc consultation group on biodiversity and climate change with Member State representatives and stakeholders will be set up.'),
	('A9_4_1',2010,'The White Paper on climate change adaptation (see A9.3.1) provides impetus for follow up debate on policy responses. An EU Ad hoc Expert Working Group on biodiversity and climate change with Member State representatives, scientists and other stakeholders was set up. The group delivered a discussion paper – \"Towards a Strategy on Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity\". See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/discussion_paper_climate_change.pdf.'),
	('A9_4_2',2008,'See A 1.2.3 - assessments and guidance are taking into account the potential significance of climate change impacts as appropriate.'),
	('A9_4_2',2010,'Assessments and guidance are taking into account the potential significance of climate change impacts as appropriate. Green Infrastructure promoted as tool for adaptation and mitigation measures. More information on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm \n\nSee also A 1.2.3'),
	('A9_4_3',2008,'An INTERREG IIIB funded project (BRANCH) examining spatial planning issues in relation to biodiversity adaptation to climate change has been completed in 2007. Several EU funded studies including RTD projects (e.g. ALARM, COCONUT, MACIS) in their final phase; COM has also launched in 2007 a review of current information, especially in the context of NATURA 2000.'),
	('A9_4_3',2010,'COM has also launched in 2007 a review of current information, especially in the context of NATURA 2000. The final task reports are available. The reports include: \n\n * Impacts of climate change on EU biodiversity: evidence and modelling results; \n * An assessment framework for climate change vulnerability: methodology and results; \n * Impacts of climate change on EU biodiversity policy and recommendations for policies and measures to maintain and restore biodiversity in the EU in the face of climate change; \n * Applying the vulnerability assessment framework: impacts of climate change on the Natura 2000 network; \n * Wind, hydro and marine renewable energy infrastructures in the EU: biodiversity impacts, mitigation and policy recommendation.'),
	('A_2_1_9',2008,'See A2.1.4; \n\nThe proposed \"health check\" of the CAP includes proposals to require farmers to maintain field margins where appropriate, and to have buffer strips along water courses. The Commission has proposed to strengthen the standard on landscape features under GAEC aimed at the promotion of biodiversity. In addition to that, the CAP \"health check\" proposes to transfer additional resources (stemming from an increased rate of compulsory modulation) from pillar 1 of the CAP to Pillar 2, for use in meeting new challenges, which include biodiversity protection.'),
	('A_2_1_9',2010,'The \"health check\" of the CAP abolished the set aside but amended the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition of cross-compliance i.a. in favour of biodiversity (see action A2.1.4) and included the requirement for farmers to have buffer strips along water courses. In addition, the CAP \"health check\" provided for the transfer of additional resources (stemming from an increased rate of compulsory and the introduction of progressive modulation) from Pillar 1 of the CAP to Pillar 2, for strengthening the new challenges, which include biodiversity protection. The revisions of Rural Development Programmes to commit this additional money, as well as money from the Recovery Package, was completed by February 2010. For an assessment of how much additional funding was used for biodiversity related measures \n\nSee Action A2.1.1. \n\nSee also A2.1.4'),
	('B1_1_1',2008,'See Action A1.1.2'),
	('B1_1_1',2010,'See Action A1.1.2'),
	('B1_1_2',2008,'See Action A2.1.1'),
	('B1_1_2',2010,'See Action A2.1.1'),
	('B1_1_3',2008,'See Action A3.4.1'),
	('B1_1_3',2010,'See Action A3.4.1'),
	('B1_1_4',2008,'See Action A4.1.1'),
	('B1_1_4',2010,'See Action A4.1.1'),
	('B1_1_5',2008,'See Action A4.1.2'),
	('B1_1_5',2010,'See Action A4.1.2'),
	('B1_1_6',2008,'New LIFE+ programme (2007-2013) is providing additional possibilities to finance specific innovative or demonstration projects that contribute to the implementation of the objectives of the EU biodiversity action plan.'),
	('B1_1_6',2010,'4 of the LIFE+ projects co-financed in 2007, 8 of the 2008 and 12 of the 2009 ones are aimed at supporting wider biodiversity policy (i.e. other than those related to the Birds and Habitats Directive), which gives a total budget of 48.5 Mill EUR.'),
	('B1_1_7',2008,'See Actions A7.1.1 to A7.1.6'),
	('B1_1_7',2010,'See Actions A7.1.1 to A7.1.6'),
	('B1_1_8',2008,'Under FP5 a total of 39 projects have been funded with an overall budget of EUR 58.597.463. Under FP6 the number of projects has been reduced to 20, but the overall budget allocated increased to EUR 77.480.422. Further 13 projects funded under FP6, focus on ecosystems, but also address biodiversity – with an overall allocated budget of EUR 78.608.847. \n\nFor FP7, there have been 2 calls for proposals in the first 2 years and 7 projects are expected to be funded with a Community contribution of EUR 23.122.421. The funding profile under FP7 is expected to rise quite steeply but it is not possible to extrapolate from the first 2 years for the remaining 5 of this 7-year programme.'),
	('B1_1_8',2010,'See Action A10.1.6. \n\nFurther financial resources have been allocated to biodiversity topics within the Environment theme to the Sub-Activities 6.2.2 Management of marine environments under Activity 6.2 Sustainable Management of Resources as well as under Sub-activity 6.4.2 Forecasting methods and assessment tools for sustainable development taking into account different scales of observation (e.g. TESS).'),
	('B1_1_9',2008,'See B 1.1.6'),
	('B1_1_9',2010,'See Action B 1.1.6'),
	('B2_1_1',2008,'There is an ongoing discussion on the establishment of a process to support the EU vision on biodiversity and ecosystem services, which would incorporate the valuable contribution from \"The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)\", the work and results of the EEA\'s EURECA project, the development of sub-global assessments (SGA) for Europe and research effort focusing over the course of FP7 on making human use of biodiversity sustainable. This process should be supported by an efficient science-policy interface, notably through promoting the establishment of an Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (see A.10.1.1).'),
	('B2_1_1',2010,'The Commission organised a conference on \'Biodiversity Protection – Beyond 2010\', 27-28 Athens, Greece, which was the first major stakeholder event. Dedicated working groups were held on all major issues of the biodiversity policy (The EU Biodiversity Action Plan, Biodiversity and Climate Change, Integration of Biodiversity Issues into Policies and Business, Natura 2000, Economics and Finance, Objectives for Biodiversity Protection beyond 2010). \n\nThe European Council at its March meeting agreed on a 2050 vision and a 2020 target on EU biodiversity. \n\nThe Green Week, the major environment policy event with a broad outreach, was dedicated to biodiversity in 2010. Sessions discussed, among others, the lessons learned from the current policy and certain aspects and elements of the future biodiversity policy. \n\nThe Commission is working on the development of a post-2010 EU biodiversity policy framework (strategy) aimed at delivering on the post-2010 EU biodiversity vision and target. Inter alia this work, the current policy framework is being assessed and discussed. \n\nFor further details on EU biodiversity policy development see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/index_en.htm'),
	('B2_1_2',2008,'As part of the Potsdam initiative agreed by G8 in 2007, a study on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) has been jointly initiated by the European Commission and Germany in collaboration with the European Environment Agency. Under the lead of Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, the first results of this assessment of the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation have been presented at CBD COP9 in May 2008. \n\nA second phase of this study will further develop a methodological framework for valuation of the services provided by ecosystems, as a contribution to the Millennium Development Goals. \n\nA COM study on Habitat banking will start in 2008 and run in 2009, as this instrument has been identified as one of Market Based Instruments (MBI) with potential for addressing Biodiversity off-sets.'),
	('B2_1_2',2010,'The full package of the TEEB study will be published at CBD CO10 in October 2010. For further details on TEEB see www.teebweb.org \n\nFurther studies have been carried out on the economic aspects of environment, including on the use of market based instruments (2010), environmentally harmful subsidies (2010), understanding the causes of biodiversity loss and the policy assessment framework (2009), the monetary valuation of biodiversity costs of policy inaction (2009). For further details and the reports of studies conducted by DG ENV see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies.htm#7'),
	('B2_2_1',2008,'COM assessment in January 2006 showed that: Two thirds of the Member States refer to biodiversity or nature protection in their National Reform Programmes. Some of them consider biodiversity a particularly crucial resource due to the important economic contribution from nature tourism. However, later in the year COM assessment in December 2006 showed that: \'While on biodiversity important progress is reported by many countries, additional integrated policy efforts are needed.\''),
	('B2_2_1',2010,'The European Council (2008) encourages Member States and the Commission to strengthen efforts aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2010 and beyond. \n\nIn the annex to the Strategic Report (January 2009), it has been indicated that progress in the implementation of policy measures to halt the loss of biodiversity is mixed – some Member States such as Poland still had very low sufficiency levels in establishing Natura 2000 network as of June 2008. \n\nThe preliminary results of the report \"Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity\" (TEEB) demonstrate the high dependency of human society upon ecosystem services, and suggested that a \"business-as-usual\" scenario could lead to substantial economic losses. For the period 2000-2050, the annual loss of world-wide terrestrial ecosystem services is estimated at around €50 billion. By 2050, the cumulated welfare losses were estimated equivalent to 7% of GDP. It emphasizes the urgency with which Member States need to incorporate the value of ecosystem services into policy measures. \n\nThe recently adopted Europe 2020 Strategy identified the new paradigm towards sustainable growth by promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy. Within the Europe 2020 the flagship \"Resource Efficient Europe\" introduces the need to establish a vision on the structural and technological changes required, so that Europe moves to a low carbon, resource efficient and climate resilient economy by 2050 allowing EU to achieve its emissions reduction and biodiversity targets.'),
	('B2_2_2',2008,'Impact assessment guidelines used by the COM include biodiversity concerns.'),
	('B2_2_2',2010,'As a result, around 100 Impact Assessments are undertaken each year and published (though most do not have biodiversity impacts). An Impact Assessment Board provides quality checking.'),
	('B2_3_1',2008,'6EAP mid term review carried out (03-05-2007), four priority areas confirmed. The 2007 Environment Policy Review carried out (02-07-2008), shows that the year 2007 was a turning point in EU environment policy. The main commitments under the 6th Environment Action Programme have been delivered and environment issues were firmly at the top of the political agenda. But there are also reasons for concern: while the policy framework is in place, implementation of EU environment legislation by Member States is often slow or incomplete. Further, the EU needs to prepare for the major environmental challenges ahead: defining a long-term strategic vision for sustainable consumption and production, adaptation to the inevitable climatic changes, and the protection of biodiversity. The accompanying Commission Staff Working Paper provides more factual details, including some key indicators of trends in the different priority areas of the 6th Environment Action Programme, as well as an overview of 2007 environment policy initiatives in all 27 Member States.'),
	('B2_3_1',2010,'The 2009 Environment Policy Review (to be published in July 2010-ISC is ongoing) presents the main developments in EU environment policy during 2009 for the 4 priority areas of the 6th Environment Action Programme (part 1). Part 2 draws on statistical data and environmental trends and part 3 contains the Commission’s summary of the major environment policy developments in the Member States. Concerning nature and biodiversity, the EPR 2009 shows that the EU biodiversity pictures remains mixed with positive developments for some species and habitats overshadowed by worrying trends among others. To reverse the alarming trends of loss, the EU needs to fully implement relevant legislation – from the Habitats and Birds Directives to the Water Framework and Marine Directives. The 2009 EPR is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm. \n\nA mid-term evaluation of rural development programmes and national rural development strategies will be carried out in 2010. Results will feed into the debate on the CAP post-2013. \n\nThe time for mid-term and final review is fixed by the EFF Regulation. 2011 mid term review of the EFF Regulation could feed into the last phase of the CFP reform process'),
	('B2_4_1',2008,'Ongoing discussions with Member States, including promoting co-operation on BAP delivery in Nature Directors meetings under each Presidency of the Council of Ministers.'),
	('B2_4_1',2010,''),
	('B2_4_2',2008,'See B2.4.1. \n\nThere have been discussions on improving the governance structure for implementation of EU nature and biodiversity policy, with particular regard to delivery of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. This has led to the creation of a new Co-ordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature, involving the competent authorities of the Member States, different Commission services and representatives of key stakeholder groups.'),
	('B2_4_2',2010,''),
	('B2_4_3',2008,'See B2.4.1'),
	('B2_4_3',2010,'See B2.4.1'),
	('B2_5_1',2008,'Ongoing'),
	('B2_5_1',2010,'Ongoing'),
	('B2_5_2',2008,'COM has included biodiversity concerns and targets in the assessment of the National Strategies submitted by MS in the context of the EC Cohesion Policy (Structural, Cohesion Funds) for the financing period 2007-2013. Rural Development programs are also being monitored and assessed.'),
	('B2_5_2',2010,'On regional development policy: COM has included biodiversity concerns and targets in the assessment of the National Strategies (NSRFs) submitted by MS in the context of the EC Cohesion Policy (Structural, Cohesion Funds) for the financing period 2007-2013. \n\nOn rural development policy: all rural development interventions for the programming period 2007-2013 are subject to monitoring and evaluation under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF). The CMEF establishes means for improving programme performance, ensuring the accountability of programmes and allowing an assessment on the achievement of established objectives, including environmental objectives. A number of CMEF indicators directly concern biodiversity. See also actions A2.1.3 and A2.1.8. \n\nOn fisheries policy: ongoing work to develop guidelines to help MS with the 2011 interim evaluation of the EFF (2007-2013). Final guidelines should include questions on integration of environmental protection in EFF assistance.'),
	('B2_6_1',2008,'The European Commission has started a consultation exercise on its initiative to reform the control system of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Continued failure of the control policy would have serious consequences for the future of fisheries resources and on conservation efforts. In February 2008, the Commission has therefore launched a public consultation on how CFP control should be improved and strengthened to make it fit to deliver the core goals of the Common Fisheries Policy, namely, a genuinely sustainable European fishing industry. The Commission has adopted on 14 November 2008 a proposal for a Council Regulation on the reform of the control system of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). (see also section A3.5.5) \n\nThe Joint Deployment Plan (JDP) was launched in March 2008 by the Commission. This major EU control campaign will be coordinated by the Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) and marks the EU\'s determination to ensure that the fifteen-year recovery plan for the blue fin tuna, agreed within the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) in November 2006, is fully respected. The JDP brings together the resources of the seven main Member States involved in the fishery and will cover all stages in the market chain, including controls at sea, onshore and at fattening farms.'),
	('B2_6_1',2010,'Regarding fisheries policy: The Commission has adopted on 20 November 2009 Council Regulation (EC) N° 1224/2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). (see also section A3.5.5). With this text, control and inspection are focused where they are most effective, through an approach based on systematic risk analysis. Inspection procedures are standardised and harmonised for all stages along the chain, including transport and marketing. Use of modern data-processing and communications technologies is extended. Where possible, data processing is automated, and subject to systematic and comprehensive cross-checking. The result is a system which is more effectively targeted, more effective, and also less costly and burdensome to operate. \n\nRegarding Bluefin tuna, a new Joint Deployment Plan (JDP) was launched in March 2010 by the Commission. The fifteen-year recovery plan for the blue fin tuna, agreed within the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) was revised. \n\nRegarding rural development policy: Member States are required, within the framework of the common agricultural policy, to adopt all legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions and to take any other measures necessary to ensure effective protection of the financial interests of the Community, and particularly in order to check the genuineness and compliance of operations financed by the EAGF and the EAFRD. The Commission services carry out audits in the Member States a) to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that expenditure financed by the Community in the area of agriculture and rural development has been effected in conformity with Community rules and, where this is not the case, to exclude the expenditure concerned from Community financing so as to protect the Community\'s financial interests; b) to contribute to improving the management and control systems in the area of agriculture and rural development.'),
	('B3_1_1',2008,'Initiatives launched in 2008 by the Commission, aiming at the development and rewarding of Partnerships in the context of the management of the Natura 2000 network. The first initiative includes the establishment of a webbased \'Natura 2000 communication platform\'. This will allow different socio-economic sectors to become actively involved on their own initiative in the exchange of good practice and the preparation of sector-specific guidance and recommendations for good conduct. The second initiative is the development of a \'Natura 2000 Partner Reward Scheme\'. This will reward individuals, organizations and public institutions that show particular merit in promoting the management of and the communication on Natura 2000. Both initiatives are well under way, and the launch of the instruments is expected in 2009.'),
	('B3_1_1',2010,'LIFE and LIFE+ projects have been promoting partnerships for nature since 1992 and it continues to promote in the future too.'),
	('B3_1_2',2008,'Input to consultation on RD strategies and some RD Plans.'),
	('B3_1_2',2010,''),
	('B3_1_3',2008,'Since 2004, 6 Regional Advisory Councils have been established and are now operational: \nSouth-western waters RAC; \nHigh Seas/Long Distance Fleet RAC; \nBaltic Sea RAC \nNorth-Western Waters RAC \nPelagic stocks RAC \nNorth Sea RAC \nThe Mediterranean RAC was established in 2008.'),
	('B3_1_3',2010,''),
	('B3_1_4',2008,'A new ad hoc working group on Biodiversity and Climate change has been established by DG ENV of COM to help frame biodiversity and climate change policy for post 2010, including issues of Natura 2000 and ecological connectivity and the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services with regards to combating climate change. First meeting of group was in November 2008.'),
	('B3_1_4',2010,'The Ad hoc working group on Biodiversity and Climate change has been established by DG ENV to help frame biodiversity and climate change policy for post 2010, including issues of Natura 2000 and ecological connectivity and the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services with regards to combating climate change. \n\nIn collaboration of the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office, the MONDE action (Monitoring of Natural Resources for Development) of the JRC is setting up e-Habitat, a habitat modelling service for assessing vulnerability of habitats in protected areas to climate change. \n\nThe importance of the climate change-biodiversity link and the benefits of tackling climate change and biodiversity loss in an integrated, mutually supportive manner have been stated in numerous policy documents2.However, collaboration between the biodiversity and climate change communities needs to be a lot more interactive. An EU Ad Hoc Expert Working Group has been initiated by the Commission in 20083.The Group deliver a Discussion Paper – Towards a Strategy on Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity.4Another promising initiative is the “Rio Conventions’ Ecosystems and Climate Change Pavilion, which will be hosted for the first time at CBD COP 10 in Nagoya, then at UNFCCC COPs, UNCCD COP and at RIO + 20. The Pavilion will be hosted by the secretariats of the three Rio Conventions. The Commission is one of the core partners.'),
	('B3_1_5',2008,'See B 3.1.6'),
	('B3_1_5',2010,'Exchange of best-practice examples on integrated spatial planning at workshop on Green Infrastructure in 03/2009. More information on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm \n\nSee also B 3.1.6'),
	('B3_1_6',2008,'The Commission plans to launch a call for tender for a contract to help the Commission to set up and to put into operation an EU Business and Biodiversity Technical Facility / Platform. This work is a follow up to the outcome of the major conference on this subject, organised by Portuguese Presidency, in Lisbon on 12-13 November 2007. The Message from Lisbon, a consensus document from over 400 conference participants, half of them representing businesses, stressed the importance of engaging business in meeting the 2010 target, underlined the need for concerted action at the EU level Sectoral discussions aim at guidance documents for Natura 2000 are being prepared for the non-energy extractive industries, and for port operators in estuaries and coastal zones. A COM funded pilot study creating biodiversity technical assistance units in three selected new Member States (BU, HU & PL) aims to facilitate the creation of a new pro-biodiversity investment market for businesses, especially SMEs and the banking sector, and to help prepare bankable projects for future investment loans. Launching of the web-based \'Natura 2000 Communication Platform\' and the \'Natura 2000 Partner\' Reward scheme prepared for 2008.'),
	('B3_1_6',2010,'The Commission launched the web-based Platform Business and Biodiversity in June 2010 to help businesses to identify business risks and opportunities linked to biodiversity. Synergies will be built with similar initiative at national level. The project focuses on 6 priority sectors (agriculture, food supply industry, forestry, extractive, financial and tourism). (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.html) \n\nA COM funded project set up biodiversity technical assistance units in three selected Member States (BU, HU & PL) aiming to facilitate the creation of a pro-biodiversity investment market for businesses, especially SMEs and the banking sector, and to help prepare bankable projects and business plans for entrepreneurs for future investment loans. (see www.smeforbiodiversity.eu) \n\nA study on businesses\' risk on biodiversity was prepared to provide decision-makers with recommendations on incentives to business to minimise their risk related to ecosystem services. \n\nThe Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity works towards preparing the TEEB specialised report on Biodiversity and Business (D3 report), which has just been published and will be presented in CBD COP-10 in Nagoya alongside with the other TEEB reports.'),
	('B3_1_7',2008,'See B 3.1.6 - Finance sector involved in the business & biodiversity partnership.'),
	('B3_1_7',2010,'The Commission is also working together with the insurance industry to develop instruments and financial security solutions under the requirements of the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD). This may lead to the production of guidelines for compensating for damages in biodiversity under the ELD. Furthermore the Commission has addressed the issue of remediation of environmental damage covered under the ELD with major industrial sectors. \n\nThe Commission is also exploring possibilities together with the EIB and EBRD for enhancing the financial opportunities for biodiversity and engaging more the private sector.'),
	('B3_1_8',2008,'Provision of training to staff of EC delegations ongoing.'),
	('B3_1_8',2010,'Provision of training to staff of EC delegations ongoing.'),
	('B4_1_1',2008,'In March 2008 a scoping study for an EU wide communications campaign on biodiversity and nature was published. Recommendations from this study (on campaign objectives, key messages, target audience, framework and components of a communications campaign) feed into the call for proposals of the third component of LIFE +, which focuses Information and Communication. Under this heading priority will be given to proposals focusing on nature protection and biodiversity. A common visual identity for communications campaigns on biodiversity and nature will be developed at EU level and subject to a call for tender in 2008. A Natura 2000 Book was launched in May 2008 and will play an important role in awareness raising and communication efforts. The Interim Report on the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity was also finalized in May 2008 and was the subject of a series of presentations in a number of key Member States during 2008.'),
	('B4_1_1',2010,'The Commission carried out a Eurobarometer opinion poll on biodiversity in 2010. Two thirds of EU citizens were familiar with the term biodiversity but 8 out of 10 respondents had never heard about Natura 2000. The \'European communications and outreach campaign on Biodiversity\' was launched mid February 2010 and it consits of: \n\n * Multilingual website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/campaign/index.htm \n * Facebook application \n * Video clip for on-line use \n * PR events and events for general public at the occasion of 22nd of May (in 6 target countries) and a street art happening at Green Week 2010 with participation of Commissioner Potocnik. \n * Paid advertising (outdoor, press, on-line). \n\nCampaign\'s strategy: show the relevance of biodiversity and the implications its loss has for our daily lives (e.g. provision of goods and services such as clean air, food, water, medicines, etc.). This strategy is executed through visual identity / slogan that show how human society is interconnected with a larger life\'s system, and thus, depend on it. \n\n\nAvailable indicators suggest that the implementation so far is very successful (2.2mln of visits to the website, more than 1mln views of the viral clip, above average click-through rate for the on-line advertisement, high press coverage of PR events).Continuation of activities in the second half of 2010 is foreseen, with further focus on social media and approaching people with messages in innovative and original ways. The Commission has launched (1/6/2010) a call for tender to develop a complementary communications strategy, focusing on the promotion of Natura 2000 – to consolidate the awareness and positive image of this network of conservation areas. \n\nSeveral communication materials have been produced, including leaflets, factsheets and Video News Releases on the Biodiversity Action Plan Mid term Report, the Message from Athens, Health check for Habitats and Species, Invasive Alien Species, Nature\'s role in climate change, Ecosystem Goods and Services, TEEB and Wild Europe. \n\nKey information material on Natura 2000 was updated and translated into more languages, and the Natura 2000 Newsletter is published twice a year. \n\nThe TEEB Report for Policy Makers was also finalized and it was released to the international media at the press conference in Brussels on Nov 13th 2009.'),
	('B4_1_2',2008,'Financial support has been granted to the Countdown 2010 initiative. COM participation in \"European regions as champions for biodiversity 2010\" in Noord-Brabant, NL, 15-16.02.2007 A new grant for 2008/2009 will support activities to extend the Countdown 2010 network to missing Member States, work with the European Parliament and preparation of the post 2010 biodiversity target.'),
	('B4_1_2',2010,'A grant for 2008/2009 supported activities to extend the Countdown 2010 network to missing Member States, work with the European Parliament and preparation of the post 2010 biodiversity target. The activities continue one more year, while considering a re-launch of the initiative after 2010 in relation to a post-2010 target.'),
	('B4_1_3',2008,'Commission monitoring proper implementation of Directive 2003/35 on \'Public Participation when drawing up certain plans and programmes relating to the environment\' (to be implemented as from June 2005), where it amends the EIA and IPPC Directives in relation to public participation in the permitting of projects that might affect biodiversity, and Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive / SEA Directive (2001/42). In relation to access to justice, the Commission completed a study on the implementation of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention in September 2007. The study shows that there is still work to be done as there are still barriers to ensuring wide access to justice. A conference on access to justice took place on 2 June 2008 to discuss the issue further. The Commission is now considering the next steps to take on this subject.'),
	('B4_1_3',2010,''),
	('C1_1_1',2008,'First annual report focusing on Community level action available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_biodiv_ap/index_en.htm'),
	('C1_1_1',2010,'Mid-term assessment (2008) evaluating progress made both on Community and MSs level available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/bap_2008.htm \n\n2010 BAP assessment highlights the development done at both on Community and MSs level since 2008.'),
	('C1_2_1',2008,'A set of 26 pan-European biodiversity indicators (SEBI 2010) provides the basis for a first European indicator based assessment of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target to be published by the EEA in the first half of 2009. A set of indicator fact sheets has been produced by the European Environment Agency, related for the mid-term BAP assessment. The development of national indicators aligned to the SEBI 2010 indicator framework is underway in the Member States. Further refinement and improvement of the SEBI 2010 indicators is ongoing, including with regard to the impact of climate change on biodiversity and communication. Response indicators have been collected by the European Commission in 2008. Indicators used in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), such as the Mean Species abundance and other indicators being developed, such as the Net Landscape Ecological Potential may be evaluated for their inclusion in other assessment reports or the SEBI 2010 set. SEBI 2010 is also contributing to the update, improvement and review of the section on natural resources of the next Sustainable Development Monitoring Report to be published by Eurostat in 2009.'),
	('C1_2_1',2010,'In 2009, EEA published a report on \'Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target\' based on SEBI 2010 indicators (EEA report 4/2009)) The SEBI 2010 indicator set will be updated in 2010 for the EU. \n\nEEA published in 2010 the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline, which provides the best available facts and figures on the state and trends of the different biodiversity and ecosystem components. It hereby support the EU in developing the post-2010 sub-targets and provides factual data for measuring and monitoring progress in the EU from 2011 to 2020. The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) and the EU biodiversity data centre have been launched in 2010 and provide a single entry point for data and information on biodiversity in the EU http://www.biodiversity.europa.eu/'),
	('C1_3_1',2008,'MS have provided Article 17 HD reports including 1st conservation status assessment and favourable reference values for species and habitats under the Habitats Directive- to be evaluated at Community level (mid 2009).'),
	('C1_3_1',2010,'See A 1.2.1.'),
	('C1_3_2',2008,'Building on SEBI 2010 outcomes, COM is working with EEA, ESTAT, JRC and DG RTD on strengthening the knowledge base for biodiversity within the framework of the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) on developing a common approach for the establishment of a Europe wide biodiversity data centre and assessment facility to inform biodiversity policy. This will be undertaken jointly with Member States and NGOs.'),
	('C1_3_2',2010,'The first health check for habitats and species in the EU has been published in July 2009 based on monitoring data from MS on conservation status of the most vulnerable habitats and species in EU (see A 1.2.1.). \n\nSubstantial work on streamlining of nature reporting is currently being undertaken with MS including improvement and harmonisation of data flows. \n\nEEA published in 2010 the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline, which provides the best available facts and figures on the state and trends of the different biodiversity and ecosystem components. It hereby support the EU in developing the post-2010 sub-targets and provides factual data for measuring and monitoring progress in the EU from 2011 to 2020.\n\nNatura 2000 viewer. In 2010, COM launched an interactive tool enabling people to locate Natura 2000 sites and access related information: the Natura 2000 viewer.'),
	('C1_3_3',2008,'COM is developing a clear concept regarding the information needs for supporting the biodiversity policy cycle within the framework of the SEIS initiative. This concept will be developed progressively- within the COM, the EEA, with the Group of 4 (COM, EEA, Eurostat, JRC), with the Member States and with other stakeholders. A concept paper and a roadmap is being developed with EEA, which is responsible for the EU Biodiversity Data Centre within the Group of 4. \n\nIn January 2008, the European Commission has adopted a Communication towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)5, based on technologies such as the internet and satellite systems. It is closely linked to INSPIRE, the environmental geographic data and services portal (see http://www.inspire-geoportal.eu/) and the ‘Global Monitoring for Environment and Security’ (GMES), which represents a concerted effort to bring data and information providers together with users, so they can better understand each other and make environmental and security-related information available to the people who need it through enhanced or new services (http://www.gmes.info/). \n\nIn the framework of SEIS, the European Commission is currently working on a legal proposal, The SEIS legislative proposal is envisaged to provide a legal basis for the new DG ENV wide electronic reporting mechanism, focusing especially on information and data currently reported under Community environmental law.'),
	('C1_3_3',2010,'See C 1.2.3 on BISE. The Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) and the EU biodiversity data centre have been launched in 2010 and provide a single entry point for data and information on biodiversity in the EU http://www.biodiversity.europa.eu/ For what concerns non EU region, the MONDE action of the Global Environment Monitoring Unit of the JRC is, in partnership with Birdlife Int., UNEP-WCMC, GBIF, RSPB and, possibly, IUCN, setting up the DOPA, a Digital Observatory for Protected Areas, which will allow endusers to assess, monitor and forecast biodiversity in Protected Areas at the global scale. DOPA is designed to be a reference network of information systems in the field of biodiversity.'),
	('C1_4_1',2008,'The mid-term Report from the Commission to the Council and European Parliament, comprises the Communication, which is summary text of progress at EC and MS levels in relation to objectives and targets; an updated assessment at Community level for each action of the BAP; a summary Country Profiles for each Member State; an indicator fact sheets from the European Environment Agency led project on Streamlining of European Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI 2010); a synthesis consolidated report, combining for different objectives and targets the summaries for Community and Member State level assessments, the relevant indicators and any key messages in support of the Communication.'),
	('C1_4_1',2010,'The mid-term report of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan has been adopted by EC on 16/12/08 (see C 1.1.1). It provides the first comprehensive assessment of progress at both European Community and Member State levels The report studies the four main policy areas: biodiversity in the EU, the EU and global biodiversity, biodiversity and climate change, and the knowledge base. A summary of progress in each Member State is included for the first time. It also includes for the first time a set of indicators (SEBI 2010) to monitor progress towards the EU 2010 biodiversity target.'),
	('C1_4_2',2008,'See C 1.4.1 - The fourth annual report (to end 2010) will evaluate the extent to which the EU has met its 2010 commitments. This will involve qualitative assessment of the extent to which Action Plan actions have been implemented and targets achieved, and an overall assessment of whether implementation of the BAP has had an impact on improving conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. These evaluations will also be informed by the Community Article 17 report, the indicator-based assessment of the extent to which Europe has met the 2010 biodiversity target to be published in 2009 by EEA and drawn on the ongoing study on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB).'),
	('C1_4_2',2010,'The 2010 update of the assessment of the current policy, similarly to the 2008 mid-term report, evaluates progress made both on Community and MSs level.'),
	('C1_4_3',2008,'See C 1.4.1 - The seventh annual report (to end 2013) will provide a similar evaluation, addressing also all post– 2010 targets in the Action Plan. The development of o sub-global ecosystem assessment for Europe will inform final evaluation of the 6th EAP, review of sectoral policies and budgets during the 2007–2013 period, and policies and budgets for the post–2013 period.'),
	('C1_4_3',2010,'The post-2010 EU biodiversity vision and target was adopted by the European Council in March 2010. The Commission is in the process to develop a detailed policy frame having the potential to most effectively and efficiently deliver to the 2020 target.');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `community_report` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table country_report
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `country_report`;

CREATE TABLE `country_report` (
  `Country` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `Objective` varchar(2) NOT NULL,
  `Ident` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `MOP` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `Narative` text,
  `MSComments` text,
  `Clarifcations` text,
  `DataSource` text,
  `MSVerrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EC1Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EC2Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CO1Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CO2Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `country_report` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `country_report` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Austria','A1','','','Under a campaign related to the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben, a group called \"Alliance of diversity of life\" has been established.  The alliance includes the development of partnerships within various sectors of society, such as the business sector, landowners, interest groups, etc. In 2009, 10 partnerships had been established with commercial enterprises.    ','','',' www.vielfaltleben.at ','09/03/2010','','','22/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','A10_1','','Austria does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, but biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. The Research Programme PFEIL 10, under the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Water Management, covers research in biodiversity. There are also research programmes of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, ProVision research initiative of the Ministry of Science, and climate change research programme ACRP that may incorporate biodiversity research. In addition, the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung – FWF in Austria is a partner in the ERA-net project BiodivERsA under the EU’s 6th Framework Programme for Research. The aim of BiodivERsA is to achieve an efficient research cooperation in the field of biodiversity research funding in Europe.  ','','','Research Programme PFEIL 10: www.dafne.at; Austrian Biodiversity Platform: http://www.biodiv-forschung.at ; BiodivERsA: http://www.eurobiodiversa.org/; ProVision Research initiative: http://www.provision-research.at/cms/scripts/active.asp; Austrian Climate Research Programme: http://www.era.gv.at/space/11442/directory/12765/link/12823.html ','08/03/2010','','','23/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','A10_1_2','','Austria does not currently have plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.  The findings of the MA provide useful information and are taken into account when implementing the Austrian National Strategy on Biodiversity. Since a review and revision of the National Strategy has not been carried out since 2005 the findings and the framework of the MA have not been used in reviewing or revision this strategy as yet. However, the MA framework will be taken into account in future reviews and revisions.','','','','08/03/2010','','','23/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','A10_1_8','','The \"Platform Biodiversity Research Austria\" was established to provide a network for biodiversity research in Austria and to provide for more effective communication on biodiversity.  The platform also aims at linking Austrian biodiversity research more closely to international networks and programmes such as EPBRS, DIVERSITAS or EUROSITE, to promote communication between research and practical implementation, NGOS and managers of protected areas. Furthermore, it should also provide for better communication of strategically important research issues and results of national, EU and international research to the public.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','A10_1_9','','Austria has been an Associate Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since September 2001. GBIF Austria is Austria’s ‘Participant Node’, involved in promoting, coordinating and facilitating the publication, sharing and use of biodiversity data amongst relevant people and organisations within the Participant’s domain. GBIF Austria has a portal available at: http://www.biodiv.at/gbif/, which provides more than 2.8million records on the distribution of over 40,000 native species of plants (including lichens) and fungal species available.The European Network of Biodiversity Information is the European contribution to the GBIF. The European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.There are two organisations involved in the ENBI consortium from Austria: the Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum, Vienna (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) and the Biology Centre of the Upper Austrian State Museum (Biologiezentrum des OÖ Landesmuseums). The Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum, Vienna is involved as a Member of ENBI work package 10. This Work Package comes under the ‘Data integration, interoperability and analysis cluster’, and WP10 specifically is the ‘general analysis tools and data mining’. The Biology Centre at the Upper Austrian State Museum is the Work Package leader. The general objectives under this Work Package are to 1)  Explore and select potential applications of generic analysis tools that can be used with the common access interoperable system defined under WP8 and WP9; 2) To ensure that these tools are able to analyse a variety of biodiversity data and combine or plot these data with a-biotic information (weather, geology, etc.); 3) Explore the application of selected analysis tools in a web environment; and 4) Design description of the integration of these functional analysis tools with the common access system for interoperability of databases as provided by WP 8 and 9 and to provide a demonstrator system. The Biology Centre at the Upper Austrian State Museum was also involved in WP7: Observational data, WP8: Data management in large distributed biodiversity database systems, and WP9: Interoperability and common access.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 6 of the 8 (75%) of bogs, mires and fens and 1 of 1 or 100% of sclerophyllous scrub habitat are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. A large proportion of alpine forests, 15 of the 19 (79%) are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. 2 of the 3 (67%) and 8 of the 11 (73%) of alpine health and scrub and rocky habitats are in favourable condition respectively. Of the total freshwater habitats in the alpine biogeographical region, the condition of 4 of the 9 (44%) is unknown. With the exception of rocky habitats (2 of the 5 or 40%), no favourable conditions are recorded for any of the other continental habitat types. 8 of the 15 (53%) alpine forests are recorded to be in favourable condition. 100% of all coastal, dunes, health and scrub, and sclerophyllous scrub habitats in the continental biogeographical region are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 4 of the 8 (50%) continental freshwater habitats is unknown.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:        Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats00%222%333%444%00%9Heath & Scrub267%00%133%00%00%3Sclerophyllous Scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands19%655%327%19%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%113%675%113%00%8Rocky habitats873%19%19%19%00%11Forests211%1579%211%00%00%19ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%00%450%450%00%8Heath & Scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Sclerophyllous Scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands00%538%754%18%00%13Bogs, mires & fens00%00%571%229%00%7Rocky habitats240%120%120%120%00%5Forests00%853%640%17%00%15',' Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Austria has designated 168 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 8978 km², totalling 10.7% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 96 with a total area of 9867 km², totalling 11.8% of the country’s area.','','. Details on marine sites do not apply for Austria.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','At least 20% of Natura 2000 sites in Austria should have a management plan, e.g. financed by LIFE. More information should have been given in the Art. 17 report.','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','A1_3','','Of the 306 regularly occurring bird species in Austria, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 9 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Austria, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 2 of the 21 (10%) amphibians and reptiles are in a favourable state, 14 of the 21 (67%) are in an inadequate condition and 5 of the 21 (24%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. As for fish, 1 of 18 (6%) are in a favourable state, 6 of the 18 (33%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 10 of the 18 (56%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 18 (6%) the fish is unknown. 3 of the 43 (7%) invertebrates are in a favourable state, 16 of the 43 (37%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 20 of the 43 (47%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 43 (9%) invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 11 of the 38 (29%) are in a favourable condition, 18 of 38 (47%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and 7 of the 38 (18%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 38 (5%) the mammals was reported as unknown. Regarding the conservation status of plants, 6 of the 31 (19%) are in a favourable state, 13 of the 31 (42%) are in an unfavourable- inadequate condition and 10 of the 31 (32%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 31 (6%) plants is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 15 of the 22 (68%) of amphibians and reptiles are in an inadequate condition and 7 of the 22 (32%) are an unfavourable-bad condition. There are no amphibians and reptiles in a favourable condition. As for fish, 8 of the 24 (33%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 58% are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 24 (8%) the fish was reported as unknown. 3 of the 38 (8%) invertebrates are in a favourable state, 12 of the 38 (32%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 20 of the 38 (53%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 38 (8%) invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 10 of the 36 (28%) are in a favourable condition, 21 of the 36 (58%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and 4 of the 36 (11%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 36 (2%) of the mammals was reported as unknown. Regarding the conservation status of plants, 2 of the 20 (10%) of are in a favourable state, 8 of the 20 (40%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 10 of the 20 (50%) are in a unfavourable-bad condition. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title, http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Information on species action plans could not be provided. Austria uses the common farmland bird indicators for the evaluation of the Rural Development Programme. Red lists do exist for plants and 19 taxa of animals, these lists were published in the publications listed above. ','','','BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2005): Zulka, K. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Säugetiere, Vögel, Heuschrecken, Wasserkäfer, Netzflügler, Schnabelfliegen, Tagfalter. Grüne Reihe Band 14/1, Wien;     BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2007): Zulka, K. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Kriechtiere, Lurche, Fische, Nachtfalter und Weichtiere. Grüne Reihe Band 14/2, Wien;       BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2009a): Zulka, K. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Flusskrebse, Köcherfliegen, Skorpione, Weberknechte, Zikaden. Checklisten, Gefährdungsanalysen, Handlungsbedarf. Grüne Reihe Band 14/3, Wien;      BMUJF - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1999): Niklfeld, H. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs, 2. Auflage. Grüne Reihe, Band 10.','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','B1_1_1','','In Austria, biodiversity funding allocations are made through federal agricultural and environment budgets. Since 1995, in line with EU Regulation No. 2078/92 in situ protection runs under the Austrian Agri-Environmental Programme (ÖPUL). Since 2001 the new regulation ÖPUL 2000 has been in force, based on EU RL 1257/99. In addition, all nine Austrian Provincial Governments have individual annual budgets allocated to nature conservation. All government expenditure is being monitored, including biodiversity spending.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Austria spent up to EUR10,886,959 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Austria’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Austria’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.LIFE Nature projects in Austria have also spent money outside the Natura 2000 network, either as strategic actions or in species-related projects.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','B1_1_4','','While there is no allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013, Austria’s allocation for category 55 (protection of natural assets) is EUR0.18m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR2m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','03/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','B1_1_8','',' From 2006-2009, Austria has spent between EUR1,300,000 and EUR1,956,872 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure.','','','','25/01/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','B2_4','','No new national environmental policy or strategy has been created in Austria in light of the Communication Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’; however, the goals and targets from the Communication have been taken into account in the national outcome-oriented targets to achieve the 2010 Biodiversity Target in Austria (2007).','','','','08/03/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','B3_1_2','','Under the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben”, 10 biodiversity & forest partnerships have been established between the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and various forest owners.Under a related campaign called \"Alliance of diversity of life\", members of the alliance have entered a MoU to commit themselves to set out measures with the aim of biodiversity conservation. The union \"BIOSA\" (a voluntary group of forest owners) is member of the Alliance.','','','www.vielfaltleben.at  ','09/03/2010','','','22/03/10',''),
	('Austria','A1','B3_1_5','','No forum or similar platform/framework has been set up by Austria for biodiversity and planning partnership at national level. Information concerning partnerships at the regional and local levels was unavailable.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','03/03/2010','','','','22/03/10'),
	('Austria','A1','B3_1_6','','Under a campaign related to the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben, a group called \"Alliance of diversity of life\" has been established.  The alliance includes the development of partnerships within various sectors of society, such as the business sector, landowners, interest groups, etc. In 2009, 10 partnerships had been established with commercial enterprises.    ','','',' www.vielfaltleben.at ','09/03/2010','','','22/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','B3_1_7','','Under a campaign related to the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben, a group called \"Alliance of diversity of life\" has been established.  The alliance includes the development of partnerships within various sectors of society, such as the business sector, landowners, interest groups, etc. In 2009, 1 partnership had been established with a national bank (Raiffeisen).   ','','','www.vielfaltleben.at','09/03/2010','','','22/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','09/03/2010','','','22/03/10',''),
	('Austria','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','B4_1_1','','In January 2009 the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben\" was launched and will run until the end of 2010. The campaign is being implemented by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management in cooperation the NGOs (Naturschutzbund, WWF Austria, BirdLife Austria). The campaign aims are to: - contribute to the protection of most endangered species and ecosystems in Austria. In total, 24 protection projects are being carried out.- establish a local biodiversity network in order to involve local authorities and people in biodiversity protection projects. - establish the \"alliance for diversity of life\" under which partnerships with various groups and sectors are being created. Members of the alliance commit themselves to specific biodiversity projects or contribute to the implementation of the campaign by sponsorships.- carry out communication activities in order to raise public awareness on biodiversity and its importance for in every daily life.','','','www.vielfaltleben.at','08/03/2010','','','22/03/10',''),
	('Austria','A1','B4_1_2','','The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management made a declaration to support the 2010 countdown initiative on 15th December 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the Austrian government contributed over 50,000 Euros for Countdown 2010 Initiative projects.The Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management contributed 25,000 EUR for project \"Countdown 2010 in Austria\" in 2006 and  40,000 EUR in total  over 2007 -2009 project \"Austrian Regions for Biodiversity 2010\".','','The data concerning the funds between 2006 and 2008 uses the figures for the \"Austrian Regions for Biodiversity 2010\" project. The total sum has been divided equally over the three years (13,333 EUR /year).','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','18/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','22/03/10'),
	('Austria','A1','C1_2','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','C1_2_1','','The list of monitoring of biodiversity in Austria (MOBI) indicators structured along themes/cross-sections is as follows:Species and habitatsAL1 - Status und Trend ausgewählter Lebensräume inkl. FFH (Status and trend of selected habitats including Habitats Directive); AL2 - Extensivgrünland (Magerwiesen und –weiden) (Extensive grassland (rough meadows and pastures)); AL3 - Vogelartengruppen als Zeiger für Lebensraumqualität (Bird species groups as indicators of habitat quality); AL4 - Libellen als Zeiger für Feuchtgebietsqualität (Dragonflies as indicators of wetland quality); AL5 - Arten- und Lebensraumvielfalt auf Almen (Diversity of species and habitats at alpine pastures); AL6 - Alte Bäume als Lebensräume (Old trees as habitats); AL7 - Fledermäuse (Bats); AL8 - Ziesel (Ground squirrels); AL9 - Flora (Flora); AL10 - Orchideen als Zeiger für Lebensraumqualität (Orchids as indicators of habitat quality); AL11 - Pilze (Makromyzeten) (Fungi (Macromycets)); AL12 - Moose (Mosses); AL13 - Bodenorganismen (Raubmilben) (Soil organisms (Gamasidae)); AL14 - Laienmonitoring allgemein bekannter Arten (Monitoring of commonly known species by amateur biologists); AL15 - Artenmonitoring durch Landwirtinnen und Landwirte (Monitoring of species by farmers); AL16 - Veränderung der Flora auf Alpengipfeln (Change of flora on summits of the alps)ForestsW1 - Natürlichkeit der Baumartenzusammensetzung (Naturalness of composition of tree species); W2 - Totholz (Deadwood); W3 - Verjüngung (Regeneration); W4 - Verbisseinwirkung auf die Verjüngung (Impact of browsing by game species on regeneration)Alpine mountainsA1 - Bergbauernbetriebe (Alpine agricultural holdings); A2 - Viehbestand auf Almen (Livestock on alpine pastures); A3 - Geförderte Bergmähder (Funded meadows on steep slopes); A4 - Freiwilligen-Einsätze auf Almen und Bergbauernhöfen (Voluntary activities on alpine pastures and alpine farms); A5 - Gletscherausdehnung (Extent of glaciers)Cultural landscapeKL1 - Viehdichte (Livestock density); KL2 - Biologisch bewirtschaftete, landwirtschaftliche Fläche (Agricultural area under organic farming practices); KL3 - Größe landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftungseinheiten (Schlaggröße) (Size of agricultural managed units (land parcel size))Water systemsGW1 - Indikatoren gemäß Wasserrahmenrichtlinie / Wasserrechtsgesetz (Indicators according to the EU Water Framework Directive/Austrian Water Act)SoilBO1 - Biomasse und Aktivität (Biomass and activity); BO2 - Eutrophierung und Versauerung durch Stickstoffverbindungen (Eutrophication and acidification by nitrogen compounds)Settlement areasS1 - Parkanlagen – Zustand des Öffentlichen Grüns (Parks – state of public green area); S2 - Lichtemissionen (Emissions of light)Nature protectionN1 - Naturschutzrechtlich verordnete Schutzgebiete (Areas protected by law on nature protection); N2 - Naturwaldreservate (Natural forest reserves); N3 - Schutzgebietsbetreuung (Management of protected areas); N4 - Rote Liste ausgewählter Artengruppen (Red list of selected species groups); N5 - Rote Liste ausgewählter Biotoptypen (Red list of types of biotopes); N6 - Status und Trends ausgewählter gebietsfremder Arten (Status and trend of selected alien species)GeneticsG1 - Erhaltungs- und Samenplantagen (ex situ) (Plantation for preservation and seed orchards (ex situ)); G2 - Gehölzpflanzungen mit natürlichem Pflanzgut (Plantation of woody plants with natural seed stocks); G3 - Funktionsfähige sexuelle Reproduktion bei Pflanzenarten (Sexual reproduction able to function by plant species); G4 - Genetische Vielfalt in Populationen von ausgewählten Arten (Genetic diversity in populations of selected species); G5 - Obstsortenvielfalt (Diversity of fruit species); G6 - Erhaltungswürdige Nutztierrassen (Productive livestock worthy of preservation)FragmentationF1 - Flächenverbrauch durch Verkehr und Siedlung (Versiegelung) (Use of land by transport and settlement (sealing))AwarenessB1 - Aktivitäten zur Förderung der Biodiversität (Activities fostering biodiversity)','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A1','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented in Austria:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.There are also the following additional GAEC requirements:Arable land not used for agricultural production must have a green cover and be maintained throughout the growing season (normally April to September).Areas used for horticulture, wine production or growing hops which are left fallow for at least one growing season between grubbing-up and replanting in order to treat the soil must have green cover throughout the fallow period.It is not permitted to work the soil on agriculturally utilised land with agricultural machinery, if the ground is frozen, waterlogged, flooded, or covered in snow.A minimum distance must be kept when working land close to water. Farms with a stocking rate below 0.5 LU/ha and over 5 ha of arable land may grow cereals and maize on 85 % of their arable land.Burning straw on stubble fields is forbidden, except (as a result of weather or cultivation conditions or for plant health reasons) by authorisation on a case-by-case basis by the competent authority.The clearance of vegetation as a minimum maintenance measure is only permitted on a maximum of 50% of the arable and permanent grassland areas on the farm. On all other arable and permanent grassland areas, the vegetation must be used each year by harvesting or using as pasture.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','03/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Austria total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 4025.58 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 8018.94 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 2918.53 million EUR, and 5817.86 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 72.49 and 72.55 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Austria was 1823.69 million EUR (3635.39 with co-financing) and amounted to 45.3 per cent of the EAFRD (45.33 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 1.81 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.04 per cent of EAFRD) and 3.61 million EUR of public expenditure (0.04 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 2.18 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.05 per cent of EAFRD) and 4.34 million EUR of public expenditure (0.05 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 7.44 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.18 per cent of EAFRD) and 14.84 million EUR of public expenditure (0.19 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasuresEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)511.0371015.057Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','12/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has been adopted that addresses the conservation of genetic resources. There are in situ conservation measures for crop varieties and livestock breeds, such as through the LIFE+ programme, and the European cooperative programme on plant genetic resources (ECP/GR). Their aim is the utilization of rare used species and old ecological adopted varieties to promote the on farm conservation of old varieties and to prevent the loss of knowledge of cultivation and utilization of different crops, breeds and races. These measures cover approximately 70 crop varieties and 31 livestock breeds and amount to an expenditure of some 1.5 and 3.9 million € respectively. ','','','','17/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Austria in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. Afforestation with non-native tree species is excluded from national Rural Development Programmes (RDP). No further details were available.In addition, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. According to the Austrian Forest Act (Forstgesetz), clearing (deforestation) is generally forbidden by law. No further details were available.According to the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are not used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Results of biodiversity surveys are incorporated in afforestation operations. Their application is not limited to the size of an area affected.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','15/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Austria had a total certified forest area of 1.96 million hectares out of a total forest area of 3.862 million hectares. 5086 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 1.956 million hectares of forest in Austria was certified. In total, 50.77 per cent of the forest area in Austria was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','15/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Austria amounted to 2.45 million ha, representing a share of 68.4 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to the Member State, Austria has just started to discuss \"HNV\" from a scientific perspective. Therefore, major changes to existing figures are still possible. Updated reports will then be available every year based on on-going-evaluations.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, MS questionnaire','12/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented in Austria:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.There are also the following additional GAEC requirements:Arable land not used for agricultural production must have a green cover and be maintained throughout the growing season (normally April to September).Areas used for horticulture, wine production or growing hops which are left fallow for at least one growing season between grubbing-up and replanting in order to treat the soil must have green cover throughout the fallow period.It is not permitted to work the soil on agriculturally utilised land with agricultural machinery, if the ground is frozen, waterlogged, flooded, or covered in snow.A minimum distance must be kept when working land close to water. Farms with a stocking rate below 0.5 LU/ha and over 5 ha of arable land may grow cereals and maize on 85 % of their arable land.Burning straw on stubble fields is forbidden, except (as a result of weather or cultivation conditions or for plant health reasons) by authorisation on a case-by-case basis by the competent authority.The clearance of vegetation as a minimum maintenance measure is only permitted on a maximum of 50% of the arable and permanent grassland areas on the farm. On all other arable and permanent grassland areas, the vegetation must be used each year by harvesting or using as pasture.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','03/03/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. In particular, training services are offered to land owners within Natura sites as well as information services to support requirements for habitats, specific birds and the establishment of special hedges. Specific Plans are also developed to optimise environmental protection within holdings and develop contracts to achieve this. Training courses are offered in cooperation with environmental protection and agricultural educational institutions, and the environmental protection plans are linked to continuing education events.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','16/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_8','','Regional and national monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition (i.e. area of forest by forest type and percentage coniferous, broadleaved and mixed).Austria has an own concept to evaluate the Farmland-Bird-Index on hand. The country has started broader research resulting in a yearly report. This is designed by BirdLife Austria. One of the study’s main objectives is the design of time lines. The results are then compared with data form the national agri-environmental programme. ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Gruener BerichtWeblink: http://www.gruenerbericht.at/cm2/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=387&Itemid=27 http://www.gruenerbericht.at/cm2/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=237&Itemid=27     ','16/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 97 million € has been added to the Austrian national Rural Development programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Austria attributed € 21 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 22 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','R Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. Austria rejects the identification of risk areas concerning the different soil degradation processes. Besides other aspects, the foreseen identification of risk areas is a particularly important reason for which Austria rejects the proposal on a Soil Framework Directive. It believes that the administrative and financial burden related to the identification of such areas would be higher than the benefits it brings. Given the small scaled structure, in Austria the identification of such areas is neither possible nor does it make sense, because even on the same parcel you can have very different degrees of soil endangerment.This opinion is not shared by the European Commission.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, MS suggestion on evaluation study: \"Comparative Animal Ecological Valuation of High and Low Nature Value Farmland\"     Weblink: ','23/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_3','','According to Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, in Austria 56 per cent of the alpine and 50 per cent of the continental freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remainder is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Freshwater habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage17908053%0%47%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9504056%0%44%0%U12  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8404050%0%50%0%U10   U24       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ andhttp://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, In Austria, oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, going from 1.22 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.23 mg O3/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a slight decrease from 0.07 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.06 mg N/l in 2003, with no change up to 2005. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.37 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.31 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.40 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly below weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally showed a more or less stable trend from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 27.9 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 27.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 28.6 mg NO3/l in 2003. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.026 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.023 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly below weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a clear upward trend, increasing from 0.009 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.021 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values still below the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.According to reporting by the Member State, the above figures on phosphorous concentrations in lakes do not correspond to national data. Phosporus concentrations in natural lakes larger than 50 ha amounted to less than 0.008 mg/l for the period 2003 - 2005. Currently, no upward trends are observed nor does the Member State expect it to happen in the future, as waste water is usually collected in the catchment area of the lakes, redirected and after appropriate treatment discharged further downstream of the lakes. Furthermore, it is reported that an advanced nutrient removal is in place.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water – partly unpublished\"Trophie - Gütebild der großen Seen Österreichs, Stand 2005\"Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe http://publikationen.lebensministerium.at/publication/publication/view/3117/28607 ','25/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Austria had a total number of 192 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 71.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in April 2009, Austria developed three out of four biological assessment methods for rivers and lakes, with no method developed or no information available on phytoplankton assessment for rivers and benthic invertebrates for lakes.According to reporting by the Member State, due to high flow velocity of Austria’s rivers no autochthonic phytoplankton can develop and therefore Austria has not developed a specific method for this biological parameter in rivers.Benthic invertebrate of Austria’s alpine lakes show a high natural variability. As the remaining three biological parameters (phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, and fish fauna) provide better and sufficiently robust results, the Member State has not developed and according method for benthic invertebrates in lakes. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','25/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 105 in Austria.According to reporting by the Member State, the territory partly covers three river basin districts (RBD): 80,565 km² or 96.1% of Austria belong to the RBD Danube, 2,365 km² or 2.8% to the RBD Rhine and 921 km² or 1.1% to the RBD Elbe. Austria has reported 7.244 river water bodies > 10 km², 62 lakes > 50 ha and 136 groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies. ','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaire, Austrian National River Basin Management Plan, 2009','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, at the end of 2008 Austria had a total number of 572 IPPC installations and issued 518 permits. 47 permits were still outstanding. 263 was the number of permits that was considered but not updated given the permits already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. A “pre-IPPC permit reconsidered but not updated” takes those cases into account where the conditions were reconsidered, but no update has taken place because the conditions were considered to already comply with the requirements of the Directive. “Pre-IPPC permits reconsidered and updated” requests data on those cases which were reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account.  The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaire, Reporting under the IPPC DirectiveWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/at/eu/ippc/envss3ola/ippc-q2-template_DE1_1_.xls','05/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, Austria’s emissions of sulphur dioxide and ammonia were all below NEC Directive ceilings in 2008 and it is projected that they will remain below these levels in 2010, based on implemented and adopted measures. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are still well above NECD ceilings, though decreased compared to 2007. However, it is expected that the emission ceilings targets for nitrogen oxides will not be met. Regarding non-methane volatile organic compounds, the country is currently on target to comply with the ceilings set out in Annex I of the directive, but expects to be above targets in 2010.According to the Member State, Austria reports on national emissions calculated on the basis of \"fuel used\", which can be very different from figures provided above. Data below provide an overview of related emissions in 2008.NOxNMVOCSOxNO3227.45186.7028.9466.01','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Austria the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 2 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 35,746 km2 and 40,255 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 1 and 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 94 per cent in 2010 and 78 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 5 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Austria’s gross nitrogen balance was 48 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 27 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','25/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','No data on Austria exists as regards the index on trends in common farmland bird species by the European Census Council and Birdlife International. According to reporting by the Member State, Austria has developed an own concept for producing a Farmland Birds Index. This includes a comprehensive study resulting in a yearly report and is designed by BirdLife Austria. For further information please consult 2.1.8.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','12/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Austria generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitat with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the alpine heath and scrub habitats, where 67 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 33 per cent is unfavourable). All of the continental heath and scrub habitat in Austria has an unfavourable conservation status. The highest percentages of unfavourable conservation status are found in the alpine and continental forest habitats of Austria (88 and 93 per cent respectively). The remaining forest habitats in Austria have an unknown conservation status. 82 per cent of alpine grasslands in Austria have an unfavourable status, 9 per cent of these grasslands have a favourable status (the remaining 9 per cent is unknown). Of the continental grasslands in Austria, 92 per cent has an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 8 per cent has an unknown status. The vast majority of both the alpine and continental peat land habitats in Austria have an unfavourable conservation status (88 and 71 per cent respectively), the status of the remaining peat land habitat is unknown. See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Grassland habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage242112088%4%8%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11911082%9%9%0%U16  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131201092%0%8%0%U15   U27       Forest HabitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage322921091%6%3%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage171520088%12%0%0%U113  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151401093%0%7%0%U18   U26       Heath and Scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4220050%50%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3120033%67%0%0%U10  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U10   U21       Peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151203080%0%20%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8701088%0%13%0%U11  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7502071%0%29%0%U10   U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A3','A3_4','','Austria’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 2 is €10,203,753 includes promotion of sustainable exploitation of inland waters and organic aquaculture production. Axis 3 (€100,000) supports measures to avoid overfishing (e.g. minimum landing sizes and closed areas). There are no activities or funding under Axis 1 or Axis 4 as Austria only has an inland fishery and being land-locked no marine fishery. ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_10_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','04/03/10','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Austria','A3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A3','A3_5_2','','Austria has a trout management plan for lake trout (www.vorarlberg.at) and has undertaken a number of activities under LIFE funding to support the Danube Salmon (Hucho hucho). Austria also has a National River Basin management Plan under the Water Framework Directive which has a number of actions that are of benefit to diadromous species including the morphological restructuring of rivers; removal of migratory barriers; measures to ensure fish migration through adequate technical solutions and stock enhancement of lake trout. (Source: Austrian National River Basin Management Plan, 2009).','','','wisa.lebensministerium.at','25/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Austria','A3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A4','A4_3','','Under the given criteria of the Habitats and Bird´s Directive, Austria holds the opinion that the network is completed. Neither AT network of sites according to Birds nor according to Habitats Directives is completed yet http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/docs/spa.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/docs/sci.pdf','','','','03/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','A4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism have been taken into account in the Austrian National Strategy on Biodiversity. The Strategy includes the following measures on tourism and leisure industry: - Development of strategies to ensure the protection on nature and landscapes; - Measures in the field of education and research; - Measures to ensure cooperation between all stakeholders concerned; - Measures aiming at ensuring sustainable development of tourism support systems; - Mesures related to international tourism policy. Thus the CBD Guidelines are taken into account when planning tourism development. It also has to be noted  that the building of tourism infrastructures has to follow an EIA procedure. No legal provions exist for considering the CBD Guidelines in tourism development. Finally, Austria has not produced a report on the usage of the CBD Guidelines.  ','','','www.biologischevielfalt.at','09/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Austrian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 2.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spending on the categories 55 and 56 are foreseen by the Austrian Structural Funds programme. Furthermore its biodiversity-related spendings under the Structural Funds are also concentrated in cross border programs such as INTERREG. The complete list of funded projects can be found on the respective websites of the different programmes (see below).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy direct and indirect spending on biodiversity (table provided by EC). Reference or title: Cohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdfAustrian’s cross border programs under EU Structural funds:http://www.sk-at.eu/at-hu http://www.interreg-bayaut.net http://www.interreg.org http://www.interreg.net http://www.si-at.eu/start_de http://www.sk-at.eu http://www.at-cz.eu','03/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','30/04/2010'),
	('Austria','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Austria has no general federal legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), however, the introduction of IAS is covered under specific legislation. Firstly, the Austrian Law on Plant Protection (1995) covers IAS that are plant pests. IAS are also covered under regional federal states (Länder) jurisdiction (Lebensministerium (Austria) 2005). Introduction of alien plants is restricted in eight of nine federal states; introduction of animals is restricted in all nine federal states. In some federal states, there is an exception for species introduced for fisheries, agricultural and forestry purposes. Austrian legislation does not address import and export, possession and trade or control and eradication of IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 66 are present in Austria. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A5','A5_1_2','','There is no national strategy on invasive alien species (IAS) in Austria but a national action plan for IAS was published in 2004. The action plan is part of the National Biodiversity Strategy and serves as a tool to implement the goals and objectives on IAS set out in the National Biodiversity Strategy. The plan covers four thematic areas: 1) education and awareness rising, 2) capacity building, 3) research and monitoring, and 4) legal and organisational implementation.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A5','A5_1_3','','Austria has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','03/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, an inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects was implemented. An early warning and information system for IAS is under development, which will cover aspects such as incident lists and a focal point network. A National Focal Point on IAS has been established at the Austrian Federal Environment Agency.    No detailed information on the database was available.Austria supports the establishment of an early warning and information systems for IAS at the EU level (as foreseen in the Council Conclusions on the EU IAS Strategy in June 2009), seeing such a Community-wide system as an effective way forward. Consequently a national system will have to be established as soon as EU system will be in place. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:www.umweltbundesamt.at  ','08/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A5','A5_2_2','','Austria has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. In Austria, the competence lies at the regional level. The titles and references of the co-existence legislation in Austria are as follows: Salzburger Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 75, dated 10.9.2004; Kärntner Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 5, dated 28.1.2005; Burgenländisches Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 64, dated 29.07.2005; Tyroler Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 36, dated 9.3.2005; Niederösterreichisches Gentechnikvorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 81, dated 31.8.2005; Wiener Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 53, dated 21.9.2005; Oberösterreichisches Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 79/2006, dated 6.7.2006; Steiermärkisches Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 97/2006, dated 11.8.2006; and Vorarlberger Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftsentwicklung, LGBl. Nr. 22/1997, deals with the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). With regards to restrictions for the cultivation of genetically modified crops, authorisation will only be granted by the competent regional authority in certain protected areas. Protection of these areas must be guaranteed and/or wild fauna and flora and natural habitats must not be damaged. Some regions have specific protected areas which include alpine and/or mountain pastures, glaciers and their catchment areas and areas managed under contract nature protection schemes. Cultivation of GM crops is not permitted in areas of organic farming or areas where there is a risk of out-crossing with non- genetically modified production. In 2008, Austria adopted a ban on Maize MON 810 (Verordnung BGBl (Nr.181/2008, dated 30. Mai 2008).','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','04/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A6','A6_1_1','','','','','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Austria spent EUR0.16m in 2006 and EUR0.07 in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which amounts to a total of 0.006% and 0.002%, respectively, of the total multilateral annual aid budget. However, Austria has questioned the above data, specifically, the citation of OECD DAC and whether the methodology used corresponds with the data from the Rio Markers. The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW); this methodology has been applied consistently across all 27 Member States.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD marker, Austria spent EUR3.2m in 2006 and EUR2.4m in 2007 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.004% and 0.002%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget. However, Austria has questioned the above data, specifically the citation of OECD DAC and whether the methodology used corresponds with the data from the Rio Markers. The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW); this methodology has been applied consistently across all 27 Member States.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009, 09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A7','A7_1_4','','Austria contributed EUR22.81 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.94% of the total replenishment. Austria contributed EUR24.38 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.14 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','09/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A7','A7_2_2','','Austria has implemented the SEA Directive and EIA Directive. In addition, it has ratified the Espoo Convention and the SEA Protocol.EIA is manadatory for all bilateral programmes and projects. There is no standardized SEA process yet established.SEA is not systematically applied for plans and programmes (e.g. lack of strategic planning in hydropower policy). ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:http://www.umweltnet.at/article/archive/7241www.strategischeumweltpruefung.athttp://www.umweltnet.at/article/archive/7237http://www.entwicklung.at/en/funding-and-tenders/country-regional-programmes/projekt-zyklus-management.html  ','03/03/2010 und 09/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A8','A8_1','','Austria has provided 40,000 € in total for the 6th meeting of the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing in 2008 to support participation of representatives from developing countries as well as indigenous representatives. No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing exists in Austria, but awareness was raised in particular through several national workshops/ meetings. In addition, the Austrian Botanical Gardens are partners of the International Plant Exchange Network IPEN, which was developed as a model for the acquisition and the exchange of living plant material within the botanic gardens community in respect of the ABS requirements of the CBD. IPEN is a voluntary registration system intending to facilitate the botanic gardens plant exchange in accordance with the CBD provisions. The general provisions on implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources in Austria are laid down in Federal Law Nr. 98/2006 (part III) (Ratification of the ITPGR). Workshops/conferences to raise the awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the ITPGR with key stakeholders and users are regularly organised. The Austrian Forest Act as well as the PEFC and FSC certification schemes provide for the total wood consumption deriving from sustainable sources. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, while no applications were denied. A large number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','03/03/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing exists in Austria. Austrian Botanical Gardens are partners of the International Plant Exchange Network IPEN, which was developed as a model for the acquisition and the exchange of living plant material within the botanic gardens community in respect of the ABS requirements of the CBD. IPEN is a voluntary registration system intending to facilitate the botanic gardens plant exchange in accordance with the CBD provisions. Several national  workshops / meetings have been organised with key stakeholders to raise awareness of the Bonn Guidelines. Information of stakeholders, breeders and seed industry.','','In Dec 2008 Austria organised an international workshop in Vienna to facilitate effective participation of indigenious representatives in the ongoing negotiations on an international ABS regime (€ 15.000 in total). ','','17/02/2010 and 09/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Austria has provided 40,000 € in total for the 6th meeting of ABS Working Group in 2008 to support participation of representatives from developing countries as well as indigenous representatives.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','No specific national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exists in Austria. However, general provisions on implementation of the IT in Austria are laid down in Federal Law Nr. 98/2006 (part III) (Ratification of the ITPGR).Workshops/conferences to raise the awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the ITPGR with key stakeholders and users are regularly organised.  Information of stakeholders, breeders and seed industry.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','A8','A8_1_4','','The Austrian Forest Act as well as the PEFC and FSC certification schemes provide a total wood consumption from sustainable sources.','','','','15/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 4312, 282 and 7092, respectively. No import, export or re-export applications were denied. There were 6597 and 7178 seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008, respectively. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance for staff of Management Authority, Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities and financial support for the information campaign of the WWF-Austria to traders and the public. Austria provided financial assistance for the CITES-Trust funds for the participation of other countries at the CoP14 (€ 10.000). Austria paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The 2007 -2008 biennial report indicated that there were a significant number of seizures and confiscations. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','03/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','A9','','','Austria has just recently started to pave the way for a National Adaptation Strategy. A “policy paper” laying down main strategic principles and formulating some recommendations in selected key sectors (agriculture, forestry, electricity, tourism and water management) was drafted and is under discussions. Further sectors will be analysed in the course of the next months, and one of these will be the sector “Natural ecosystems/Biodiversity”.','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','25/01/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A9','A9_3_2','','Regarding biofuels and bioliquids, Austria is currently working on the implementation of Sustainability Criterias based on EU Directive 2009/30 and 2009/28 into national laws. The transposition of the EU directives has to be finished until the end of 2010. Requirements addressing biodiversity problems in relation with biomass production are also under development.','','','','25/01/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','A9','A9_4_1','','Austria has just recently started to pave the way for a National Adaptation Strategy. A “policy paper” laying down main strategic principles and formulating some recommendations in selected key sectors (agriculture, forestry, electricity, tourism and water management) was drafted and is under discussions. Further sectors will be analysed in the course of the next months, and one of these will be the sector “Natural ecosystems/Biodiversity”.',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','25/01/2010',NULL,NULL,'30/04/2010',NULL),
	('Austria','A9','A9_4_3','','There are no finished risk assessments of habitats under climate change in Austria. However, a current project elucidates climate-change induced risks to mire Austrian habitats – this study (“MoorClim”) will be finished in February 2011 and is coordinated by the Austrian Federal Environment Agency (Dr. Franz Essl). There are no comprehensive nationwide assessments of species under risk of climate change. However, the monitoring project GLORIA (www.gloria.ac.at) investigates climate change driven mountain species range shifts. Besides, climate change induced risks for endemic plant and animal species has been assessed in studies (Dirnböck, Essl, Rabistch).','','','The monitoring project GLORIA www.gloria.ac.at ','08/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','','','In Flanders, consultation committees for planning and follow-up of partnerships have been set up between the Agency for Nature & Forests and: Drinking Water Companies, Waste Water Management (Aquafin), Waste Handling Companies (Remo), the Departments Waterwegen & Zeekanaal (Waterways and Sea Canal) and De Scheepvaart (Shipping), Port Authorities.The aim of these committees is to discuss environmental impact assessments and other approaches, finding best solutions for limited impacts and for mitigation and/or compensation measures and to identify voluntary practices to enhance natural carrying capacity and ecosystem functions.  Cooperation agreements have been signed with businesses including SIBELCO, REMO, Wienerberger, Bayer. NGOs, such as Natuurpunt also have bilateral agreements with businesses for enhancing biodiversity on their compounds however their number has not been communicated.In 2007, long term agreements for cooperation were established between the NGOs Natuurpunt (FL) and Natagora (Wallonia) with the electricity company Electrabel & GDF-Suez for several actions on biodiversity.In the Walloon region, several agreements exist between electricity companies (Elia) and the nature and forests department of the Walloon region for the ecological management of areas located under electrical power lines. Several hydroelectric power station companies have been involved and equiped with protection netting to avoid fish from being caught in their engines. Fish ladders have also been installed to enable fish to migrate up and down the watercourse. Quarries and cement companies are required to rehabilitate sites when extraction is finished. Quarries are required to pay compensation when enlarging their extraction area.','','The numbers given reflect only the formally established frameworks or agreements','http://www.natuurpunt.be','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','A1','A10_1','','Although Belgium does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, there are regional research programmes included in the National Biodiversity Strategy, as most research programmes are developed and carried out at the regional level.  At the national level, the Science for a Sustainable Development (SSD) programme is composed of 8 priority research areas: Energy, Transport and mobility, Agrifood, Health and environment, Climate (including Antarctica), Biodiversity (including Antarctica and the North Sea), Atmosphere and terrestrial and marine ecosystems (including Antarctica and the North Sea) and Transversal Research. Biodiversity research primarily focuses on studying the in situ biodiversity of marine ecosystems (the North Sea, the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean) and biodiversity of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (the temperate regions and Antarctica).  Research priorities fall into three categories: analysis of the biodiversity status, assessment of current and future pressures and impacts, and support to measures for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.','','Flanders (Fl) - INBO:The Flemish region spends circa 16 million Euros per year on environmental research. The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) is the Flemish research and knowledge centre for nature and its sustainable management and use. INBO has determined a number of high priorities. Together with the set of strategic targets, they offer a clear view of what INBO intends to realize in the period between 2009 and 2015.Focus is primarily given to research for:- scientific as well as operational support for the execution of European directives related to biodiversity- knowledge support for stakeholders concerning the conservation and sustainable use of nature and forest- reporting on nature and evaluating effectiveness of policy plans- research aimed at acquiring general knowledge with special attention to new threats such as climate change and invasive species- fast and thorough conceptual and organizational development of environmental monitoring- fast and thorough planning and organizational development of data and information systems.The strategic aims of INBO are :- to organize its processes in the area of organization and science management in an efficient manner.- to coordinate the Flemish scientific research into nature and forest. INBO develops the strategy for Flanders for nature and forest research and consolidates its position in a European and international context.- to communicates the importance of scientific research for the conservation of nature and forest. INBO also communicates the results of its research activities.- to organize and develop Flemish and international reporting about nature and policy evaluation.- to be a data management hub. It looks into appropriate data gathering methods and means by which to disseminate data and make them readily available.- to supply high-quality scientific advice based on scientific facts, data and insights, both proactively and on demand.- to perform research into the diversity of populations, species and ecosystems in order to be able to evaluate area-specific policy measures and optimize them in order to improve the viability of species and ecosystems in the long term.- to perform research into genetic diversity of populations and species in order to evaluate and possibly modify the effectiveness of the area-specific policy measures employed.- to carry out research into the natural environment’s biodiversity potential and the effects of natural or man-made changes upon it (soil, water and air quality, climate).- to perform research to develop expertise on the ecological management of species and ecosystems, ultimately aimed at conserving, restoring or developing biodiversity.- to investigate the sustainable use and management of nature and forest. With this knowledge, we support stakeholders who wish to make use of nature and forest and/or participate in its management.- to conduct socio-economic research into the economic valuation of biodiversity and public awareness of it.The research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) produces the Flanders nature reports (NARA), which describe and evaluate the state of the nature, underlying causes of change and efforts towards improvement, and are aimed at policy makers and citizens. Besides the 2-yearly report a regular follow-up of biodiversity indicators is published yearly and accessible on line.Wallonia (W):Biodiversity research is incorporated in other framework programs such as the framework program on forestry research, or into research project linked to different environmental sectors such as forests, hunting & fishing, Biodiversity & nature, Water.Brussels Capital Region (BHG):A research programme on biodiversity in the Brussels Capital Region has been set up since 1992 in the framework of a bio-indicator information network for management of the environment.This is mainly a monitoring programme with collecting of data on the presence of major flora and fauna species groups, such as avifauna, herpetofauna, mammals, higher plants, non vascular cryptogams, and some invertebrates groups (butterflies, herpetofauna). Inventory\'s of the different groups are made every few year except for birds (annually).  These data are guiding the biodiversity management programs on species. Special research programmes on biodiversity management are also established in major semi-natural areas, especially in the Sonian Forest.','Reference or title:Weblink:Fl: ERA-net biodivERsA :  http://www.biodiversity.be/biodiversa/ http://www.inbo.be  Science for a Sustainable Development programme  (SSD) http://www.belspo.be/belspo/ssd/science/pr_biodiversity_en.stm','26/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','A10_1_2','','Follow ups to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in Belgium are undertaken at the regional level. For example, in Flanders a number of government agencies (INBO, AMS, MIRA, VLIZ) are planning to produce an ecosystem services assessment.  The plans will include stakeholder engagement, valuation of ecosystem services, facilitation of open access to research on biodiversity, and support for standardisation for collection of biodiversity data and reporting.  Research into ecosystem services (ESS) is being developed and undertaken at both the national and regional level. At the national level, the Belgian science policy is going to support the establishment of a “virtual” research institute on ecosystem services research in Belgium, covering the necessary expertise to contribute to large international research initiatives. In addition to this networking activity, two new research projects dealing with ESS have recently been selected for funding in the framework of the SSD programme. In Flanders, several government departments and agencies dealing with biodiversity and open space are currently investigating options to include ESS concepts in their approaches. The Flemish Minister for Environment included ESS in her policy declaration—a document that provides strategic direction for policy in the next five years.','','The Belgian science policy is going to support the establishment of a “virtual” research institute on Ecosystem services research in Belgium, covering the necessary expertise to contribute to large international research initiatives. The ecosystems in Belgian might differ from those in other regions, both in terms of ecological aspects as from a socio-economical viewpoint and therefore need of a sound methodological approach to structure and focus further assessments. In addition to this networking activity, 2 recently new research projects dealing with ESS have recently been selected for funding in the framework of the SSD programme. Flanders: Ecosystem services (ESS) are attracting increasing attention from academics, government departments and agencies and recently also from the political level: - More academics started to be interested in ESS, and the Federal Research Council launched a call for research projects focussing on ESS (May 2009, 3 projects approved in Dec 2009). - Several government departments and agencies dealing with biodiversity and open space are currently investigating the options to include ESS concepts in their approaches.  The Environment and Nature Policy Plan (2008-2010) has included \'sustaining ecosystem services\' in its long-term objective.  The Agency for Nature and Forests initiated a study on the ecosystem services in Flanders: mapping, ecological and economic description, detailed compilation of data for 6 pilot areas. The division on Environment Economics at the Department of Environment compiled information on monetary valuation of specific ecosystems and initiated a development of a valuation tool. The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) of the Flemish Government has recently established a research group on ESS (Sep 2009).- The Flemish Minister for Environment has included ESS in her policy declaration (document which provides strategic direction for the next 5 years, 2009-2014).','Reference or title: Weblink: Fl: ESS knowledge centres in Flanders region: (not exhaustive)Valuation expertise in Flanders region and overviews of completed and ongoing valuation studies:http://www.vito.be/VITO/EN/HomepageAdmin/Home/WetenschappelijkOnderzoek/RuimtelijkeMilieuaspecten/http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/waardering-van-baten-en-schadenhttp://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/kosten-batenanalyses',' 10/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','A10_1_8','','Belgium has a national biodiversity platform; available online. The platform is an integrated network of members posted in federal and regional research institutions including biodiversity scientists, IT specialists and a manager. The mission of the Belgium biodiversity platform is to foster biodiversity research that contributes to sustainable development by facilitating access to biodiversity data, science and research information; encouraging interdisciplinary cooperation amongst scientists; stimulating interaction between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders in biodiversity research; Advising on the designation of biodiversity research priorities; and Promoting Belgian biodiversity research at international fora.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ;Belgium National Biodiversity Platform: http://www.biodiversity.be/ ','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','A10_1_9','','Belgium became a voting member of GBIF in Feb 2001. The Belgium Biodiversity Information Facility (BeBIF) is Belgium’s GBIF ‘Participant Node’ As such, one of their main tasks is to promote publication of Belgian datasets holding biodiversity data through the GBIF network. This is mainly achieved through contacts with various scientific institutions around the country, the Platform\'s dedicated digitisation projects call and by supporting international thematic initiatives. BeBIF’s website includes a national data portal, where data providers can contribute to the global effort. The European Network of Biodiversity Information is the European contribution to the GBIF.  The European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Belgian Biodiversity Information Facility (BeBIF) is involved in three of ENBI’s Work Packages at ‘member’ level: WP2, the ENBI forum, WP9, Interoperability and common access, and WP 13, non-European data globally available. The Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences is a ‘member’ level participant of WP3, dissemination. The Royal Museum for Central Africa, Department of African Zoology is a ‘contributor’ to WP11, multilingual access, and a ‘member’ of WP 13, non-European data globally available. The National Botanic Garden of Belgium is a ‘member’ of WP13, non-European data globally available. ','','All organisations have been listed as ‘research group’, although some members of BeBIF also come from Universities ','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.phpBeBif: http://www.biodiversity.be/','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data. 1 of 1 (100%) coastal habitats (sandbanks permanently covered by seawater) in the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 7 of 7 (100%) of all freshwater, health and scrub and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 9 of the 10 (90%) and 4 of the 5 (80%) of dune and coastal habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. Large proportions of grassland (4 of the 6 or 67%) and forest habitats (6 of the 10 or 60%) are also in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of all rocky habitats in this biogeographical region is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 80% or more of all heath and scrub habitats (2 of the 2), forests (10 of the 10), grasslands (8 of the 9), rocky habitats (4 of the 5) and bogs, mires and fens (5 of the 6) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. A large proportion of freshwater habitats, (4 of the 6 or 67%) are also reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of one of the two dune habitats is unknown, with the other one being in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 2 (50%) dunes habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition, the condition of the remaining dune habitats is unfavourable-inadequate.Belgium provides the following comment: The Walloon Minister for Agriculture, Rural Affairs, Environment and Tourism drew the attention of the Commission through a letter dated February 25, 2008 to the antagonism between some indicators used to assess the conservation status. Given the criteria, it seems to be difficult to develop in a positive way the state of conservation of several habitats in the Walloon Region. A new calibration of indicators will be needed before the second assessment of the conservation status linked to the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive reporting.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Belgium has designated 280 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 3269 km², totalling 10.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. There is 1 site with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 181 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 234 with a total area of 3282 km², totalling 8.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 3, with a marine area of 306 km². ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ',' 02/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_2_3','','Some tools are in place to support connectivity, others are in development - depending on the region.       FL: An important part of the Flemish Natural Structure, the Integral Interweaving and Supporting Network, is meant to ensure connectivity across the landscape to support and enhance connectivity between the sites of the Flemish Ecological Network (VEN) that comprises the core nature areas with a higher protection status. Only 2 %of the proposed 150,000 ha Interweaving area is designated till now, and ca 89.000 ha of the core sites under VEN out of the targeted 125.000 ha. To strengthen coherence and connectivity in the development of the Flemish Ecological Network Structure (see above) the areas with important natural value or with potential value have been mapped and about 433 connective zones or nature corridors identified – to be consulted on the website www.natuurindicatoren.be under the indicator ‘corridor areas’. Provincial authorities are developing designation and management plans for the corridor areas – 17 pilot projects are now in process. Other instruments to strengthen nature values that enhance ecological connectivity include: establishment of nature reserves, public and private forests, protection of river banks, management of road verges, hedges and other small landscape elements being protected by law, establishment of parks and green areas in and around urban areas,… all being important as stepping stones and corridors. The construction of “eco-tunnels” and “eco-passages” in fragmented habitats and now also as mitigating and compensatory action in various construction projects support connectivity. A project for the construction of two eco-passages in the most important natural site of Brussels, the Sonian Forest, is under study. In the Flemish Region 15% of 193 known barriers for amphibian passages are neutralized till now, while two large ecoduct-projects and 17 ecotunnel-projects have been implemented. De-fragmentation of rivers (cfr BENELUX agreement): Inventories of the obstacles for fish migration have been compiled and measures for restoring migration passages are included in the river basis management plans. In the Flemish Region 116 of 796 (15 %) of known barriers are neutralized till now.       Walloon region : The general concept of the ecological network has been transposed in the ‘Main Ecological Structure’ (Structure écologique principale or SEP) and has been mapped. This structure contains two types of areas: 1) Core areas: the Nature department of the Walloon Region continues to strictly protect natural sites through the following status: government nature reserve (Réserves Naturelles domaniales (RND)), chartered nature reserve (Réserves Naturelles agréees (RNA)), forest reserve (Réserves Forestières (RF)), wetlands of biological interest (Zones Humides d’Interêt Biologique (ZHIB)), and underground cavity of scientific interest (Cavités Souterraines d’Interêt Scientifique (CSIS )), in order to protect important sites for species and habitats. The target of this process is to protect all sites of great biological value on the Walloon territory. 2) ecological development areas: areas where human activities are less intensive in order to obtain a balance between nature conservation and economic incomes. Furthermore the “Code wallon de l´Aménagement du territoire, de l´Urbanisme et du Patrimoine” (CWATUP) provides the possibility to include the \"ecological connection perimeters \" as an additional layer to the “plan de secteur” (art. 40, 2 of CWATUP): \"ecological connection perimeter aims to ensure transition area’s to animal and plant species between their biotopes. Actions and works subjects to work permits may be either prohibited or subject to special protection conditions.      BHG: The Green Network Programme of the Brussels Capital Region intends to gradually build a network of green spaces (parks, woods, forests and gardens) linked together by green corridors (green avenues, road and railway embankments, etc). The programme emphasises the cohesion and continuity of green spaces and semi-natural areas in the urban environment. Its purpose is to integrate the scenic, aesthetic, social, recreational and ecological functions of green spaces and develop their interconnectivity. One of the prime objectives of the Green Network Programme is to increase biodiversity. New green areas are intended to be created (mostly in the very centre of the town), green walls, green roofs and other greenery of buildings and public spaces are promoted. The Blue Network Programme aims to have an integrated, durable and ecologically justified management of open waterways in Brussels. The \"blue network\" is made up of small rivers, ponds and marshes. It is dedicated to the enhancement of natural values and biodiversity while maintaining the access of the public to the areas concerned.','','A revision of the ecological network for Brussels is currently in preparation. Several studies on fauna in Brussels consider the connectivity aspects and concrete actions are proposed.','Fl:  http://www.natuurindicatoren.be/; W: http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/sites/sgib_txt.html; BHG:  http://www.prd.irisnet.be/fr/priorites/priorite09.htm#4','20/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_3','','Of the 263 regularly occurring bird species in Belgium, 5 are globally Near-threatened and 1 (Aquatic Warbler) is Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Belgium, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 2 of 2 (100%) fish are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 4 (50%) mammals is classified as unfavourable-inadequate while another 2 of the 4 (50%) was reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 5 of the 11 (45%) amphibians and reptiles are in a favourable state, 3 of the 11 (27%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 11 (27%) amphibians and reptiles was reported as unknown. As for fish, 1 of the 10 (10%) are in a favourable state, 3 of the (30%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 6 of the 10 (60%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 1 of the 10 (10%) of invertebrates are in a favourable state, 2 of the 10 (20%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 3 of the 10 (30%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 10 (40%) invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 9 of the 26 (35%) are in a favourable condition, 5 of the 26 (19%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and 7 of the 26 (27%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 26 (15%) mammals was reported as unknown and 1 of the 26 (4%) were not reported. 2 of the 8 (25%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 6 of the 8 (75%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition.In the Continental biogeographical region, 3 of the 9 (33%) amphibians and reptiles are in a favourable condition, 2 of the 9 (22%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 3 of the 9 (33%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 11% of amphibians and reptiles was reported as unknown. As for fish, 4 of the 6 (67%) are in a favourable state, 1 of the 6 (17%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 6 (17%) of the fish was reported as unknown. 2 of the 16 (13%) invertebrates are in a favourable state, 6 of the 16 (38%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 16 (50%) of invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 7 of the 25 (28%) are in a favourable condition, 5 of the 25 (20%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and another 5 of the 25 (20%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 25 (32%) mammals was reported as unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title, http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','20/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','In Flanders (FL), the existing action plans are listed on the above website per species group. There are no specific indicators deriving from common bird monitoring schemes. In Wallonia (W), action plans are completed for the following species. Mammals : Cricetus cricetus and Rhinolophus hipposideros. Amphibians & reptiles : Lacerta agilis and Bombina variegata. Action plans are being prepared for mammals:  Lutra lutra ; amphibians : Epidalea calamita; reptiles: Vipera berus and invertebrates : Euphydryas aurinia, Lycanea helle and Lycanea dispar.Population trends of common bird species are computerized in Wallonia since 1990. The method consists of \"listening points\" of five minutes to repeat from year to year in similar conditions of time and weather. It is easy to apply and it combines a relatively high informal input with methodical observation. Indices are given for 79 species with some basic statistics, test results for regional or habitats variations and a short comment on the quality of observation. The final discussion also tackles the question of data quality and representativeness.In Brussels Capital Region (BHG), since 1992, 49 bird common species are monitored in the Brussels Capital Region by the help of listening points. The index of global health of common avifauna shows a moderate increase (+1,2  %/an  ±  0,23 ; p<0,01)Due to the spatial scale of the Brussels Capital Region the development of specific Red Data lists is of poor scientific and policy use. We refer to Red Data list from neighbouring regions and MS.In the Federal Government (FoD), there is no red data for marine species.','','','Weblink: Fl: http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Soortenbeleid/Rode_lijsten.aspxhttp://biodiversite.wallonie.be/especes/ecologie/plantes/listerouge/liste.aspx http://www.cible.be/eew/index.php?mact=tbe,mcf57a,default,1&mcf57awhat=fiches&mcf57aalias=Statut-de-conservation-des-especes&mcf57areturnid=16&page=16','2/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','B1_1_1','','FL:In the framework of the 5-year Environment & Nature Policy Plan overall budget allocations are also included. Objectives and measures for Nature, Forests and Green Spaces are mainly included in the chapter on Biodiversity - under the coordination of the Agency for Nature & Forests, besides measures related to biodiversity under the other environment themes.  A detailed overview of budget allocations for Natura 2000 was submitted to EC in the framework of the study on \'financing Natura 2000\'.  An estimated budget for one-off costs for projects, mainly restoration and nature development projects, comes to ca 90 mio € , and for yearly budget needs for the next 5 years to ca 44,5 mio € and 6,5 mio €  for staff - including estimated budgets and staff of partner administrations and organisations, but do not include EU co-financing. W:The Walloon Region has developed a specific funding tool for Natura 2000: The Walloon Government Decree of 30/04/2009 on compensation and subsidies in Natura 2000 :http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?mod=voirdoc&script=wallex2&PAGEDYN=indexBelgiqueLex.html&MBID=2009203045. The budgets for nature development have been recently going up slightly in Wallonia: + 54 % for the period 2005-2008. More than 40 % of the budgets are allocated to protection and management measures for sites of biological interest (purchase and management of natural reserves, LIFE Nature programmes for the conservation of Natura 2000 habitats etc,). The relative significance of budgets for the support of themed operations management should also be noted («attics and steeples», roadsides, PCDNs etc.). They represent around 10 % of the total budget, depending on the year. Many others supporting measures exists in Wallonia : Grants for planting and maintenance of hedges, orchards and rows of trees :http://environnement.wallonie.be/dnf/dcnev/consnat/Subventions_haies.htmGrants for the “week of the tree”; grants to the natural parks, rivers contracts.BHG:The yearly budget for biodiversity management and restoration in the BCR approximately mounts to € 800000 (calculation based on biodiversity projects - policy planning - management - collaborators wages).Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Belgium spent up to EUR3,167,425 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Belgium spent up to 11,307,092 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Belgium’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Belgium’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','B1_1_4','','Belgium’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR1.05m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR15.4m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR8.7m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','29/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','B1_1_8','','In 2009, Belgium spent EUR3,190,000 in Wallonia and EUR16,000,000 in Flanders for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure ','','','','29/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B2_4','','In Flanders, a new Environment and Nature Policy Plan is adopted every five years. The Environment and Nature Policy Plan MINA 3 (2002-2007, extended to 2010) includes a specific chapter on Biodiversity with overall objective to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 - most actions that are included in the EU Action Plan have been taken up in this chapter on Biodiversity or in other relevant chapters on other environment issues such as water management, land management, cooperation with stakeholders. A new plan MINA 4 (2011-2015) has been drafted and is in procedure for consultations. Since 2006, the Agency for Nature and Forests also has its own Strategic Plan and a yearly operational plan giving more detailed information on objectives, actions and indicators related to actions and processes for the conservation and management of nature, forests and green spaces. The Wallonia region is currently developing its action plan for nature. This is an elaboration of a Nature Plan aiming at a better integration of nature issues in all relevant sectors, and at encouraging exploitation and management methods favourable to wild species. This plan should involve all public and private stakeholders. It will define the general objectives for recovery/restoration of nature/biodiversity and to achieve the goal of stopping the loss of biodiversity in Wallonia. It should be ready by the end of 2013.','','Flemish Region: Environment and Nature Policy Plan 3+ (2007-2010);The Flemish objectives for the conservation of biodiversity are included in the Policy Plan for Environment and Nature (2003-2007, extended to 2010) under a specific chapter ‘Biodiversity’ as well as specific measures under other environment themes. See also http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/beleidsplanning. The follow-up of the implementation of this policy plan is carried out using CBD-relevant indicators. These can be found at http://www.biodiversityindicators.be. Pages in English are available. Some of the most important operational objectives are given below.- Extension of the area with conservation management. The Flemish Environmental Policy Plan (2003-2010) targeted 50,000 ha with active conservation management by 2007. These areas include the officially recognised nature and forest reserves managed by non-governmental organisations, local authorities or private owners, the nature and forest reserves managed by the Flemish government and the military sites mainly managed for conservation. A method of quantifying the effectiveness of this conservation management is still under development. It is clear that biodiversity within these areas is much higher than outside of them. At the start of the planning period (end 2002) the area with conservation management covered 29,480 ha, or 59% of the target. By the end of 2007, 39,365 ha, or 79% of the target had been reached. Nearly half of the increase was achieved via recognised nature reserves which are managed by non-governmental organisations. If the present trend continues, the target will be achieved by 2013. However, if the decline in funds for nature acquisition continues, there will be a further delay. - Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. In Flanders, 24 Special Protection Areas have been designated with a total area of 98,423 ha, or 7.3% of the Flemish territory. There were 38 sites designated and put on the list of Sites of Community Interest by the European Commission. The Sites of Community Interest have a total area of 104,888 ha, or 7.8% of the Flemish territory. The total Natura 2000 area comprises 166,187 ha (12.3% of the Flemish terrestrial area). Marine areas are not included, as they are under the jurisdiction of the Belgian federal government. In 2008, there was a limited increase in the Sites of Community Interest, when the main channel of the Sea Scheldt and IJzer were included. An international comparison shows that 12.3% is low in comparison to the European average, but high when compared to neighbouring densely populated regions.- Spatial planning for nature and forest areas. The land destination maps are being actualised to include the designation of the Flemish Ecological Network that supports and enhances Natura 2000, and to extent green destinations for nature and for forest.- Site-specific instruments. These instruments give a framework for conservation measures and for setting up partnerships:      - development of conservation objectives for SCI and SPA sites (Natura 2000)     - site-specific Nature Objectives Plans     - projects for nature development and restoration, especially in Natura 2000 sites     - development and implementation of management plans for nature reserves, forest reserves, parks and green spaces- Species protection. Development and implementation of species protection plans, measures for restoration of living spaces and habitats for endangered species, update of Red Lists.- Acquisition of land to safeguard the most vulnerable and important natural values, with priority on Natura 2000 and VEN sites with high nature values. - Support of local authorities (provincial and municipal authorities), regional landscape groups, NGO’s to enhance local actions for conservation measures and participation.- Transboundary cooperation for ensuring harmonised approaches for the management in transboundary nature and forest areas.- Cooperation with stakeholders to enhance their sense of responsibility in conservation and management efforts: management agreements with private and business sector; agri-environment agreements; financial and technical support for forest owners, hunting groups, fishermen groups. - Enhance the knowledge basis and monitoring to support and evaluate policy issues, deliver data for communication and reporting and develop the science-policy interface.- Promote communication on conservation of nature, forest and green spaces to enhance public awareness and participation.','Fl: http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/beleidsplanning; http://natuurenbos.be; http://www.biodiversityindicators.be ','26/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','B3_1_2','','In Flanders 19 \'forest  groupings\' have been approved, controlled by the Flemish government and financially supported in order to promote sustainable forest management, which includes integrating biodiversity concerns into forest management. Any forest owner can apply for membership of the forest grouping and can benefit from specialised advice and support. Two \'agro-nature management groups\' were established in 2009 in a pilot project, and four more are in the process of becoming established during 2010.A regional policy committee, AGNABIO, was set up end of 2009 between the administrations of environment and agriculture to develop a vision and action plan for agro-nature management and biodiversity. During 2010, a stakeholder’s platform will be added to this committee. The action plans of the 14 Regional Landscape Groups include awareness raising and educational activities to enhance cooperation with farmers. The Nature & Environment project BoerenENnatuur and the Interreg project SOLABIO give a platform for the exchange of expertise and information for farmers and nature groups. Furthermore, sector specific Regional Advisory Boards are in place in order to discuss and evaluate biodiversity policies with different stakeholders, such as for hunting, freshwater fisheries, agriculture, forestry.In Walonia, municipalities\' plans for nature conservation and river contracts are participatory processes in which farmers are occasionally involved.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Fl:http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Bos/Bosbeleid/Bosgroepen.aspx http://www.regionalelandschappen.be/ http://www.lne.be/themas/natuur-en-milieueducatie/algemeen/nme-projecten/subsidieprojecten/subsidieprojecten-2009#kenniscirkelwww.vlm.be http://www.rlnh.be/watdoenwij/Solabio.htm ','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B3_1_5','','One of the overarching principles of Belgium’s national strategy is sectoral integration. Objective 5 of the strategy focuses specifically on sectoral integration and targets stakeholder partnerships. This includes the involvement of the private sector and the land use planning for biodiversity.The regions are in charge of territorial matters and take responsibility for biodiversity-related issues including land use and spatial planning. The regional and the federal government administrations are the main implementation bodies for the national strategy. The provinces and the municipalities also play an important role at the local level, in accordance with regional policy.In the Flemish region, under the Cooperation Framework with local authorities municipalities receive financial and technical support for projects they submit for nature conservation actions. Half of these projects concerned acquisition and restoration of nature of forest areas. The other projects included species protection, installation of green roofs, development and implementation of management plans for parks and for road or river verges. An inter-departmental working group has been established for consultation on the review/development of the spatial plans for land use.  New executive spatial land use plans are being developed on regional, provincial and municipal level. For the over-arching regional level, Flanders has been divided in 15 regions. Several plans have been drafted based on the region\'s spatial vision that takes into account the proposals from the various sectors and identifies the key issues to be further discussed.Consultation groups on administrative level and on stakeholder level have been formally established for the development of the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 sites to ensure a full participatory approach in this process. These consultation groups are active on a regional level following the overall regional process, as well as on the local level.In Wallonia, the 23 land use plans  (‘plans de secteur’) are aimed at managing the pressure from urbanisation by defining zones which can be built on (270,000 ha) and zones which should be reserved for agriculture, forests, or wildlife (1,400,000 ha). For the implementation of every urbanisation project under the framework of the ZACCs (zones d’aménagement communal concerté), an urban and environmental report evaluates the potential impacts.A participatory approach has been taken in Wallonia which contributes to biodiversity protection. Examples include:  Municipality plans for Nature development (PCDN), Nature Parks, and River Contracts (Contrats de Rivières). These include actions for biodiversity conservation on a local level. Other nature development programmes also exist which focus on “roadside management” (e.g. through delayed mowing). In 2007, 62 % of municipalities were involved in one or two programmes and 18 % in three programmes. Four were involved in all of the programmes. However, 47 municipalities were not yet involved in any programmesRiver contracts are an example of participatory management structures with the aim of bringing stakeholders together in water catchments in order to define a programme for restoring watercourses and their surrounding areas. 196 Walloon municipalities have become partners in a river contract. A platform has been set up to identify what could be improved for biodiversity conservation in the CWATUPE (Code wallon de l’aménagement du territoire, de l’urbanisme, du patrimoine et de l’énergie). In the Region of Brussels urbanization is a significant threat to biodiversity. The integration of biodiversity in land use policy presents a challenge.  Spatial planning in the Brussels Capital Region is organised by the Brussels code on spatial planning. This code specifies that environmental needs must be taken into account for the elaboration of the Regional Development Plan (art.17). This non restrictive plan establishes the Green & Bleu Network and is translated into a restrictive Regional Spatial Plan which includes special requirements for the protection of mapped high valued nature areas. Consultation of the interested stakeholders is organised by the Government for the elaboration of the RDP (the High Brussels Council for Nature Conservation).The management of green spaces is carried out in order to favour biodiversity. For instance, native species are used; dead trees are maintained as long as possible. Initiatives have been taken to encourage Eco-construction. A guide book on eco-construction for professionals was published with several chapters concerning biodiversity such as how to maximise ecological productivity, how to build green roofs, and how to set up green walls. Training workshops have also been organised for professionals. ','','FlandersThe protocol of the Federal Ministry of Defence for cooperation for the management of the nature and forest areas on military domains was renewed in 2007 and received a boost for action through the LIFE project DANAH.An agreement was established with the organisation for youth concerning their recreational activities in nature and forest areas. Several actions directly or indirectly related with business sector have been set up in the framework of the Environment Policy Plan 3+ (2008-2010). -	Sector-specific platforms have been established under the Department for Environment, Nature and Energy for exchanging information and sharing experience between administrations of the regional environment authority and user groups such as: Environment and Agriculture, Environment and Industries, Environment and Consumers. The main objectives of these platforms is to look into (1) possible common programmes in which the actors agree to take up their responsibilities and through which the environmental performance can be improved; (2) cooperate for improving jurisdiction and instruments and sector specific objectives. The objectives of the Agency for Nature & Forests include other specific actions to enhance the integration of biodiversity concern and measures for conservation with socio-economic objectives:-	Aspects that are being explored include the development of incentive measures such as green taxes, support for land rehabilitation and restoration of nature and landscape values, support for private – public partnerships for biodiversity conservation actions-	New ways are being explored for effective integration of biodiversity into sectoral economic activities, such as improving the biodiversity content of environmental impact assessments, site management and conservation of biodiversity on domains of private companies, sustainable provision of raw materials, sustainable harvests and resource management, certification schemes,…-	Consultation group between Agency Nature & Forests, the Department Natural Resources and the Quarry Companies for sand and gravel exploitation to explore relation with biodiversity values and the proposed locations for the quarries, and discuss options for finding best solutions for limited impacts in the framework of EIAs, and for compensations and rehabilitation of natural values after their exploitation. For example with the sand mining company SIBELCO a cooperation agreement was developed to restore the natural values after the sand winning.-	With the private sector in energy production from biomass ways are explored for effective production and retail of biomass from the Agency’s nature and forest areas.-	Formal advisory boards have been established with several sector groups to enhance integration of biodiversity issues into their policies: agriculture, river fisheries, foresters, hunters.Wallonia:A certification scheme called PEFC involves all forest stakeholders: owners, industries, environment organizations, scientists, and other forests users. Consultation groups have been set up within the Walloon administration to provide clear indications on which agricultural lot can benefit of agricultural financial aid. A new group has been set also within the Walloon administration to better take into account the environment in cross compliance. A specific cooperation protocol was established with the Federal Ministry of Defence.','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for BelgiumWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','20/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','B3_1_6','','In Flanders, consultation committees for planning and follow-up of partnerships have been set up between the Agency for Nature & Forests and: Drinking Water Companies, Waste Water Management (Aquafin), Waste Handling Companies (Remo), the Departments Waterwegen & Zeekanaal (Waterways and Sea Canal) and De Scheepvaart (Shipping), Port Authorities.The aim of these committees is to discuss environmental impact assessments and other approaches, finding best solutions for limited impacts and for mitigation and/or compensation measures and to identify voluntary practices to enhance natural carrying capacity and ecosystem functions.  Cooperation agreements have been signed with businesses including SIBELCO, REMO, Wienerberger, Bayer. NGOs, such as Natuurpunt also have bilateral agreements with businesses for enhancing biodiversity on their compounds however their number has not been communicated.In 2007, long term agreements for cooperation were established between the NGOs Natuurpunt (FL) and Natagora (Wallonia) with the electricity company Electrabel & GDF-Suez for several actions on biodiversity.In the Walloon region, several agreements exist between electricity companies (Elia) and the nature and forests department of the Walloon region for the ecological management of areas located under electrical power lines. Several hydroelectric power station companies have been involved and equiped with protection netting to avoid fish from being caught in their engines. Fish ladders have also been installed to enable fish to migrate up and down the watercourse. Quarries and cement companies are required to rehabilitate sites when extraction is finished. Quarries are required to pay compensation when enlarging their extraction area.','','The numbers given reflect only the formally established frameworks or agreements','http://www.natuurpunt.be','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity. However, some actions organised by NGOs are being supported by the banking sector. Cooperation with financing sector is therefore currently project based.','','','','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','B4_1_1','','When the National Biodiversity Strategy was adopted, an extensive communication campaign was held, organised by the Natural History Museum in cooperation with the regions, and a brochure with the summary was published as well as other brochures on biodiversity in Belgium: The communication activities on biodiversity are mostly carried out in the framework of actions in the field (opening of a new reserve, tree planting actions, events in a specific area) in a specific region. During the International Year of Biodiversity many more communication activities and products are planned.Relevant actions of the EU BAP were integrated in the Flemish Environment & Nature Policy Plan (2002-2007, 2008-2010) for which a specific communication campaign was organised. Specific objectives, such as Natura 2000, species protection, nature conservation on military domains, forest conservation have their own specific communication campaigns. Every 2 years, the research institute INBO, publishes the Flemish Nature Report NARA, highlighting status and trends of biodiversity based on the SEBI indicators, and also includes a communication activity around the report. Throughout the year several communication actions for biodiversity are held by the agency, local authorities or NGOs - where relevant reference is made to the European framework and objective.This year, the Walloon Region has launched a communication campaign called “52 weeks of biodiversity” to celebrate the International Year of Biodiversity. Each week, a specific theme is presented. It aims to show the variety of biodiversity present in the Walloon region (from genetic to ecosystem diversity). For several years, the Walloon Region has created, developed and coordinated a network of education centres for environment. This network is now composed of eleven Regional Environment Education Centers (CRIE). The Brussels Capital Region will develop a whole new and holistic vision for his communication during the first half of this year. ','','For the moment, the Brussels Capital Regional centres for ecology initiation receive funding to develop training programs for schools. Communication actions for schools also exist. The Brussels Centre for Nature Education organises every two years a new touring workshop/exhibition for schools in Brussels. From 2008 to 2010 the workshop focuses on “Birds”. From 2010 to 2012, the workshop will focus on “Biodiversity in cities”. The biodiversity theme is integrated in the general education and public awareness programmes of the Brussels Institute for Environmental Management (brochures, leaflets, presence at fairs and other public events, actions oriented towards families, schools, citizens, etc.). The Institute has a well-developed website with extensive information in French and Dutch. Financial and logistic support is given to NGO\'s for awareness and educational programmes. Among others, there is a programme called “Nature in the garden” which helps city dwellers develop a nature-based approach to their gardening practices. Public consultation and information campaigns for biodiversity action are organised (e.g. on the extension of protected areas in forests).','Reference or title:Weblink:BHG: www.ibgebim.be ; www.natureaujardin.be http://www.biodiv.be/implementation/docs/leafletswww.natuurenbos.bewww.biodiversite52.behttp://www.crie.be/ ','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','A1','B4_1_2','','The Belgian Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment made a declaration in support of the Countdown 2010 initiative on 22 May 2007 in Brussels to strengthen the contribution of Belgium and Environment in relation to the 2010 biodiversity target, particularly through the implementation of the Belgian National Biodiversity Strategy. This included among other objectives: to ensure the follow-up to the Message from Paris on mainstreaming biodiversity into development cooperation; to establish a structural collaboration with international organizations covering areas such as species conservation the marine environment as well as forest certification and sustainable management; provide support to the Countdown 2010 Secretariat to implement governments\' commitments from the biodiversity related conventions; limit the introduction of invasive alien species and mitigate the impact on biodiversity when promoting production and use of biofuels. ','','The Flemish Ministry of Environment & Nature signed the Countdown Charter in 2008, including measures to enhance biodiversity conservation and restoration, enhance partnerships and cooperation with other administrations, private land owners and users, private sector, and enhance communication and awareness programmes.  In March 2009, the Brussels Capital Region committed to participate in the Countdown 2010 initiative. The commitment of the Region is structured in 3 pillars: to plan, to manage and to raise awareness, to educate, to raise participation.Belgium contributed funds for the Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Lounge, Belgrade in 2007. This was a joint contribution with the Netherlands and Norway.The Brussels Capital Region took part in the LAB (Local Action for Biodiversity) programme of the ICLEI which involved a programme support equal to 55 000 $ (round 44 000 €) for 3 years','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedhttp://www.natuurenbos.be/Home/Activiteiten/Campagnes/Countdown_2010.aspx','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Belgium','A1','C1_2','','In Flanders, since 2005 a yearly report has been published on the SEBI biodiversity indicators that are being followed up and extended every year; information is also available on website: www.natuurindicatoren.be  - with pages in English.  The Brussels Capital Region reports regularly on the state of biodiversity. The SEBI indicators are up to now not as such fully integrated into those reports. They nevertheless include data of that type, among others on abundance and distribution of selected species, national designated areas, Natura 2000 network, and invasive species etc.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: www.natuurindicatoren.be; http://www.bruxellesenvironnement.be/Templates/etat/informer.aspx?id=3072&langtype=2060','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','C1_2_1','','10 of the SEBI indicators are applied directly in both Wallonie and Flanders, 3 SEBI indicators are directly applied in either Wallonie or Flanders and amended to the subnational circumstances in the other. One indicator (Public awareness) is amended in both Wallonie and Flanders. 4 SEBI indicators are applied directly in either Wallonie or Flanders and not used in the other. 2 indicators are amended in Wallonie or Flanders and not used in the other, while 6 indicators are not used in either jurisdiction. There are 12 and about 20 additional biodiversity indicators in Wallonie and Flanders, respectively.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A1','C1_3_1','','','','Monitoring programmes are mainly carried out by the regions - therefore the numbers are given per region if they have relevant monitoring programme running.FL : A project \"habitat mapping\" is running for all habitat types (linked to the project Biological valuation map). It is a field survey at a rather detailed scale (1/10.000) covering the whole of Flanders, concerning the distribution and area of habitat types. It is not a real monitoring system but gives the baseline data for upcoming monitoring. Running monitoring programmes are either  focused  on specific regions (e.g. Scheldt Estuary) or  are thematic (e.g. forest reserves). None of the surveillance / monitoring programmes mentioned are specifically designed for monitoring of Natura 2000 habitats and species, certainly not at the biogeographical level. Together they can cover more or less the needs for some habitat groups (e.g. coastal and dune habitat types, most forest habitat types).Surveillance on abiotic environments links to different habitat types: hydrological monitoring in Nature Reserves (WATINA); BioSoil - Biodiversity part.BHG:In collaboration with the Institute for Nature and Forest Research a monitoring strategy has been developed for the Brussels Capital Region. In this strategy the information needs are determined and prioritized, and the necessary survey and monitoring projects are designed. W:In Wallonia, the State of the Walloon Environment provides access to all publications prepared by the Cellule Etat de l’environnement wallon and published by the Direction Générale de l\'Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et de l\'Environnement (Department for Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment) of the Service Public de Wallonie.  http://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/default.aspxIn 2006, the Walloon Region set up a permanent network to evaluate the ecological quality of watercourses. It is made up of more than 400 monitoring points. In 2007, more than 65 % of the 54 sites in the surveillance network presented water of good or high ecological quality. While water is generally of a (very) good quality in forest areas, it often becomes bad where there is a high level of urbanisation, a lot of industry and intensive farming. TBE 2008 map water 16-1 fig 16-1.  http://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/rapportProblematique.aspx?id=p089   ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.inbo.behttp://environnement.wallonie.be/dnf/inventaire/ http://www.aves.be/files/manager/avesnamur/Notice2008_pointsecoute_Wallonie.pdfhttp://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/default.aspxFl: ttp://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring/  (for most of the above mentioned programmes)http://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/rapportProblematique.aspx?id=p089   ',' 23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A2','','','According to information supplied by the Member State for the Walloon region (applicable up to December 2009), the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (rules are based on an \'Annual Ratio\' between the area maintained in permanent pasture for the year and the total area reported the same year as calculated each year). Retention of landscape and ecological network elements (ie prohibition of destruction of rows of trees and native hedgerows without planning permission and prohibition significantly changing the land topography without planning permission, creation and protection of ponds).Establishment / retention of landscape features: extensive field sides; extensive cereal crops; high ecological value grassland.Maintaining soil organic matter levels.Prohibition of burning straw, stubble and other crop residues. Maintaining soil structure: correcting impacts on irrigated soils; maintaining ground cover between crops. Retention of threatened local animals of local breeds.Minimum maintenance of land (ie all plots of land, particularly those who are no longer used for production must be maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions). It is therefore necessary to prevent the encroachment of unwanted vegetation, scrub encroachment and invasion by wood, but it is also appropriate to maintain landscape features.Methods are described in the Art. 2. of the Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th, 2008.In the Flemish region, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (new legislation for protecting grasslands and fens was implemented in 2009).Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other measures include specific anti-erosion measures.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th 2008Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=10680&rev=10058-19http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/Noticeexplicative2009_FR.pdfA','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Belgium total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 448.31 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 1190.47 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 (improving the environment and the countryside) was 159.23 million EUR, and 318.47 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 35.51 and 26.75 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Belgium was 132.59 million EUR (265.17 with co-financing) and amounted to 29.58 per cent of the EAFRD (22.27 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 4.31 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.96 per cent of EAFRD) and 8.61 million EUR of public expenditure (0.72 per cent of public expenditure). There are no payments in Belgium for Axis 2 measures 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.  According to reporting by the Member State, though forest-environment payments are not included in the Flemish EAFRD 2007-2013, major efforts are made for first afforestation of agricultural land (221), in the same order of magnitude as payments for Natura 2000 payments (213).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.402950.8059Agri-environment payments (214)42.3163494.96631Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources in the Flanders Region, but no information is provided on whether such plans exist for the Wallonian Region.Although the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture is covered by Belgium’s first national biodiversity strategy (2006-2016) under Objective 4c.5 “Promote sustainable use of genetic resources for food, and agriculture”, to date, Belgium has not set up coordinated actions at national or regional level for a safe conservation strategy of the genetic diversity that is essential for food and agriculture, neither in situ, nor ex situ. Nevertheless, many initiatives are taking place from a range of different actors (regional and provincial governments, universities and research centres, private sector, NGO’s and individuals).Projects in the Flanders region include:  An Agency for Nature & Forests (ANB) project concerning autochthonous trees and shrubs.Actions to support the conservation of local breeds of livestock and orchards.Subsidies under the Flemish RDP to support the conservation of genetic diversity (which can be requested for 3 breeds of cattle and 9 of sheep and a list of fruit tree species).In the Wallonia projects include:RDP support for the conservation of endangered local breeds of horses, cattle and sheep.A Nature and Forest Division project that looks for and identifies new seed-forming populations of commercial tree species.The collection of genetic resources of fruit trees at the Fruit Tree Genetic Resources Laboratory – Gembloux, which is creating a regional strategy and national replication and backup of authentic native and threatened materials.A program to build a coordinated multi-local network of conservation orchards, through a network of complementary partners including many public institutions, NGOs and farmers, etc. A key objective is the continued monitoring and conservation of the last orchards with old fruit varieties.','',' The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. * This refers to Flanders only.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?id=970 ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Belgium in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','3/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Their application is limited depending on the size of the area affected, and differs depending on relevant regulations implemented at regional level. In this regard, for all aspects of afforestation and deforestation operations EIA is applied in Flanders and Wallonia, SEA in Flanders and biodiversity surveys in the Walloon region only. An overview is provided below:Walloon Region: limit of 20 ha only for EIA and Biodiv surveys for afforestation and deforestation, no limits for other planning instrumentsFlemish Region: limit of 3 ha for EIA and SEA for deforestation and 10 ha for EIA and SEA for afforestation, and NO for biodiv surveyBrussels Region: No limits for application.In the Brussels Capital Region no specific policy on afforestation or deforestation has been developed as it has not yet considered being relevant for the policy agenda. A planning permission is nevertheless required in the case of clearing for construction or infrastructure projects. Plans or projects likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site are subject to an appropriate assessment in the sense of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.In the Walloon region, the new Forestry Code entered into force at the end of 2008. Article 38 refers to timber. It prohibits any cut of more than five hectares in plots with basal area of more than fifty per cent of conifer, and any cut of more than three hectares in plots with basal area of more than fifty percent deciduous trees in woods and forests. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.* Walloon Region** Flemish Region','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Flanders: http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Bos/Wetgeving_en_vergunning/Ontbossen_en_compensatie.aspx   Walloon Region: http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=11597, http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=1423www.pefcbelgium.be/files/Plan%20de%20Progrès%202007-2011.pdf ','03/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Belgium had a total certified forest area of 294,314 hectares out of a total forest area of 667,000 hectares. 13,262 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system under which 281,052 hectares of forest in Belgium was certified. In total, 44.13 per cent of the forest area in Belgium was certified.  According to reporting by the Member State, most of the area certified by FSC can be found in the Flemish region, where it amounted to 12,602 ha in 2009, under a group certification scheme managed by the Agency for Nature and Forests. In Brussels Capital region, the area of FSC certified forests was 1,654 ha, which results in slightly higher figures for FSC certified forests than presented above. In the Walloon region, forests were mostly certified by PEFC, covering 285,031 ha of forest and corresponding to 51.8 per cent of the region’s forest cover. In March 2010, a community forest lost its PEFC certification because of unsustainable hunting management.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.aspwww.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Bos/Bosbeleid/Certificering.aspx www.pefcbelgium.be http://www.leefmilieubrussel.be/Templates/Particuliers/Niveau2.aspx?id=1836&langtype=2067 ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) HNV farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Belgium amounted to 0.35 million ha, representing a share of 19.5 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to reporting by the Member State, extensive agricultural land use in the past has shaped a variety of the Flemish region’s characteristic, rare or European important habitats for plants and animals. Intensification and specialisation of agricultural practices have lead to habitat loss in agricultural landscapes and to the abandoning of agricultural land. In 2006, Flemish farmland (675 757 ha of registered parcels) contained 3 200 ha (0.47 %) of biologically very valuable parcels, 12 000 ha (1.8 %) comprising a mix of biologically very valuable and valuable parcels and 34 300 ha (5.1 %) of biologically valuable parcels. This farmland with high nature value is highly fragmented and spread out all over Flanders, with locally high densities in the coastal polders and in the IJzer valley. The area of biologically very valuable parcels mainly consists of small landscape elements such as hedges, ponds and tree rows (30 %), grasslands (30 %) and forests (26 %). Together these elements shape a varied, species rich, historically evolved cultural farmland landscape.Based on a different methodology (Corine geodataset), in 2006 the European Environment Agency identified about 1 % of Belgian agricultural land as high in nature value. Belgium possesses the most nature poor farmland of all EU-15 countries. The fact that only 0.47 % of the Flemish farmland area is biologically very valuable, is consistent with this study.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, Biodiversity Indicators 2008  Weblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf http://www.biodiversityindicators.be   ','03/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_4','','According to information supplied by the Member State for the Walloon region (applicable up to December 2009), the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (rules are based on an \'Annual Ratio\' between the area maintained in permanent pasture for the year and the total area reported the same year as calculated each year). Retention of landscape and ecological network elements (ie prohibition of destruction of rows of trees and native hedgerows without planning permission and prohibition significantly changing the land topography without planning permission, creation and protection of ponds).Establishment / retention of landscape features: extensive field sides; extensive cereal crops; high ecological value grassland.Maintaining soil organic matter levels.Prohibition of burning straw, stubble and other crop residues. Maintaining soil structure: correcting impacts on irrigated soils; maintaining ground cover between crops. Retention of threatened local animals of local breeds.Minimum maintenance of land (ie all plots of land, particularly those who are no longer used for production must be maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions). It is therefore necessary to prevent the encroachment of unwanted vegetation, scrub encroachment and invasion by wood, but it is also appropriate to maintain landscape features.Methods are described in the Art. 2. of the Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th, 2008.In the Flemish region, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (new legislation for protecting grasslands and fens was implemented in 2009).Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other measures include specific anti-erosion measures.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th 2008Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=10680&rev=10058-19http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/Noticeexplicative2009_FR.pdfA','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_6','','Training and information within the Flemish EAFRD does not cover biodiversity yet as a specific subject, but many projects and awareness actions related to agri-environment schemes are being carried out. In the Walloon region  the following initiatives have been undertaken:Guidance is provided on the implementation of targeted measures and management plans within the framework of agri-environment measures 8, 9 and 10Information and management for forest landowners concerned by Natura 2000 is providedGuidance is specifically addressed to the implementation of RDP Axis 2 via inter alia the Walloon RDP web site (see link below)Explanatory brochure of the Walloon RDP and related factsheets: Measure 213: Natura 2000 grants for farmers;  Measure 214: agri-environment grants;  Measure 224: Natura 2000 grants for forestry land owners (see link below) Brochure Les nouvelles de l’agriculture: dossier biodiversité, edition winter 2009 (see link below)','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Weblink: http://vlm.be http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/LN49_FR.pdfhttp://www.pwdr.be/  (RDP Wallonia)http://www.pwdr.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=65 (factsheets)http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/LN49_FR.pdf (dossier)','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (regional level).HNV forestry (regional level).Tree species composition (regional level).The following additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators have been drawn up.Flemish region: HNV Forestry/Tree species composition: under the Forest survey of Flanders additionally inventories of plant species, dead wood and forest structure. Farmland birds included in Common Birds Monitoring since 2007.Brussels capital region: Additionally to the inventory and monitoring programmes for Natura 2000 sites, inventory of flora (tree species composition + non tree species) and dead wood are systematically conducted since 2008 in the Brussels part of the Sonien Forest (1657 ha). Data on tree species composition have also been collected for a long time (largely before 2008).Wallonia region: A permanent forest inventory is in place, including non-productive areas, most of which are of particular importance for biodiversity.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','3/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 68 million € has been added to the Belgian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Belgium attributed € 12 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 17 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. In Flanders, soil biodiversity in forest soils is being monitored on a local level. Indicators of biodiversity in agricultural soils are also used but have not yet been implemented on a large scale. In the Walloon region, studies have been carried out which analyse the impact of pressures on soil biodiversity in peatlands. In 2006, 33 peatland sites in Southern Sambre-et - Meuse have been studied with the aim of assessing the impact of nitrogen deposition and getting information on the role of nitrogen rain in the degradation of these ecosystems (eg, toxicity, susceptibility to pathogens, frost and drought). The study revealed the absence of nitrophilous diatoms, which suggests that the surplus of nitrogen is directly mobilised by Sphagnum species (mosses) and therefore has not influenced diatoms population dynamics. Furthermore, another study demonstrated a significant loss of diversity at the population level of diatoms and camoebians over the past 200 years. This development follows drainage operations carried out for the introduction of Picea abies and coincides with the beginning of air pollution. The virtually irreversible depletion of these populations may have a significant negative impact on the overall peatlands.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/index.php?mact=tbe,mcf57a,default,1&mcf57awhat=fiches&mcf57aalias=Influence-des-pluies-azotees-sur-les-milieux-tourbeux&mcf57areturnid=16&page=16','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all 13 occurences of freshwater habitats in Belgium (Atlantic and Continental) have an unfavourable conservation status. ','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1313000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U10  U27       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U12   U24       More detailed information for the Walloon region can be found in the region’s environmental outlook website.','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/index.php?page=environmental-outlook-2008  ','01/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Belgium oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005. Despite decreasing from 2.69 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.36 mg O3/l in 2005, concentration values in between remained more or less steady or increased. Figures were only slightly below European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a clear increase from 1.06 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.26 mg N/l in 2005. Values are clearly higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 3.89 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.94 mg N/l in 2005, with a lower value of 3.39 mg N/l in 2003. Figures were above weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005. Also concentrations of nitrate increased from 2002 to 2005, from 27.8 to mg 32.5 NO3 /l.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 27.8 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 32.5 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 35.4 mg NO3/l in 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed no clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005; values were 0.306 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.304 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly above the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.More detailed information for the Walloon region can be found in the region’s environmental outlook website.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, partly unpublishedWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/index.php?page=environmental-outlook-2008  ',' 01/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Belgium had a total number of 27 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 35.5 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ',' 10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in April 2009, Belgium developed all four biological assessment methods for lakes, but methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete) regarding biological assessment methods for rivers. For transitional waters three out of four biological assessment methods were available, with one probably under development. Two out of three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were developed. According to reporting by the Member State, the following applies as of May 2010:Transitional watersPhytoplankton: Method available for fresh tidal, no method developed for meso- and polyhalineBenthic invertebrate: Method under development for fresh tidalMacro algae and angiosperms: Method availableRivers Phytoplankton: No method developed for Flanders because certain types of river do not occur in the Flemish region. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 161 in Belgium.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Belgium had a total number of 1275 IPPC installations and issued 1369 permits. 144 permits were still outstanding. 62 was the number of permits that was considered but not updated given the permits already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','3/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Belgium’s emissions of ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds were already lower than the relevant ceilings. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides were still well above the targets set. According to the Member State, 2010 emission ceiling targets are likely to be attained for ammonium, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds with existing measures. However, it is expected that emission ceilings targets for nitrogen oxides will not be met. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','10/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Belgium the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 29 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 6,250 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 21 and 19 per cent respectively, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 4 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 99 per cent in 2010 and 94 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 37 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','03/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Belgium’s gross nitrogen balance was 184 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 28 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ',' 10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between 1990 and 2005, Belgium’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. In 2005 the indicator was at 67.6 per cent, a 32.4 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 13 species were assessed. According to reporting by the Member State, PECBMS data cover Wallonia only. No data were provided for 2006 and no trends are yet available for Flanders.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.*According to reporting by the Member State, data cover the Walloon region only.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','20/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1515000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U12  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U11   U28       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage201802090%0%10%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10802080%0%20%0%U12  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2010000100%0%0%0%U10   U210       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10   U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131111085%8%8%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U13  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6510083%17%0%0%U10   U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','01/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Belgium found that 1 of 1 marine habitat assessed had a ‘favourable’ status (100%). The Federal Government in Belgium, however, indicated that marine habitats should not be assessed as ‘Favourable’ given the long-term effects of beam trawling affecting the sandbanks. There were five coastal habitats assessed under Article 17 in the Atlantic biogeographic region of Belgium—one of these had a ‘Favourable’ status (20%) and the remaining four had a ‘Bad’ status (80%).There were six marine species assessed in Belgium in the Second Article 17 report. The two fish species assessed both had an ‘Inadequate’ status (100%) and of the four mammal species assessed, two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows belowBiogeographic regionHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1AtlanticCoastal habitats120%00%480%00%00%5Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticFish00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals00%250%250%00%00%4Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL00%467%233%00%00%6The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusThe Federal Government in Belgium also provided this information:-	the narrative summary refers to the EU-Habitats Directive 17 reporting – one should mention the current implementation of the EMS directive concerning the GES and the initial assessment of 2012 (although at this moment the criteria for the various GES-descriptors are not yet agreed; -	Status of marine species: there are 9 species on annex I in BNZ	Tursiops truncatus: XX/ no longer present in BNZ – locally extinct	Phocaena phocaena: U: BNZ is important for this species but no “concentration zones” can be identified	Phoca vitulina: U; BNZ is not important for this species	Halichoerus grypus: U: idem 	Petromyzon marinus: U: idem	Lampetra fluviatilis: U idem	Accipenser sturio: U idem	Alosa falax; U: Impossible to make an assessment	Alosa alosa: XX: probably extinct in North Sea	Corygenus oxyrhynchus: XX: extinct	Salmo salar: NA: only freshwater areas apply 	Caretta caretta: NA: migrant -dwaalgasten	Chelonie mydas: NA: idem','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=TitleChecklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','08/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_1_4','','The Federal government has responsibility for all coastal areas. A report called “Monitoring Programmes for the Belgian Coastal Waters” (undated) outlines the main activities implemented. Belgium reported that, in 2009, it had 4 surveillance stations and 5 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Belgium has 1 coastal water body. Approximately 50% of the coastal water body is included in surveillance monitoring. It has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. No information was available concerning assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae. The \"Watershed management plans for the Belgian coastal waters, including the programme of measure; as part of the implementation of the WFD was approved in December 2009.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfStroomgebiedbeheersplan voor de Belgische kustwateren in het kader van de implementatie van de Europese Kader-richtlijn Water (2000/60/EG. Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu, Dienst Marien Milieu. 129 p.','03/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/03/10'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_1_5','','A national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is currently being developed.','','Further information was published \"National Belgian report on the implementation of Recommendation 2002/413/EC Integrated Coastal Zone Management\" in 2006.','','Fod: 05/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_2','','There are a total of 40 coastal bathing waters in Belgium. The majority of these reach the mandatory guidelines for water quality, for instance 95% reached this standard in 2006; 97.5% in 2007 and 100% in 2008. Many fewer sites have achieved the stricter guide values. Although this peaked to 50% in 2007, it fell back to 15% in 2007. Levels of winter nitrogen concentrations did not change over the period 1985-2005, but seven areas of Belgium’s North Sea coast saw a decrease in orthophosphate concentrations indicating a reduction in this particular pollutant. (In addition to this information the OSPAR Quality Status Report will be available in September 2010). ','','-','','05/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html   (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf  (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386 ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_4','','Belgium’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €15,123,296 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and introducing more environmentally friendly fishing measures. In particular there are efforts on research and testing fishing methods that are less energy intensive and reduce by-catch. This contributes to the protection of threatened species and habitat types. Axis 2 (€10,000,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (18,976,704) ensures the development and maintenance of sustainable fish stocks and Axis 4 (€5,800,000) ensures that socio-economic impact assessments of capacity reduction are undertaken.It has been recognised that there is a need to improve coordination between the Fisheries administration and the Marine Environment administration and to this end an agreement is being prepared to streamline nature conservation policy and measures within fisheries policy issues.  ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','03/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'09/12/2009',NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Belgium had 107 vessels and 27% were involved in a serious infringement (29 vessels). A total of 19 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €6,070 and maximum fine of €22,000.','','2007 data is not currently available. This measure of progress has not been dated by Belgium as it is not yet complete with 2007 data.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_5_2','','Belgium has an Eel Management Plan which is an implementation of the Eel Regulation (EG/1100/2007). It has been developed by integrating regional actions and was approved by the European Commission on 5th of January 2010. As part of this a number of eel migratory barriers have been identified (500) which will be addressed through the execution of the plan. Restocking of glass eel is also taking place. A trans-boundary project with the Netherlands is leading to the restoration of the Grensmaas river habitats. There are no specific management plans for trout, salmon or sturgeon. ','','','http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Publicaties/2010/Soortbeschermingsplan_voor_Paling.aspx','20/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_5_3','','Belgium’s fishing capacity in terms of number of vessels and tonnage has decreased between 1999 and 2008. The number of vessels decreased from 128 to 100 (22% reduction) over this period and tonnage from 22,838 to 19,007 (17% reduction). However fishing power (kW) has reduced more slowly by 4% from 63,453 in 1999 to 60,620 in 2008. One of the greatest decreases between 2004 and 2006 was achieved by scrapping six large vessels and three small vessels in 2006. A slight tonnage reduction took place during 2007 without public aid, while the overall power increased very slightly. Additional scrapping is foreseen for the 2007-2013 EFF programming period but the amount of capacity affected is not quantified. ','','2008 data: 100 vessels; 19,007 tons; 60,620kW','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf',' 05/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_6_1','','In terms of positive measures to reduce by-catch, legal measures have been taken to prevent/reduce porpoise by-catches from shore based nets. Programmes are also in place to encourage the replacement of bottom trawling by more environmentally friendly techniques. However, there are still problems with the stranding of harbour porpoises and indications that a number of these are due to fishing activities. Most of the Belgium part of the North Sea has been significantly affected by beam trawling which has altered sand bank habitats, gravel banks and reef-like structures, thereby reducing the marine biodiversity of the sea floor.Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Belgium had 107 active vessels. There were 10 type D breaches in this year, with 6 penalties imposed and an average €8,525 fine.  2007 data will be completed by the Contractor from Official sources when they become available. ','','2007 data on Type D infringements is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdfNB. New report should be available in November 2009 with 2007 data. Please check before completing',' 05/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_6_2','','Since September 1992, the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) has conducted ship-based counts of seabirds and sea mammals using a standardised protocol (following ESAS methodology). Although there were regular surveys the spatial and temporal setup of the monitoring programme was adapted several times to match the availability of ships and the need for local knowledge on seabird distribution (e.g. offshore wind farms). The data was used to fine-tune the delineation of marine Natura2000 sites for the protection of birds (3 coastal SPAs were established), to develop a biological valuation of the Belgian part of the North Sea and to evaluate potential effects of human activities.  There is no specific monitoring plan for Sharks in Belgium’s marine waters. ','','','http://www.vliz.be/projects/bwzee',' 03/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','',' 05/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Belgium has 8 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000. To date Belgium has not contacted the Commission concerning fisheries measures in any of their marine Natural 2000 sites outside of territorial waters. There have been some fishery measures mentioned in policy plans for Marine Protected Areas but no concrete action has yet been agreed upon or implemented. However four Natura 2000 sites within territorial waters (3 SPAs and 1 SAC) have plans to halt fishing techniques that have a negative impact on the sea bottom and the protection of marine species, but no agreement yet with the sector on the implementation of these measures.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 4Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.',' 05/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A3','A3_7_1','','Belgium has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Data for calculating ecosystem indicators are collected through surveys. The National Programme Proposal for 2009-2010 indicates that during the North Sea Beam Trawl Survey data for the ecosystem indicators 1,2 and 3 from Appendix XIII will be collected from 2009 onwards. Following the DCR Regulation, the Demersal Youth Fish (and Brown Shrimp) Survey is also an ecosystem survey. Belgium will incorporate the ecosystem approach for this survey from 2009 onwards. In the course of 2009, a detailed sampling strategy will be set up in order to collect the data for calculating the ecosystem indicators. In addition, through the sampling by metier of biological variables, the ecosystem indicators 4 through 8 from Appendix XIII will be collected. From 2009 onwards, Belgium will incorporate the collecting of this data and a detailed sampling strategy will be set up. Through collecting of data for economic variables, the ecosystem indicator 9 will be calculated. In addition, VMS data collected by the Sea Fisheries Department will be used from 2009 onwards. These data are already available, but the procedure for data aggregation is not established yet. Based on the current VMS data collection, the VMS data are registered every two hrs during the trip of the vessel. During 2009, a detailed calculation of the ecosystem indicators will be developed.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','National Data Gathering Programme under EC Regulation 199/2008. Belgium 2009-2010 Programme Proposal https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1841&folderId=95004&name=DLFE-15703.pdf Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','03/03/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The Mean Trophic Index for Belgium EEZ waters was 3.27 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.30 since 1999 and an overall increase of 0.09 in the past 20 years (1984-2004).','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down. Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially over-aggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','03/03/3010','','','09/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','A4','A4_3','','In Belgium, Spatial planning falls under the competence of the regions for the land surface of the respective region (Flemish region - Fl - , Brussels Capital region - BHG, Walloon Region  - W - ) and of the Federal FOD for the marine area. Due to this regional competence the legal frameworks and approaches are also different and this is the reason why a differentiated answer is given to the questions above when the regulations are different.Law specifies that ecological networks have to be considered in spatial planning on in FL region, whereas spatial planning procedure in Fl and BHG include an interministerial coordination. Fl:An integral part of the Flemish spatial planning is the demarcation of the Flemish Natural Structure, consisting of the Flemish Ecological Network and the Integral Interweaving and Supporting Network.  Definitions and planning are laid down in the Decree for Nature Conservation (1998) as well as in the Spatial Planning Strategy.The Flemish Ecological Network (VEN) consists of the most important areas for the conservation of nature and biodiversity (core areas). The network is not yet completed, (89,000 out of the target of 125,000 ha) have been designated and integrated in the spatial plans. Next to some general prohibitions described in a specific legal Executive Act, irreparable and irreversible damage to the network is prevented by law. Integral Interweaving and Supporting Network consists of Interweaving Areas and Connecting Areas. This network is meant to ensure connectivity between and buffering of the protected areas in Flanders. Only 2% of the proposed 150,000 ha Interweaving Area (3.059 ha) is designated on the spatial plans until now. As yet, there is no designation of Connecting Area. Although several preparatory studies have been executed, and the spatial maps of provincial authorities identified connecting zones on their territory.Monitoring the effectiveness of the networks by assessing fauna dispersion is not undertaken for the networks as a whole but is assessed locally (for instance to assess the effectiveness of fauna passages within its boundaries.The protection status of the networks has an important place in Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (SEA).WThe “Code wallon de l´Aménagement du territoire, de l´Urbanisme et du Patrimoine” (CWATUP) provides the possibility to include the \"ecological connection perimeters\" as an additional layer to the “plan de secteur” (art. 40, 2 of CWATUP): \"ecological connection perimeter aims to ensure transition area’s to animal and plant species between their biotopes. Actions and works subjects to work permits may be either prohibited or subject to special protection conditions.  The Authority in charge of granting land planning and environment permission can refuse a request or make the granting of the permit with special conditions for protection. It should at least explain its decision in regards to the future use of the perimeter. Unfortunately there have not been many cases in which Article 40, 2 of the CWATUP was applied. Only a few ecological connection perimeters were listed in plans sector: Wavre-Jogoigne-Perwez ; Liège and Nivelles. In addition, Article 49, 2 of the CWATUP requires that \"sites needed for the ecological network\" must appear in Municipal Development Plans (PCA).BHG: Spatial planning in the Brussels Capital Region is organised by the Brussels code on spatial planning. This code specifies that environmental needs must be taken into account for the elaboration of the Regional Development Plan (art.17). This non restrictive plan establish the Green & Blue Network and is translated into a restrictive Regional Spatial Plan wich include special requirements for the protection of mapped high valued nature areas. All the actual valued areas for an ecological network for Brussels are not included yet in the Regional Spatial Plan.FOD:Spatial planning for the marine zone resulted in the establishment of MPAs. ','','','Fl: http://www.natuurenbos.be/Home/Thema/Natuur/VEN_en_IVON/Inleiding.aspxBHG http://www.bruxelles.irisnet.be/cmsmedia/fr/coordination_officieuse_du_nouveau_cobat.pdf?uri=ff8081812209fad701220d4b0699011e ; http://www.prd.irisnet.be/fr/info.htm ; http://www.pras.irisnet.be/PRAS/','20/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A4','A4_4_1','','Fl: The Flemish Policy Plan for Sustainable Tourism 2009-2014, based on the Code of Ethics of UNWTO, includes aspects for ecological sustainability, awards quality label \"Green key\" based on evaluation of approved set of criteria, emphasising conservation of enatural and cultural resources by reduction of negative impact on natural and cultural values.The new Forestry Code enters into force in 2008. It establishes rules for public circulation in forest areas. The gathering of motorized vehicles is prohibited in the forest with a much more strict system of exemptions than the previous one. For example, these activities are prohibited on holidays, Sundays and Wednesday afternoons. Maximum 300 people can participate. On the other hand, the gathering of motor vehicles will be possible for disabled people to give them an additional opportunity to experience nature.http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=11597W:Walloon government Decree of March 19, 2009 regulating traffic and on rivers.The Walloon Government adopted in 1994 a decree regulating the movement of boats and divers on rivers. This Decree was a response to the need to take steps to protect inland waters and wildlife and flora associated with them.This necessity arises from the major expansion of recreational activities related to rivers, which, when confined and practiced by a large number of people, inevitably lead to a deterioration of aquatic habitats, flora, both aquatic and riparian and a disturbance of the species, which may particularly affect their reproduction.http://environnement.wallonie.be/legis/eau/eacir006.htmIn June 2008, the Walloon nature and environment federation (Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie or IEW) was officially recognised by the Foundation for Environmental Education to issue the eco-label ‘Blue Flag’ to Walloon bathing areas and marinas. ‘Blue Flag’ is an international label that aims to promote the sustainable development of coastal and inland waters by rewarding the environmental efforts of the managers of bathing areas and marinas. It is awarded on a voluntary and annual basis, starting from four major groups of criteria: environmental education and information, environmental management, management of water quality, and security and services. In 2009 the Blue Flag was for the first time awarded to a beach in the Walloon Region, which was also the first region in Blue Flag history to receive the Blue Flag without going through the pilot phase. In the Flemish Region already four beaches and eight marinas have been awarded the label.Just like Blue Flag, the Green Key program is managed on an international level by the Foundation for Environmental Education. The Green Key is a label for tourist accommodations respecting the environment. In 2009 the label was expanded to hotels, holiday resorts and hotel rooms, besides campsites. In 2009 the ‘Green Key’ label was launched in the Walloon and Brussels Region by IEW.','','','Fl: http://www.toerismevlaanderen.be/showpage.asp?iPageID=686http://www.iewonline.be/spip.php?rubrique175http://www.iewonline.be/spip.php?article3048&var_recherche=clef%20verte','20/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the hypothesis detailed hereunder, Belgian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 25.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Belgium','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','There is no general legislation in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) in Belgium. Different aspects of IAS are legislated for at both the Federal and Regional level. At the Federal level, Article 3 of the Arrêté royal portant des mesures relatives à l’importation et au transit de certaines espèces d’oiseaux sauvages non indigènes of 26 October 2001 regulates for the import, export and transit of non-indigenous wild bird species. Under this legislation birds bred in captivity are an exception. The Royal Decree addressing nature conservation and animal welfare (16/07/2009) provides for a list of mammal species that can be kept in captivity for non-commercial purposes. This instrument is also used to regulate the possession of non-native species. Furthermore, Royal Decrees defining quarantine, confinement and eradication actions of pest organisms (as according to the EU legislation, 03/05/1994 and 10/08/2005) can be used to address IAS. In the marine environment, the Royal Decree on the protection of species in the marine waters under Belgian jurisdiction 2001 prohibits the deliberate introduction of IAS into the marine environment. Additionally, the Belgian Law of 20.01.1999 on the protection of the marine environment in marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction prohibits the intentional introduction of non-indigenous species in the marine environment without a licence under Article 11. Article 11 also provides for the eradication of non-indigenous nuisance species under measures taken by Royal Decree and following scientific consultation.As for the forcoming instruments, Royal Decree concerning the import, the exportat and the possession of non-native invasive species (draft version 2/07/2009) is currently being considered for approval. When adopted, this instrument would ban the import, export and possession of a number of identified non-native species that are not yet fully established in Belgium. The list of banned species is to be updated on an annual basis. A great deal of activity in Belgium concerned with IAS is at the level of the three regions. It is prohibited to introduce plants or animals into public forests and forest reserves without a permit under the Forest Decree of the Flemish Region. Furthermore, it is prohibited to introduce alien animal species and there are legal measures to control and eradicate such species in this region. The Decree on Nature Conservation controls or prohibits the transportation of animal species (and their carcasses) in the region. Finally, Executive Act for species conservation (Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering met betrekking tot soortenbescherming en soortenbeheer, 15 May 2009, operative since 1 September 2009) prohibits the intentional release in the wild of non-native species, with exceptions only allowed after a preliminary risk analysis (Note: species used in agriculture and forestry fall outside the scope of this regulation). It also provides a basis for specific actions to be taken to regulate possession, trade and management of non-native species with economic / ecological impacts. In the Walloon Region it is prohibited to introduce non-indigenous species (or indigenous species of non-indigenous origin) with the exception of species used in agriculture and forestry. Furthermore, guidelines have been adopted to to limit the use of invasive plants via public tenders (Circulaire relative aux espèces exotiques envahissantes 23/04/2009). The introduction of non-indigenous bird species into the wild is prohibited in the Brussels Capital Region. Also, Nature Conservation Decree, prohibits the sale, the purchase and the intentional release in the wild of non-native invasive species and provides a legal basis for action plans on non-ntaive species in the capital region (Ordonnance relative a la conservation de la nature/Ordonnantie betreffende het natuurbehoud, draft 2008, not yet published). Finally. Article 14 of the Decision of the Brussels Capital Region concerning the conservation of natural habitats an wild fauna and flora (26 October 2000) provides for the Minister to prevent an introduction of alien species when it has negative impacts on the indigenous fauna and flora. In the future, this provision will be integrated in the Ordinance for nature conservation (in development).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link',' 08/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','According to the analysis by EEA, of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 46 are present in Belgium (last updated 30 June 2009). This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2. According to a comparative analysis by the Member State (received March 2010), comparing the EEA list of \'worst invasive aliens\' (as last updated 30 June 2009) with several sources on the occurrence of non-native species in Belgium (Belgian forum on invasive alien species, Harmonia database, VLIZ and INBO) it seems that at  least  65  of the EEA lists’ worst invasive alien species are found to be present in Belgium (without considering species that are naturalised for a very long time, e.g. rabbit, and without considering casual species).','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','08/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A5','A5_1_2','','There is no national strategy or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) in Belgium but strategic objectives three and five of Belgium’s National Biodiversity Strategy (2006) directly relate to IAS. Strategic objective number three provides for maintaining or rehabilitating Belgium’s biodiversity including specifically to: ‘Avoid the introduction and mitigate the impact of invasive alien species on biodiversity’. Strategic objective five is to improve the integration of biodiversity concerns into all social and economic sectoral policies, a particular objective being to: ‘Consider the potential impact on biodiversity and in particular the invasiveness of species, in making import and export decisions’.IAS is to be addressed under Action 18 of the 2nd Belgian Federal Plan for Sustainable Development in the action plan for ‘integration of biodiversity in the economic sector’. This plan includes raising awareness and understanding of the IAS issue as well as a review and update of legislation at the federal level to prevent the introduction of IAS.Action plans against specific IAS are currently under preparation on regional level. A national level action plan on prevention of exotic plants in horticulture sector is currently being developed in the context of a LIFE+ project (2009 onwards). Furthermore, the development of methodologies and measures to control and eradicate a number of invasive exotic plant and animal species is taking place in the context of an INTERREG project (transboundary cooperation between Netherlands and Flemish Region, 2009 onwards).At he regional level, a preliminary action plan has been developed to manage invasive exotic water plants on some of the water courses in Flanders. In the Walloon region,  the Ministry of the Environment of Wallonia has funded a project to establish a support unit for the management of invasive plant species with a view to provide a reference structure, advice and support to managers. Furthermore, the strategic plan 2008-2013 of the Ministry of Environment of Wallonia includes a specific action on the management and survey of invasive alien species. In the Brussels Capital Region, species action plans are being developed for three parakeet species and feral waterfowl species.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaire, INTERREG projectWeblink: http://www.fsagx.ac.be/ec/gestioninvasives/Pages/Projet.htmhttp://www.fsagx.ac.be/ec/gestioninvasives/Pages/Projet.htm).','03/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A5','A5_1_3','','Belgium has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.   ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','A5','A5_1_4','','The Harmonia information system:  Harmonia is an interoperable database dedicated to alien species introduced by man on the Belgian territory or in neighbour areas after 1500. It includes 1) exotic species naturalised in Belgium, with a focus on those that actively colonize semi-natural ecosystems and can be detrimental to the environment (black and watch list species) and 2) exotic species that aren\'t yet observed in Belgium but are invasive in neighbour countries where they are considered as highly detrimental to biodiversity (alert list species). New species are regularly appended to this database by Belgian scientists after being assessed through the ISEIAprotocol (see link below). Before being published on the Web, data are reviewed for accreditation by a scientific committee.  A Belgian IAS contact group (under the structure of the national Coordination Committee for International Environment Issues) has been established to help to provide a synthesis of the existing laws, regulations and policies, information and expertise on IAS. There is also a Research Platform on IAS (BFIS) that supports compilation of existing research studies and scientific data on IAS in Belgium. This Belgian Forum on Invasive Species (BFIS) is an informal structure taking place within the framework of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform. BFIS supports the compilation of existing research studies and scientific data on IAS in Belgium. Also, it promotes interdisciplinary cooperation and information exchange among scientists to further develop measures dedicated to the prevention and the mitigation of the impacts of IAS. BFIS is responsible for preparing and updating the reference list of alien species invading terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems in Belgium, with a focus on organisms causing a strong detrimental impact on native biodiversity.Based on the cooperation and information exchange through this platform that acts as a focal point network and as a first coordination on national level, a rapid response mechanism is being developed in Walloon region, incident list are being compiled. In the Brussels Capital Region, IAS are surveyed within the Forest and Habitat (Natura 2000) monitoring schemes. Observations can be considered as follow-up and early warning information.Alert, black and watch lists of invasive species in Belgium: The environmental impact of non-native species is assessed in a standard, objective and transparent way through a simplified protocol developed by BFIS, the Invasive Species Environmental Impact Assessment (ISEIA) protocol. It consists of four sections matching the last steps of the invasion process, i.e. the potential for spreading and colonising natural habitats as well as the adverse impacts on native species and ecosystems. Scores for each section are assessed based on organism’s history of impact in neighbour areas together with their ecological profiles. The INHORTI LIFE+ project (i.e. increase awareness to curb horticultural introductions of invasive plants in Belgium) aims to reduce the introduction of invasive alien plants by raising awareness about the environmental risks among the whole ornamental horticulture supply chain in Belgium, from growers to gardeners. The project aims to promote best practices for preventing the release and spread of invasive alien plants and to promote adherence to a Belgian voluntary code of conduct on IAS to be developed for the horticultural sector. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://ias.biodiversity.be/ias/documents/ISEIA_protocol.pdf http://ias.biodiversity.be/  ',' 28/02/2010','','','12/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Belgium','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A5','A5_2_2','','Belgium has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. In Belgium, the competence lies at the regional level. The title and reference of the legislation is: Décret du 19 juin 2008 relatif à la coexistence des cultures génétiquement modifiées avec les cultures conventionnelles et les cultures biologiques. Moniteur belge du 08/08/2008. In Flanders, a specific Decree organising co-existence of GMO has been adopted: Decreet van 3 april 2009  houdende de organisatie van co-existentie van genetisch gemodificeerde gewassen met conventionele gewassen en biologische gewassen (Belgisch Staatsblad 04/04/2009). Flanders and Wallonia have no specific procedures for the different regions with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops.According to reporting by the Member State, there is a ban on GMO cultivation at regional level, on national level a permit can only be granted for research studies (e.g. GMO poplars in Flanders) a and within specific confinement. The EU Directive 2001/18/CE was transposed in the Royal Executive Law of 21st February 2005 setting procedures for granting permission on GMO cultivation tests based on criteria for environmental characteristics and for human health.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in October 2009. Belgium’s National Biodiversity Strategy 2006-2016 was adopted in 2006.Belgium had paid her annual contribution to CBD, AEWA, Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions. For the CMS Trust Fund, Belgium had paid her annual contribution for 2008, but, as of 28 Nov 2008, not for 2007. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdf','12/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Belgium spent EUR3.5m in 2006 and EUR1.8m in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid, with both figures amounting to 0.02% of the respective total multilateral annual aid budget.','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','29/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Belgium spent EUR5.3m in 2006 and EUR7.2m in 2007 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.005% and 0.007%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget. However Belgium made the following comments and additions: In Flanders, in 2008 609.085 € were spent for bilateral aid for biodiversity/environment related projects. The major part of this amount was granted to local NGOs in Latin America in the framework of the Flemish Fund for Tropical Forests.  Flanders subsidized also two projects in the Niger basin in Mali, with the aim of providing safe drinking water and sanitation - the project area is situated under the Ramsar Convention, with special attention to the ecological value of the area. In South Africa, Flanders supported a combined agricultural/environmental project (sustainable natural resource management project), with special attention to the control of alien invasive species. FOD:Development cooperation budgets that could be associated with aspects for environmental protection include:Environmental protection	    2005	                  2006	                 2007	                 2008Environmental policy	13,612,234	14,155,729	19,231,069	20,671,465Biosphere protection	354,853                671,367	                118,533	612,158Biodiversity	             1,090,437	1,750,087	1,543,844	224,028Protection landscape      monuments	               411,357	                410,273	545,000	                   4,533Flood prevention	                         0                 	0	             0	118,123Environmental education	161,213                 69,040	                  51,866	8,632Environmental research	136,783	                  117,259	109,646       	356,915	TOTAL:             15,766,877	17,173,755	21,599,958	21,995,854','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 from the OECD markers are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','24/02/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A7','A7_1_4','','Belgium contributed EUR42.49 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 1.74% of the total replenishment. Belgium contributed EUR46.18 million to the 4th replenishment which is 2.16 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','03/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A7','A7_2_2','','Federal Government (FOD):There is no Strategic Environmental Assessment for development cooperation yet. The Belgian Development Cooperation is currently financing a project to enhance the integration of environmental sustainability issues in development interventions in Belgium’s partner countries, through the development of an environmental sustainability toolkit (EST). This project started in 2009 and is called KLIMOS. The main issue covered will be climate change, but two other \"Rio markers\" will also receive due attention: biodiversity and desertification. Brussels Capital Region (BHG): An ordinance of 18/03/2004 of the Brussels Capital Region (Ordonnance relative à l\'évaluation des incidences de certains plans et programmes sur l\'environnement) requires to systematically carry out SEA and EIA of relevant plans or projects, whether those projects are within or outside the BCR.','','','BHG: http://vlex.be/vid/evaluation-incidences-plans-programmes-42037563 ','02/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A8','A8_1','','While no funds have been provided to the CBD working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing and there is currently no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, awareness-raising activities on access and benefit-sharing are envisaged for 2010/22. There is currently no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and activities raising awareness of it have not been undertaken yet. While no complete data on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources are available, information on the percentage of wood imported from sustainable sources (CITES permits, FSC and PEFC–certified) is provided. Belgium issued a large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with a low number of applications denied. A rather low number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','There is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines yet. FOD: The Belgian federal government plans to engage in awareness raising activities at the end of 2010 -beginning of 2011','','','','03/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Belgium did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','03/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.','','','','03/03/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A8','A8_1_4','','The following data represents the quantity of CITES-listed tropical wood imported into Belgium. This wood should in theory come from sustainable sources, since an export permit was issued by the Manangement Authority in the countyr of origin, and this is always based on a non-detrimental finding.Since we have no data on the total volumes of imported wood, we cannot give the proportion of national consumption that is from sustainable sources. 2006Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia): 7859.663 m3Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 66.992 m3Prunus africana: 0 kgSwietenia macrophylla: 0 m32007Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia):  8359.821 m3Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 40.163 m3Prunus africana: 0 kgSwietenia macrophylla: 26.41 m32008Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia): 4906.888 m3Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 22.386 m3Prunus africana: 7919 kgSwietenia macrophylla:  0 m32009 (note this is an underestimate as it is only based on shipments that have taken place and for which Customs have returned the documents to the CITES Management Authority and this has not yet been done for all shipments in 2009).Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia):  1741.24 m3 Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 40.005 m3 + 1596.7 kgPrunus africana:  0 kgSwietenia macrophylla:  0 m3We have collected some data on the % of certified wood from other sources:In 2007 5.4% of the available wood in Belgium was of FSC-certified origin. 13% of the total import of wood was FSC-certified. (source: \"FSC-hout in de Belgische markt in 2007\" - FSC Belgium)According to a study of wood-use in 2008 14.9% of the used wood in Belgium is of certified origin (either imported into Belgium, or produced in Belgium. 6% has a FSC-certificat; 9% a PEFC certificat.77% of the certified wood was imported into Belgium(source: \"Gecertificeerd hout op de Belgische markt in 2008\" by Probos).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Information on quantities of CITES-listed timber imported by Belgium comes from the Belgian Annual CITES Report (for 2006 and 2007) available on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/reports_en.htm and for 2008 and 2009 this is based on the permits that were issued, as recorded in the belgian permit database (no weblink available).Information on FSC wood comes from the report \"FSC-hout in de Belgische markt in 2007\" and \"Gecertificeerd hout op de Belgische markt in 2008\" by Probos for the Federal Public Service Public Health, Security of the Food Chain and Environment of Belgium.','18/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 2042, 1147 and 430, respectively. The number of imports applications denied was 6. No export or re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 42 for 2007 and 73 for 2008 showing an increase of 31. National capacity was built through advice/guidance provided to the Management Authority, Scientific Authority, enforcement authorities, traders, public and NGOs and financial assistance to the EU Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange (EU-TWIX) programme. Technical assistance was also provided to the Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities. Financial contribution to third countries for CITES implementation include USD24000 transferred to Argentina for Boa constrictor occidentalis conservation in 2007. Belgium paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. ','','18/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','A9','','','A Belgian national strategy on adaptation to climate change and action plan is at its early stage of development and expected to be finalised in 2012. On regional level, actions are already being carried out. Fl:In the river basin management plans, actions are included to restore where possible the natural flooding zones. For the Schelde river an extensive programme SIGMA and Ontwikkelingsschets Schelde 2010 has been adopted and is being carried out, such as restoration of river banks and nature development to restore the natural flooding areas.W:Following the results of the discussion of the Working Group on Forest and Climate Change which identifies potential policy on adaptation, mitigation and provides recommendations for owners and forest managers, a document \"Climate change and its impacts on Walloon Forests: Recommendations for policy makers, owners and managers\" was prepared at the request of the Walloon Minister responsible for forests. It aims :- to prepare a synthesis on predictable developments - given the current state of knowledge - of climate parameters in our region and their impact on our forests, various goods and services they provide and the forestry sector of other activities that depend on them;- to analyze policies and actions to recommend actions or to prohibit in order prevent the effects of change on forests (adaptation), while taking into account the role of forests and forestry on the carbon cycle (mitigation): among these actions, some are already in place, others are developing; gaps, both in terms of knowledge and action are identified;- to prepare recommendations at the attention of owners and managers, for their management choices.BHG: Based on a study of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech on the evolution of the adequation of forest species at forest stations due to climate change, a strategy and action plan for the adaptation of the Sonian Forest at climate change are in development in the Brussels Capital Region.','','','http://airclimat.wallonie.be/spip/IMG/pdf/DGRNE-07-06452-Plan_Air_Climat-partie_2.pdf http://www.sigmaplan.be/ http://www.ontwikkelingsschets2010.nl/www/scripts/index.php','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_3_2','','Development and implementation of Biomass and National Renewable Action Plans, when existing, are the competence of the regions in Belgium.Fl: For the Flemish region a Green Energy action plan is in place - with emphasis on biomass, however no impact evaluation on biodiversity included.A National Action plan NREAP (on national level, as a sum of regional Action plans) is planned to be finalised by June 2010.W:A regional action plan \"Plan pour la maitrise durable de l\'énergie\" was adopted in 2003 but not in the framework of the directive 2009/28. Concerning Biofuels & bioliquids a first roundtable took place in 2008. A new action plan is planned in 2010.','','','','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_4_1','','A Belgian national strategy on adaptation to climate change and action plan is at its early stage of development and expected to be finalised in 2012. On regional level, actions are already being carried out. Fl:In the river basin management plans, actions are included to restore where possible the natural flooding zones. For the Schelde river an extensive programme SIGMA and Ontwikkelingsschets Schelde 2010 has been adopted and is being carried out, such as restoration of river banks and nature development to restore the natural flooding areas.W:Following the results of the discussion of the Working Group on Forest and Climate Change which identifies potential policy on adaptation, mitigation and provides recommendations for owners and forest managers, a document \"Climate change and its impacts on Walloon Forests: Recommendations for policy makers, owners and managers\" was prepared at the request of the Walloon Minister responsible for forests. It aims :- to prepare a synthesis on predictable developments - given the current state of knowledge - of climate parameters in our region and their impact on our forests, various goods and services they provide and the forestry sector of other activities that depend on them;- to analyze policies and actions to recommend actions or to prohibit in order prevent the effects of change on forests (adaptation), while taking into account the role of forests and forestry on the carbon cycle (mitigation): among these actions, some are already in place, others are developing; gaps, both in terms of knowledge and action are identified;- to prepare recommendations at the attention of owners and managers, for their management choices.BHG: Based on a study of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech on the evolution of the adequation of forest species at forest stations due to climate change, a strategy and action plan for the adaptation of the Sonian Forest at climate change are in development in the Brussels Capital Region.',NULL,NULL,'http://airclimat.wallonie.be/spip/IMG/pdf/DGRNE-07-06452-Plan_Air_Climat-partie_2.pdf http://www.sigmaplan.be/ http://www.ontwikkelingsschets2010.nl/www/scripts/index.php','26/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Belgium','A9','A9_4_3','','A study on the impacts of climate change in Belgium was published in 2004 : - Marbaix, P. et van Ypersele, J.-P. (diercted by), 2004. Impacts des changements climatiques en Belgique, Greenpeace, Bruxelles, 44 p. www.greenpeace.beOther studies where published on specific species groups :- Archaux F.(2009). Les oiseaux face au changement climatique. In Forêt wallonne, n 100-mai/juin 2009 - pp 27-31- L’atlas des libellules de Belgique: Les libellules de Belgique :répartition, tendances et habitats, Publication (septembre 2006) du Groupe de Travail Libellules Gomphus & du Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois (CRNFB).- A study on the adaptation of cultivated tree species to climate change was presented at the TEMATEA workshop (24/11/2009) : forêt de Soignes, étude FUSAGx.BHG:A study of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech on the evolution of adequation of forest species at forest stations due to climate change revealed that several species would not be in station anymore in the Sonian Forest at the horizon 2100: a.o. Fagus sylvatica, Quercus robur, Acer pseudoplatanus, Fraxinus excelsior, Prunus avium. It means that Habitats 9120 and 9130 are at great risk due to climate change in the Brussels Capital Region. Recent changes in flora indicate that Brussels flora is adapting at stony and warmer surfaces, warmer soils and warmer ambient temperatures that are typical for urban areas. It seems however too soon to attribute it to climate change.','','','www.climate.be/impacts ',' 03/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Bulgaria.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Bulgaria has plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. ','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A10_1_8','','The EPBRS website provides a link to what should be the national biodiversity platform for Bulgaria, however, the link does not work and ‘address not found’ appears. It is unclear whether a biodiversity platform was developed and is now in disuse, or if one has yet to be developed. The Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation has a site (http://www.biodiversity.bg/ ) but is not clear whether this site is ‘biodiversity platform created to ensure that biodiversity research and outcomes are reflected in policy development and implementation’. ','','Error message displayed when trying to follow link to Bulgaria Biodiversity Platform from EPBRS website: “www.bioplatform-bg.org could not be found. Please check the name and try again.” Also searched for platform using Google, but not results.','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A10_1_9','','Bulgaria has been an Associate Country Participant of GBIF since Aug 2001. They have sent a letter of intent but have not yet signed the MOU 2007-2011 to become a full Participant.There were no organisations from Bulgaria participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information, which is the overall European contribution to the GBIF; however, the ENBI project took place before Bulgaria joined the European Union.','','ENBI took place 2003-2006, Bulgaria joined EU in 2007','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_1','','No information on the conservation status of habitats was available for Bulgaria.','','','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','12/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Bulgaria has designated 228 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 33,429 km², totalling 29.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 14 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 592 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 114 with a total area of 23,217 km², totalling 20.4% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 14, with a marine area of 539 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_3','','Of the 335 regularly occurring bird species in Bulgaria, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 12 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Bulgaria, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!Bulgaria has not submitted information on the conservation status of mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants in the framework of the Habitats Directive. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa (which was not applied here as Bulgaria’s data are missing) is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. The percentage of those is calculated taking the overall assessment for the species group in question in all relevant biogeographical regions. Where the percentage does not add up to 100, the missing % relate to ‘unknown’.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','12/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B1_1_1','','Within LIFE projects, from 2007 – 2008, Bulgaria spent up to EUR1,341,208 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Bulgaria spent up to EUR666,164 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. As it joined the European Union in 2007, no projects were funded in Bulgaria under LIFE I (1992-1996), LIFE II (1996-2000) and LIFE III (2000-2006).','','As Bulgaria has, as of November 2009, not submitted the 3rd or 4th national report to the CBD, no up-to-date information on national funding programmes was available. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 sites refers to Bulgaria’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B1_1_4','','Bulgaria’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR80.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR18.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR60.2m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Bulgaria created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. ','','','','','','','10/05/2010 ',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B3_1_5','','No information was available on whether any biodiversity and planning partnerships have been facilitated by the Member State at local, regional and national levels.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Bulgaria has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Bulgaria between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A1','C1_2','','Bulgaria applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, with five further indicators amended to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009, 14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','C1_2_1','','Bulgaria applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, with five further indicators amended. Those five are the number of species in the Bulgarian Red List under IUCN categories; change in the vegetation period; number of projects related to biodiversity with international financing and relevant amount of money; number of existing protected area management plans and Action Plans for species; and agricultural: nitrogen balance, where Bulgaria uses the following parameters: total fertilisers; inorganic and organic fertilisers; livestock manure production; atmospheric deposition of nitrogen components.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','','','','','09/12/2009, 14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A1','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Bulgaria total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2609.1 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 3241.94 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 637.46 million EUR, and 777.39 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 24.43 and to 24.0 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Bulgaria was 356.98 million EUR (435.34 with co-financing) and amounted to 13.68 per cent of the EAFRD (13.43 with co-financing).There are no payments in Bulgaria for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)00Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Bulgaria in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 3.16 per cent of the total forest area in Bulgaria was certified (114,462 hectares out of a total forest area of 3.625 million hectares). All of the certified forest in Bulgaria was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).  ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Bulgaria amounted to 2.51 million ha, representing a share of 37.3 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 33 million € has been added to the Bulgarian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Bulgaria attributed no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_3','','Bulgaria does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2006 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007.','','','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Bulgaria oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, going from 4.25 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.64 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data showed a decrease from 0.71 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.33 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were slightly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 24.9 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 23 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2002. Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.69 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.85 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.90 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were slightly below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.205 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.115 mg P/l in 2005. The latter corresponded closely to the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Bulgaria had a total number of 4 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 50 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has been decreasing.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Bulgaria had two out of four biological assessment methods for rivers under development (or incomplete information), but no information was available on macrophytes and phytobenthos, and fish fauna assessment. More or less no method was available regarding biological assessment methods for lakes. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters are under development or information was incomplete.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009,, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounts to 261 in Bulgaria.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Bulgaria had a total number of 327 IPPC installations and issued 208 permits. 119 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Bulgaria’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, non-methane volatile organic compounds and sulphur oxide emissions were well below the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. First figures on projected emissions by 2010 suggest that Bulgaria is likely to meet its preliminary NECD emission ceiling levels. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Given that information on emissions projections from 2008 NECD reporting was not available, data on projections have been retrieved from EEA NEC Directive status report 2007. Emission ceilings for Bulgaria are temporary and are without prejudice to the review of the NEC Directive according to Article 10.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of 2007 emissions, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Bulgaria the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 94 per cent respectively, considering an area of 48,330 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will still be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 91 per cent in 2010 and 80 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 18 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','A2_4_3','','',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Data is only available for Bulgaria’s farmland bird indicators between 2004 and 2006. During this time, the indicator has shown a decrease. In 2006 the indicator was at 89.2 per cent, a 10.8 per cent decrease from the 2004 baseline. 17 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','Bulgaria does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2007 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007','','','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','09/12/2009','na'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_1','','No information was provided for Bulgaria in the first Article 17 report (covering period 2000-2006), as Bulgaria entered the EU in January 2007.','','Bulgaria (along with Romania) joined the EU in January 2007, so no data is available for Habitats directive reporting for the period 2000-2006.','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','09/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_1_4','','Bulgaria reported that, in 2009, it had 7 surveillance stations and 6 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Bulgaria has 12 coastal water bodies. Approximately 50% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Incomplete information was available concerning assessment methods for monitoring phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, macroalgae and angiosperm. Some methods may be under development for some coastal bodies.No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_2','','Bulgaria has 89 coastal bathing areas. A high number reached the mandatory standards in 2007 (89.9%) and in 2008 (93.3%). A large number have also reached the stricter guide values: 76.4% in 2007 and 78.7% in 2008. There is no information available on the ten year trend (1985-2005) of nitrate or phosphate concentrations in coastal waters. ','','There is no information available on bathing water quality in 2006 as Bulgaria had not yet joined the EU. Similarly there is not data for nitrogen or phosphate concentrations as Bulgaria is one of the countries that have a reported time series of less than 5 years. ','','','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_4','','Bulgaria’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €10,667,961 and includes measures such as reducing the impact of fishing on habitats and elaborating recovery and management plans. Axis 2 (€48,005,825) supports sustainable development within aquaculture and reduction of environmental impacts from the processing sector. Axis 3 (€26,669,903) supports the preservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of natural habitats as well as renewing ecologically degraded systems, and Axis 4 (€16,001,942) promotes environmentally friendly activities within fisheries development. ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'09/12/2009','na'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_5_1','','There is no information on CFP infringements for 2006 as Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_5_2','','No information was provided by Bulgaria on restoration programmes for diadromous species.  ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_5_3','','There are no data for Bulgaria’s fishing capacity before 2007. Since 2007 fishing capacity has remained fairly constant although it increased slightly in terms of vessels numbers: from 2,537 to 2,547; tonnage: 8,333 to 8,381 and power: 63,061 to 63,894kW. The operational programme (2007-2013) for Bulgaria suggests that fishing capacity was much higher in the 90s before a series of factors led to the closure of the main ocean fishing company. Bulgarian fleet is now composed mainly of small vessels; only 105 out of 2,536 have a length of more than 12 m. Fishing is concentrated in the territorial waters of the Black Sea and is considered to be lower than allowable catches. This would explain a slight increase in fishing capacity.','','2008 data: 2547 vessels; 8381 tons; 63894 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_6_1','','There is no information on CFP infringements for 2006 as Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. 2007 data is not currently available. No information was provided by Bulgaria on enforcement measures related to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_6_2','','No information was provided by Bulgaria on shark or seabird monitoring plans. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','No information was provided by Bulgaria concerning fisheries management measures required or modified within Natura 2000 sites','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Bulgaria has 14 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). No information was provided by Bulgaria concerning fisheries management measures required or modified within Natura 2000 sites. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. In this case, it gives the same results:  Marine sites within territorial waters: 14Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A3','A3_7_1','','According to the Bulgarian National Programme for Collection and Management of Fisheries Data, Bulgaria is not prepared for an evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem due to the lack of multiannual data concerning the problem and have not included this module in the National programme for 2009-2010. Bulgaria would like to have the opportunity to develop such research during the next triennial programme.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845; Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','','na','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The Mean Trophic Index for Bulgarian EEZ waters was 3.03 in 2004. This represents a slight increase (+0.01) since 1999, but an overall slight decrease (-0.01) since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','','','','09/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Bulgarian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity considerably increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 159.1 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Bulgaria has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation addressing the issue. Article 2.4 of the Biological Diversity Law has, as one of its specific objectives, the regulation of the introduction of non native species (and the re-introduction of native species) into the wild. Article 67 states that the introduction, import, breeding and raising of non-native species is only permitted if doing so does not have a detrimental impact on the environment or native species (or populations thereof). Permission is subject to expert scientific assessment and the National Council of Biological Diversity. Any introduction of alien species into the inland, coastal or marine waters of Bulgaria has to be conducted in accordance with Article 9.2 (Fishery and Aquaculture Law 2001, amended in 2005) of the Biological Diversity Law. With regards to the phytosanitary requirements for the import, export, transit, production and transfer of plants and plant products, the Plant Protection Law (State Gazette of 28th March 2003) lays down controls to work with regulations under the EC Directives 77/93, 92/90 and 92/105. While Bulgarian legislation addresses import and export, introduction, control and eradication of IAS, it does not address the issues of possession and trade. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 34 are present in Bulgaria. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10, EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_1_2','','A National invasive alien species (IAS) Strategy and Action Plan for managing IAS affecting Bulgarian biodiversity and limiting the impact they have on natural ecosystems are under development. IAS are identified as a major threat to national biodiversity under the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, currently implemented through the National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan 2006-2010. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_1_3','','Bulgaria has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, in March 2010 the Environment and Water Committee of the Bulgarian Parliament agreed a five-year ban on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report to the CBD had been submitted. The National Biodiversity Conservation Plan was adopted in 1999. Bulgaria had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Bulgaria for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Bulgaria for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','06/01/2010, 14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A7','A7_1_4','','Romania has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A8','A8_1','','Bulgaria has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with very few applications denied; and a very small number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','',''),
	('Bulgaria','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Bulgaria did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A8','A8_1_4','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 292, 32 and 5, respectively. The number of imports applications denied was 2. Information is not available on the number of export or re-export applications were denied. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 1 for 2007 and 3 for 2008 representing a net increase of 2. As to capacity-building at the national level, oral and written advice/guidance and technical assistance provided to the Scientific Authority, advice/guidance and training to the enforcement authorities as well as advice/guidance traders and the public. In addition, Each year the CITES MA provides training to the staff of the Regional Environment Inspectorates (REW) about the implementation of the Convention. REW are responsible for regulation of the domestic trade with CITES listed species. Bulgaria has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Bulgaria paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','A9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/05/2010',NULL),
	('Bulgaria','A9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','','',' No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by the Member State to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','A10_1','',' Cyprus does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research; however, competent authorities including the Environment Department, the Forestry Department and the Game Fund are using national funding to monitor biodiversity and conduct counts of several species.  There are also several projects going on via the EC-funded Life + and Interreg programmes that support research in biodiversity. Several projects are running, such as the establishment of micro-reserves in Natura 2000 sites and monitoring for several priority fauna species, birds and reptiles etc.','','','http://microreserve.blogspot.com/2009/05/cyprus-life-proposal-to-made-pmr.html; http://www.life-natura-sites.cy.net/ ','04/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','A10_1_2','','Cyprus is not planning a follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. Cyprus has used the framework, experiences and findings of the original MA in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation. ','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','A10_1_8','','Cyprus has a Biodiversity Platform aimed at promoting the integration between biodiversity research, policy and practice; promoting interdisciplinary research on biodiversity; and promoting community participation in biodiversity research and conservation. The date on all pages of the website is Friday May 6, 2005 and it does not appear to have been updated since then.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info Cyprus Biodiversity Platform: http://www.cybioplatform.intercol.edu/index.htm','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','A10_1_9','','Cyprus is not a member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) of Cyprus is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment in Cyprus. It incorporates the National Herbarium and the National Genebank.  ARI participates in the ENBI as a member of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI forums. This Work Package provides other ENBI work packages and users with a communicative space, making available the outcomes of this communication as an information resource, open to all parts interested in European activities about Biodiversity.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 3 of the 3 (100%) rocky habitats and forests are in an unfavourable-inadequate and unknown condition respectively. Of the habitat types in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, none are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 2 of the 4 (50%) continental grasslands are in favourable condition.5 of the 7 (71%) and 2 of the 4 (50%) dunes habitat and freshwater habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively. The condition of all rocky habitats is unknown. The condition of 2 of the 4 (50%) freshwater habitats and 4 of the 4 (100%) rocky habitats in the bioregion is yet to be reported.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanRocky habitats00%3100%00%00%00%3Forests00%00%00%1100%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats333%444%00%111%111%9Dunes habitats00%571%00%00%229%7Freshwater habitats00%250%00%250%00%4Sclerophyllous Scrub120%120%00%240%120%5Grasslands250%125%00%125%00%4Rocky habitats00%00%00%4100%00%4Forests436%327%00%436%00%11','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Titleandhttp://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','11/05/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','25 sites (69.4%) have a management plan completed, 7 sites (19.4%) a management plan in preparation and 4 sites (11.1%) are with no management plan completed or in preparation.Management plans have been prepared under the (a) Life/Nature Programme (initiated in 2004) for 4 areas (Vouni Pangias, Ethniko Dasiko Parko Troodous, Ethniko Dasiko Parko Kavo Gkreko and Koilada Diarizou), (b) Transition Facility 2004-2006 (Mammari-Deneia, Alykos Potamos-Ag Sozomenos, Periochi Mitserou, Madari-Papoutsa, Periochi Polis-Gialia, Koilada Limnati, Periochi Lympia-Ag. Anna and Periochi Scoulli)  and (c) Transition Facility 2008 (Fountoukodasi Pitsilias, Koilada potamou Maroulenas, Potamos Peristeronas, Koilada kargoti,Cha-Potami, Episkopi Morou Nerou, Xeros Potamos, Mavrokolympos, Periochi Drymou, Periochi Kritou Marottou, Akrotirio Aspro-Petra Romiou, Periochi Asgatas and Periochi Lefkaron). Additionally the Forestry Department is preparing Management Plans for the areas Dasos Machaira, Dasos Pafou (Periochi Platy, Koilada Kedron-Kampos, Periochi Agiatis and Periochi Stayros tis Psokas-Karkavas), Ethniko Dasiko Parko Rizoelias and Dasos Stavrovouniou. The Environment Department has recently tendered the preparation of Management Plans for the areas Limni Paralimniou, Limni Oroklinis and Faros kato Pafou.','','44 % of the sites are under a management body or other territorial planning instruments (National forest park and forest areas, marine areas and wetlands).  ','Reference or title:Weblink:','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_2_3','','Cyprus has created flyways maps (Game Fund Ministry of Interior) and  maintain and restore corridors (plants corridors and limestone) under the Rural Development Plan 2007 - 2013. These efforts together with the Biodiversity Action Plan, which will be prepared in the near future will ensure that ecological diversity will be maintained and restored.   ','','',':','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_3','','Of the 278 regularly occurring bird species in Cyprus, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 5 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Cyprus, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 1 of the 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. In terms of mammals, 1 of the 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) 50% of the mammals was reported as unknown. In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 14 (7%) amphibians and reptiles are in an inadequate condition and 3 of the 24 (21%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 10 of the 14 (71%) amphibians and reptiles was reported as unknown. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) invertebrates is unknown and another 1 of the 2 (50%) was not reported. In terms of mammals, 1 of the 19 (5%) are in an inadequate condition and another 1 of the 19 (5%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 16 of the 19 (84%) mammals was reported as unknown and 1 of the 19 (5%) mammals were not reported. 9 of the 18 (50%) plants are in a favourable state, 2 of the 18 (11%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 2 of the 18 (11%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. Cyprus is working towards a survey plan for all terrestrial ecosystems in order to cover the status of habitats and species. Additionally in some of the Natura sites a survey of the habitats types has been carried out.  ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%150%150%00%00%2Fish  0%00%00%00%00%00Invertebrates 0%00%00%00%00%00Mammals00%00%150%150%00%2Plants  0%00%00%00%00%00MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%17%321%1071%00%14Fish  0%00%00%00%00%00Invertebrates00%00%00%150%150%2Mammals00%15%15%1684%15%19Plants 950%211%211%16%422%18','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','4/5/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Cyprus has completed a total of 20 action plans for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and plants. Monitoring Action Plans were initiated for species under threat via the Life/Nature Project for 5 areas (Vouni Panagias, Koilada diarizou, Alukes Larnakas, Ethniko Dasiko Parko Troodous kai Ethniko Dasiko Parko kavo  Gkreko). Monitoring plans were mainly considering bird census and plants.  Monitoring was conducted for the Pinus nigra habitat as well as Quercus infectoria and Alnus orientalis. BirdLife Cyprus have a common census on (a) Cyprus birds (population, breeds and trends), (b) Autumn Raptor Migratory Birds, (c) Farmland Birds and (d) Water Birds. Results will be published by autumn 2010. Cyprus has a Red List for plants.','','The Game Fund runs a monitoring plan in the SPAs sites for the priority species as well as action plans for different game species and raptors. Additionally they run a survey on an endemic goatsheep species (Ovis gmelini ophion). The Fisheries and Marine Research Department has run a conservation program for sea turtles (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) since 1978.The Water Department runs a monitoring plan on macroinvertebrates and insects in order to indicate the status of the ecological condition of the rivers.','','30/4/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','B1_1_1','','Cyprus funds activities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through government funds as well as funds from the EU and the Mediterranean Action Plan. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Cyprus spent up to EUR1,020,511 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on biodiversity funding programmes is taken from the 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Cyprus’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','11/05/2010','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','B1_1_4','','Cyprus does not have any allocations for categories 51, 55 and 56 for the period 2007-2013.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','11/05/2010','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','B1_1_8','','Since 2006, Cyprus has contributed through its budget for the implementation of certain projects aiming at the protection of biodiversity. The projects had the following subjects and it is considered that they have contributed to the enhancement of knowledge on certain flora and fauna of Cyprus and their protection:Study on small mammals of Cyprus in Natura 2000 areasStudy of land snails in Natura 2000 areas in CyprusConservation Management in Natura 2000 sites of Cyprus (LIFE Nature Project that was co-financed by EU). ','','','','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B2_4','','Cyprus has not created a new strategy or policy or updated an existing one in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. Cyprus is planning to work on a strategic plan or Action Plan in the next year.','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','B3_1_2','','No partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity have been facilitated by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage biodiversity and planning partnerships at local, regional or national levels.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: ','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B3_1_6','',' No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by the Member State to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by the Member State to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','11/05/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A1','B4_1_2','',' The government of Cyprus has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions have been made by Cyprus between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','11/05/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','C1_2','','The development of biodiversity indicators is underway.','','The survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 does not contain information from Cyprus. While Cyprus, as of November 2009, had not submitted the 4th national report to the CBD, the information provided above is based on the 3rd national report to the CBD, submitted in 2005. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD. Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','C1_2_1','','The development of biodiversity indicators is underway.','','The survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 does not contain information from Cyprus. While Cyprus, as of November 2009, had not submitted the 4th national report to the CBD, the information provided above is based on the 3rd national report to the CBD, submitted in 2005.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD                                                                 Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A1','C1_3_1','','Cyprus has monitoring schemes for the following habitats: coastal habitats, freshwater habitats, heath and scrub, sclerophyllous scrub, grasslands, and forests. The following species groups are covered by monitoring schemes: birds, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles.  ','','','','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A2','','','According to the Member State, Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) standards address:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.As regards other GAEC measures, Cyprus’ Environment Department determined 9 GAEC standards in order to protect designated areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives. These include restoration of hedges and stone walls, protection of the riverbanks and the margins of cultivated land etc. Seminars were offered to land owners and surveys were carried out during 2009,  to assess implementation of GAEC measures.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Cyprus total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 164.56 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 329.13 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 71.7 million EUR, and 143.4 million EUR including co-financing. his equated to 43.57 per cent of total planned expenditure. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Cyprus was 40.63 million EUR (81.26 with co-financing) and amounted to 24.69 per cent of the EAFRD (24.69 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.5 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.3 per cent of EAFRD) and 1 million EUR of public expenditure (0.3 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Cyprus for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)5.08810.175Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','29/4/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Cyprus in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','29/4/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Cyprus had no certified forest out of a total forest area of 174,000 hectares.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Cyprus amounted to 0.34 million ha, representing a share of 53.7% per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) standards address:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.As regards other GAEC measures, Cyprus’ Environment Department determined 9 GAEC standards in order to protect designated areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives. These include restoration of hedges and stone walls, protection of the riverbanks and the margins of cultivated land etc. Seminars were offered to land owners and surveys were carried out during 2009,  to assess implementation of GAEC measures.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','29/4/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State, no training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity in Cyprus. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment held several meetings regarding the implementation of the Common Agriculture Policy and the national Rural Development Plan. The Environment Department in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture plans to proceed with training on the subject.  ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member State, monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.Tree species composition.No monitoring is in place for High Nature Value farming and forestry areas.Nor have programme-specific biodiversity indicators have additionally been drawn up.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','29/4/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 2 million € has been added to Cyprus’s Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Cyprus attributed around € 1 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 55 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, no national monitoring programmes been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity, and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. However, Cyprus completed Corine Land Cover, and an assessment on soil sealing was carried out in 2006. In addition, a project on the soil snails was undertaken which contributed to the scientific knowledge on the issue and enhanced the efforts on their protection.  A Desertification Action Plan and a map on soil erosion were developed. A programme on the  identification of certain soil species was initiated as well.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','4/5/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006 , 50 per cent of the Mediterranean freshwater habitats in Cyprus have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 50 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Cyprus.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4202050%0%50%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4202050%0%50%0%U12  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','No information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate in rivers and phosphorus concentrations was available for Cyprus.According to European Environment Agency data, concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 11.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 12.6 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 18.1 mg NO3/l in 2003. ','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, partly unpublishedWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','Cyprus has no inland bathing waters.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2009, Cyprus only implemented one biological assessment for coastal waters, related to benthic invertebrates. For all other water bodies methods were under development (macrophytes and phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in rivers or phytoplankton in lakes).According to the Member State, Cyprus is implementing a coastal-waters monitoring programme under Article 8 of the WFD. The ecological status assessment takes into account benthic macro-invertebrates, macroalgae and chlorophyll-a.','More than 30 areas of the Natura 2000 Network in Cyprus are related with a River, Wetlands, Dams etc.In the section \"Additional detail & Narrative Summary\" the entire sentence must be replaced by the following   \" ','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 13 in Cyprus.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, Cyprus had a total number of 84 IPPC installations and issued 81 permits. 0 permits were still outstanding. According to the Member State, permits have taken, amongst others, the protection of biodiversity into consideration.  ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/cy/eu/ippc/envsv0mag/IPPC_Report_2006-2008_Question__2.1_Final_CYPRUS.xls/manage_document ','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_4_2','','According to Cyprus’ national reporting under the NEC Directive, in 2008 the country already meets ceilings set by the European Union for ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. It will be able to achieve targets also for 2010, although a slight increase in nitrogen oxide emissions, non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia is expected. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Cyprus the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 68 per cent respectively, considering an area of 2,461 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will still be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 17 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','A2_4_3','','',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status in Cyprus are the Mediterranean grassland habitats, where 50 per cent are considered favourable (25 per cent have unfavourable status, 25 per cent are of unknown status). 36 per cent of Mediterranean forest habitats in Cyprus have a favourable status and 27 per cent have an unfavourable status (the remaining 36 per cent are unknown). See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','There are no heath and scrub habitats for Cyprus, only Sclerophyllus Scrubs. Furthermore there are no peat land habitats (bogs, mires and fens).  Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Cyprus.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4121025%50%25%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4121025%50%25%0%U11  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11344027%36%36%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11344027%36%36%0%U13  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','09/12/2009','na'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Cyprus found that three of the four marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region had an ‘Inadequate’ status (75%) and the other had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%). A total of nine coastal habitats in the Mediterranean biogeographic region were assessed—three had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%), four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (44%), one had an ‘Unknown’ status (11%), and the remaining one was ‘Not reported’ (11%).There were four marine species assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region—two reptiles and two mammals. Of the four, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (25%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats00%375%00%125%00%4MediterraneanCoastal habitats333.3%444.4%00%111.1%111.1%9Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%150%150%00%00%2Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%150%150%00%2Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%125%250%125%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_1_4','','The Cyprus coastal waters monitoring programme that is implemented under the article 8 of the WFD includes 7 surveillance water bodies and 1 operational water body, of the total of 25 coastal water bodies. It has assessment methods for benthic macroivertebrates, macroalgae and chl-a, that have been adopted by the EC Decision 2008.A programme of measures for coastal areas is being developed by the Water Development Department. ','','','','','','','',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_1_5','',' Cyprus reported that a national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) was being developed. The “Strategic approach for the Management of the Cyprus Coastal Zone” was adopted in 2006. A pilot programme, coastal area management project (CAMP), was implemented in the Southern peri-urban area of Larnaca. ','','Cyprus reported that the Cypriot coast is a fragile ecological system and, is also regarded to be the backbone of the economy. Coastal areas generate the largest source of household income, as well as other major activities and most of the urban development. The coastal zone extends 2km inland from the coastline and covers 23% of the country’s total area. Approximately fifty percent of the population lives and works in the coastal zone. Ninety percent of the tourism industry is also located in this zone. Maintaining a sound balance between effective coastal protection and development is recognised to be essential for avoiding land use conflicts and environmental degradation. Current policies have not generally managed to reconcile these conflicts. Some of the issues faced include: the loss of agricultural land, coastal traffic problems, coastal erosion, beach overcrowding, deficiencies in infrastructure, high building densities in many coastal urban areas and insufficient nature protection.  ','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_2','','Cyprus has 111 coastal bathing areas a very good record of water quality. In 2008 100% of coastal bathing waters achieved the mandatory guidelines and 98.2% the stricter guideline standards. The good record was also seen in 2007 and 2006 where 99% of coastal bathing waters reached both mandatory and guideline standards. In these years, only one coastal bathing area was not compliant with the mandatory values. Cyprus was not included in the EEA study which looked at trends in nitrogen and phosphate concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 and so there is no data to report here. ','','','','4/5/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_4','','Cyprus’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Within the framework of the Cyprus Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013 funds have been allocated for the protection and development of the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically, support from Axis 1 gives incentives to owners of fishing vessels for permanent cessation of their fishing activities in order to achieve the reduction of the fishing fleet capacity and adjust the fishing effort at levels that correspond to the available fish stocks. Axis 2 supports compensation for the use of aquaculture production methods that help to protect and improve the environment and conserve nature, such as organic aquaculture. Axis 3 supports measures to support protection and development of aquatic fauna and flora, such as the construction of several artificial reefs that will enhance biodiversity and improve the aquatic environment.','','Total funding for Axis 5 was 350,000 Euros of EFF funds and 350,000 of MS funds and supports the mapping of Posidonia oceanica meadows in the coastal waters of Cyprus. ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_12_en.htm','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'09/12/2009','na'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Cyprus had 872 vessels and 10% were involved in a serious infringement (88 vessels). A total of 76 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €219 and maximum fine of €530. Of the number of serious infringements recorded for 2006, 8 of these went to court and the rest were settled extra judicially.  ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10','12/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_5_2','','There are no diadromous species in Cyprus so this measure of progress is not applicable. ','','','','3/5/2010','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_5_3','','Cyprus fishing capacity decreased between 2004 and 2006 (23% reduction in fishing power) but has since increased in 2007 and again in 2008. A ‘Scheme for the Scrapping of Fishing Vessels’ running from 2004 to 2006 resulted in the scrapping of two bottom trawlers and five multipurpose/ polyvalent fishing vessels. The capacity of the Cypriot fleet was reduced by 3% in tonnage and 9% in power during 2007 without public aid. The EU press release for the Operational Programme 2007-2013 suggests that it contains measures aimed at further reducing the fishing capacity but this is not yet reflected in the fleet statistics.','','2008 data: Vessel number: 1179; Tonnage: 5,371 tons; Power: 49,529kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','4/5/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Cyprus had 872 active vessels. There were 45 type D breaches in this year, with 41 penalties imposed with an average fine of €213. No information was provided by Cyprus on enforcement of CFP measure related to reducing by-catch and damage to the benthos','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_6_2','','The Cyprus Bird Life runs a Count of Breeding Seabirds and data is published every month. This monitoring began in 2004 and focuses on three species of seagulls and Eleanor’s Falcon. Cyprus does not have any specific shark monitoring programmes.  ','','','http://www.birdlifecyprus.org','4/5/2010','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','4/5/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Cyprus has 5 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). In addition to this the Akamas peninsula has been proposed as a Natura 2000 site (March 2010) which is almost 50% marine.Measures have been proposed for fisheries measures within the management plans of the marine N2000 sites, but these are still to be officially approved.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. In this case it gives the same data:  Marine sites within territorial waters: 5Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10',''),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A3','A3_7_1','','Cyprus has proposed a national programme for collection of fisheries data for 2009-2010 and 2011-2013 under the DCF. Under module V of the DCF module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Cyprus plans to use Medits data to calculate ecosystems indicators 1-4 and VMS data to calculate indicator 5-7. Indicator 8 on the discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated from data collected during concurrent sampling trips on bottom trawlers and surface longliners. The discarding ratio will be calculated for all commercial species, with discards and landings data collected on the same trips. It is worth mentioning that discard sampling will also involve all non-commercial species; therefore an overall discarding ratio from the whole catch could also be provided. In case any seabird, reptile or marine mammal is caught as bycatch, it will be recorded. Indicator 9 on the relationship between fuel consumption and the value of landings will be collated from total value of landings estimated as the product of quantities of landings and the average prices per species per metier and cost of fuel for each metier according to level 6 of the metier calculation.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision 2008/949/EC of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy and of Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture. ','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009-2010, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF Commission Decision of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:041:0008:0071:EN:PDF','11/05/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The Mean Trophic Index for Cyprus EEZ waters was 4.06 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.65 since 1999 and an overall increase of 0.63 in the past 20 years (1984-2004).','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A4','A4_3','','In Cyprus, the Town and Planning law will incorporate the measures suggested for Natura 2000 network in the Management Plans of the areas. Besides, the Town and Planning Department will amend the Rural Policy where this new updated policy will include the measures suggested for the designated areas. ','','','','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A4','A4_4_1','','','','','','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, there was no direct spending from Cyprus under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity. Indeed, no spending under biodiversity categories (51, 55 and 56) is foreseen by the Cyprus Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Cyprus has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of introduction, possession and trade of IAS. Under Article 30 of Law Nº 153(I) 2003 on the protection and management of nature and wildlife, the introduction of non native species of fauna and flora is prohibited unless Ministerial permission has been obtained. No other provisions deal specifically with the import and export or control and eradication of IAS although an inventory of most invasive fauna is being prepared to support a future decree to prohibit their import.According to the Member State, Cyprus has prepared a \"red list\" of invasive species the possession and import of which is considered to be a threat to island’s biodiversity. This list is currently undergoing legal inspection in order to assure its compatibility with the EU legislative framework','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','4/5/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 28 are present in Cyprus. This equates to less than 0.10 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','     ','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_1_2','','Cyprus has not developed a national invasive alien species (IAS) strategy or action plan and does not yet have a national biodiversity strategy but is currently preparing the terms of reference for tendering the preparation of the biodiversity strategy. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_1_3','','Cyprus has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A5','A5_2_2','','According to the Member State, no legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming been adopted. However, Cyprus is currently preparing a study on the issue, in order to scientifically examine the issue of co-existence on such as small island with high biodiversity. This study will show if co-existence is possible, under what terms and how this could affect biodiversity.  According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, 7 municipalities are declared GMO free zones at the beginning of 2010.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','4/5/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A6','A6_1_1','','As of 6 November 2009, no 4th National Report has been submitted to the CBD. No National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan has been submitted to the CBD.Cyprus had paid her annual contribution to the CMS and Ramsar Convention. While there are no arrears from previous years, Cyprus, as of 30 Sept 2009, had not paid her annual contribution to the CBD General Trust Fund the same is true as of 31 Dec 2008 for the World Heritage Convention. AEWA entered into force in Cyprus only on 1 September 2008 so no annual contribution was made for 2008 as of August 2008.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Cyprus for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Cyprus for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','11/05/2010','','','06/01/201013/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A7','A7_1_4','','Cyprus has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A7','A7_2_2','','SEA is being carried out for plans or programmes that fall under the SEA Directive. Until today, the Environmental Authority has evaluated around 10 SEA reports dealing with the mining industry, the Fisheries Plan, the Agricultural Development Plan, as well as a plan concerning the development of an area. EIA is being carried out since 2001 when the relevant legislation came into force. All the projects that fall under the two Appendices of the Directive are being evaluated and an environmental opinion by the environmental authority is being prepared with terms to be included in the planning permit for the specific project. ','','','','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A8','A8_1','','Cyprus does not have national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing and has not undertaken activities raising awareness of the Guidelines. Cyprus has adopted national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and has raised awareness of it. Information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available. Cyprus has issued very few import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and very few items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','11/05/2010','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Cyprus does not have national legislation on implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists. In addition, Cyprus does not have national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing.','','','','11/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Cyprus did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Cyprus has national legislation on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In addition, Cyprus has implemented national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. ','','','','11/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A8','A8_1_4','','The information is not available.','','','','11/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 4 and the combined number of export and re-export applications issued for the same period is 44. Information on the number of import, export or re-export applications denied was not available. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 1 for 2007 and 2008. This is a combined figure for 2007 and 2008 as presented in the biennial report in question. National capacity was built through oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the enforcement authorities and traders. Training was provided to the Management Authority and NGOs. According to the biennial period for 2007 and 2008, Cyprus has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Cyprus paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','11/05/2010','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','A9','','','The future Biodiversity Action Plan that will be prepared by Cyprus will include climate change issues and adaptation measures. Besides, the implementation of CBD on adaptation to climate change is going to be considered as well. ','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_3_2','','Cyprus does not use plants for biofuel and bioliquids. Research on the issue is being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Research. Besides, a Regional Renewable Action Plan was developed but is currently under revision.','','','','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_4_1','','The future Biodiversity Action Plan that will be prepared by Cyprus will include climate change issues and adaptation measures. Besides, the implementation of CBD on adaptation to climate change is going to be considered as well. ',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','05/04/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Cyprus','A9','A9_4_3','','In Cyprus, the sea level is expected to rise due to climate change effects, and several habitats like sand dunes are expected to disappear. Several studies were conducted covering both fauna and flora speciesm with for instance studies on coastal zones with pilot implemented at Larnaka District. However even if the status of most of the the fauna species is still unknown, some findings showed that 2 turtles species are endangered in Cyprus. Besides several raptor species has been extinct and some other are under threats.','','','Climate Change, Habitat Loss, Protected Areas and the Climate Adaptation Potential of Species in Mediterranean Ecosystems Worldwidehttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006392Predicting the impacts of climate change on a globally distributed species: the case of the loggerhead turtlehttp://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/213/6/901','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','','','One example was provided by the Czech Republic of a way in which business and biodiversity partnerships were encouraged: Regular meetings of Commissions on genetic resources are held, in which all stakeholders participate. Eight participants regularly attended these meetings. ','','The number (eight) indicates participants to these meetings. It does not indicate partnerships as such. ','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A10_1','','The Czech Republic does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, but biodiversity research programmes are incorporated into other funding programmes or contained within sub-programmes in the biological sciences.  For example, the goal of the Research Programme of the Ministry of Environment is to ensure protection of the environment, particularly in the Czech Republic, by means of sustainable use of sources and on the basis of improving the quality of knowledge on interactions of biosphere, ecosystems, and human activities,. Projects relating to biodiversity have been and continue to be funded by the Ministry of Environment as well as other national institutions such as the Ministry of Culture, the Czech Science Foundation, the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Agriculture. ','','-','Reference or title:Weblink: Research and Development and Innovation Information System of the Czech Republic: http://www.isvav.cz/, Research & Development Council: www.vyzkum.cz   ','3/3/2010','','','08/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A10_1_2','','-','','The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment project (MA) has been followed-up by an ecosystems assessment for Europe (EURECA) that will cover the pan-European region and is due to be completed by 2012. The Czech Republic actively participates within the EEA on further development of the EURECA project. However, concrete outcomes of this European project are yet to be developed and finalised. In the meantime at the national level, different components of the environment, including components of biodiversity, are independently assessed. Accounting methods for the assessment of ecosystem services have not yet been developed within either the framework of the EURECA project or at the national level in the Czech Republic.The Czech Republic utilises the framework, experiences and findings of the original Millennium Assessment (2001-2005) utilized in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation.','Reference or title: Weblink: -','17/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A10_1_8','','The Czech Republic has a national bioplatform with objectives in line with those of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). Post-project this website continues to work and activities are planned for 2010.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info; http://www.ibot.cas.cz/biop/ ','17/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A10_1_9','','The Czech Republic is not currently a Participant or Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (ASCR) is a public non-University scientific institutions encompassing a complex of research institutes engaged in research. Both the Institute of Botany and the Institute of Entomology, from the ASCR, are members of the ENBI Consortium. They, along with the Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University Prague, are members of Work Package 2: ENBI forums. This Work Package provides other ENBI work packages and users with a communicative space, making available the outcomes of this communication as an information resource, open to all parts interested in European activities about Biodiversity.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','17/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Continental biogeographical region, the condition of all habitats has been assessed. 3 of the 5 (60%) of heath and scrub habitats are in favourable condition. Over half the bog, mire and fen habitats (4 of the 7,  57%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. All alpine coastal, dune, sclerophyllous scrub and forest habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 8 of the 9 (89%), 73% and 71% of freshwater habitats, grasslands and rocky habitats are also in an unfavourable- bad condition respectively.The condition of all Pannonian biogeographical region habitats has been assessed. Half of all continental rocky habitats and bogs, mires and fens are reported to be in favourable condition. All coastal, dunes, heath and scrub and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 4 of the 5 (80%), 8 of the 9 (89%) and 9 of the 10 (90%) of freshwater habitats, forests and grasslands are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regions HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%111%889%00%00%9Heath & Scrub360%120%120%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands19%218%873%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens114%457%229%00%00%7Rocky habitats114%114%571%00%00%7Forests00%00%16100%00%00%16PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%120%480%00%00%5Heath & Scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands00%110%990%00%00%10Bogs, mires & fens150%00%150%00%00%2Rocky habitats350%233%117%00%00%6Forests111%00%889%00%00%9','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title andhttp://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','15/03/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','The Czech Republic has designated 1087 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 7857 km², totalling 9.96% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 41, with a total area of 7037 km², totalling 8.92% of the country’s area.','','Details on marine sites do not apply for the Czech Republic','Reference or title: Weblink: http://drusop.nature.cz','15/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','0.27% of Natura 2000 sites of the Czech Republic have a management plan completed  and 99.63% a management plan in preparation -','12/03/2010','Only a small number of the so-called \"Set of recommended actions for Natura 2000 sites\" were completed and adopted. But, in case that the Natura 2000 site is identical with the Nationally designated area, the management plan for the area can be used as well. In the Czech Republic every Nationally designated area has its own management plan approved by the nature administration body. We expect that a Set of recommended actions will be developed for each Special Area of Conservation regardless of whether it will match with a Nationally designated area. ','Reference or title:Weblink:-','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_2_3','','A territorial system of ecological stability consists of a mutually integrated complex of natural, and modified but naturally close ecosystems which maintain natural stability. It is made up of ecologically significant landscape segments, efficiently located on the basis of functional and spacial criteria.  It is a system of biocentres, biocorridors and interaction elements.   ','','A territorial system of ecological stability is based on linking protected areas; not necessarily only the Natura 2000 network. The obligations of creating the ecological stability system is required under Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape, as amended.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.ochranaprirody.cz/index.php?cmd=page&id=1757&lang=en','04/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_3','','Of the 290 regularly occurring bird species in the Czech Republic, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 6 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of the Czech Republic, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! The conservation status of birds according to the national Red List looks as follows: total 210 species, Red listed 110, Extinct 10, Near threatened 14, Least concern (not threatened) 76. See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Continental biogeographical region, 15 of the 21 (71%) amphibians and reptiles, 16 of the 42 (8%) plants and 12 of the 37 (32%) of mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition while 8 of the 13 (62%) fish, 26 of the 42 (70%) invertebrates and 14 of 42 (33%) plants are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 10 of the 37 (27%) and 8 of the 42 (19%) mammals and plants are in a favourable condition and in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, respectively.Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 3 of the 13 (23%) fish, 6 of the 25 (24%) invertebrates and 10 of the 30 (33%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 16 of the 19 (84%) amphibians and reptiles, 6 of the 13 (46%) fish and 6 of the 17 (35%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 15 of the 25 (60%) invertebrates and 8 of the 17 (47%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable- bad condition. The condition of 7 of the 30 (23%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported ContinentalAmphibians and reptiles 15%1571%523%00%00%21Fish 215%323%862%00%00%13Invertebrates717%819%2670%12%00%42Mammals1027%1232%719%822%00%37Plants 819%1638%1433%410%00%42PannonianAmphibians and reptiles 15%1684%211%00%00%19Fish 323%646%431%00%00%13Invertebrates624%416%1560%00%00%25Mammals1033%930413%723%00%30Plants 16%635%847%212%00%17','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','03/03/2010','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','The Czech Republic has the following completed species action plans: 2 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 1 for invertebrates and 4 for plants. In addition, the following species action plans are in preparation: 2 for mammals, 1 for invertebrates and 1 for plants. An indicator is built on the common bird monitoring scheme and the data have been collected for approximately 30 years. The baseline comes from the monitoring activity in 1982. The indicator is a population trend of the selected common bird species (divided into farmland species and woodland species. The Czech Republic created the Red List of Threatened Species which is regularly updated according to current circumstances. The Red List covers all vertebrate groups, as well as invertebrates and plants.','','The Red lists serve as a theoretical basis for the protection of the gene resources. The threat level of each species is based on the current best known scientific knowledge.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.nationalredlist.org/site.aspx?pageid=108&cty=Czech%20Republic','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B1_1_1','','According to the information presented by the Commission at the recent CGBN meeting in Brussels, the annual Natura 2000 costs in the Czech Republic were calculated at 84,610,335 EUR; this figure is based on data on financing Natura 2000 provided by the Czech Republic to the Commission in 2009. At this moment it is not possible to provide more detailed or updated information, including any division into expenditure for management and expenditure for restoration. The Ministry of the Environment administers and implements the Operational Programme Environment, which draws financial help from the EU sources. The Programme´s axis 6 – Improving the State of Nature and the Landscape – is particularly relevant for biodiversity conservation. The MoE also administers several important domestic subsidies programmes of relevance for biodiversity financed from the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. The State Environmental Fund also finances from the MoE budget one programme aimed at land purchasing in specially protected areas. Projects focused on nature and landscape protection can also be applied for using the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms, and Swiss Financial Assistance will be available in future.The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for drawing funds under the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, focused, among other things, on environmental protection and rural development. Within the EU Fisheries Policy, the European Fisheries Fund supports the Operating Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013, also under the Ministry of Agriculture. Measures aimed at the protection of aquatic environments include environmentally friendly pond management, focused primarily on areas of high natural value.','','The information on national programmes is taken from the Czech Republic’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the Czech Republic contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project database, augmented by information from the Czech Republic.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','18/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B1_1_4','','The Czech Republic’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR605.9m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR67m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR65m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','18/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B1_1_7','','This action is covered under Objective 7. Please see the measures of progress under A.7.1 and A.7.1.3 for your country’s international development assistance funds for projects directly benefiting biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B1_1_8','','We are not able to provide the precise information on the amount of national funding allocated to biodiversity research activities and programmes for years indicated above. It does not mean, however, that research activities and programmes do not exist; we are not able at this moment to statistically assess the funding directed only to biodiversity research. According to the Czech Statistical Office, we are only able to provide the cumulative sums for research activities within the fields of biology, agriculture and Earthscience, which does not necessarily mean that they are addressing directly issues connected to biodiversity. ','','DONE (PH)','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=611','18/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B2_4','','The Czech Republic has a new policy in development in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The Ministry of the Environment is currently reviewing its strategic document - State Policy on the Environment. This document shall be in place until 2020. A special chapter in this document is dedicated to biodiversity issues and nature and landscape protection issues. ','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','09/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B3_1_2','','One example was provided by the Czech Republic of a way in which biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships were encouraged.  A National Programme on Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was organised in 2008/2009 and included 1000 participants representing different stakeholders. These included farmers, keepers of genetic resources, universities, the Academy of Science, research institutes, breeders companies etc.','','The numbers provided (980, 11, 9) above indicate the number of participants to the National Programme on Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These do not indicate the number of actual farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships in the Member State.','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B3_1_5','','TheAct on Town and Country Planning and Building Code (No. 183/2006) includes provisions regarding the environment. Tools are used such as GIS, guidance documents and biological diversity surveys. Planning policies and strategies are not limited to central government. Authorities at the regional level have also elaborated and approved their plans for nature conservation and landscape protection. For example the Central Bohemia Region authority approved the Conception of nature and landscape protection of the Central Bohemia Region for 2006 - 2016. For town and country planning, regional and local authorities have developed and approved plans in their territorial units which integrate nature conservation and landscape protection. However, the Czech Republic does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships at national, regional or local levels.','',' No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnershipsat the local, regional and national levels.','Reference or title: Czech Republic CBD 4th National ReportsWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','18/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','15/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B3_1_6','','One example was provided by the Czech Republic of a way in which business and biodiversity partnerships were encouraged: Regular meetings of Commissions on genetic resources are held, in which all stakeholders participate. Eight participants regularly attended these meetings. ','','The number (eight) indicates participants to these meetings. It does not indicate partnerships as such. ','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B3_1_7','','Currently, no common platform has been established in order to bring together experts on biodiversity and experts from the financial sector.','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','15/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B3_1_8','','No Information was provided concerning the implementation of CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to publically funded projects.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','15/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B4_1_1','','No communication strategy related to the EU Biodiversity Action Plan has been implemented or developed. ','','Communication strategies are however developed and updated annually within the Ministry of the Environment and correspond to actual national or international activities, like e.g. the International Year of Biodiversity.','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','15/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of the Czech Republic has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by the Czech Republic between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','18/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','15/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','C1_2','','The Czech Republic currently uses 24 of the 26 SEBI indicators, with the two remaining indicators (Marine Trophic Index of European Seas and Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) not being applicable to the country. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009, and on additional information provided by the Czech Republic. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009, augmented by information from the Czech Republic.                                                                                                            Weblink','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','C1_2_1','','The Czech Republic currently uses 24 of the 26 SEBI indicators, with the two remaining indicators (Marine Trophic Index of European Seas and Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) not being applicable to the country.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and on additional information provided by the Czech Republic.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; additional information from the Czech RepublicWeblink:','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A1','C1_3_1','','There is a common monitoring scheme for all habitats. For species, there is a Czech Birds Directive monitoring scheme, and all species of the annexes of the Habitats Directive are also covered by specific monitoring schemes.','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:www.biomonitoring.cz','8/3/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Additional GAEC standards that have been introduced of relevance to biodiversity control certain invasive species (Impatiens glandulifera, Heracleum mantegazzianum) and prohibit stubble burning. In addition, other GAEC measures refer to the application of solid farm fertiliser or solid organic fertilisers, and the use of plant species as under-sow. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://eagri.cz/public/eagri/zivotni-prostredi/ochrana-pudy/organicka-hmota-v-pude/gaec/navrh-podminek-dobreho-zemedelskeho-a.html ','10/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in the Czech Republic total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2815.51 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 3614.07 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1554.16 million EUR, and 1945.74 million EUR including co-financing. Axis 2 equated to 55.2 and 53.84 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in the Czech Republic was 841.01 million EUR (1052.91 with co-financing) and amounted to 29.87 per cent of the EAFRD (29.13 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 47.69 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.69 per cent of EAFRD) and 59.71 million EUR of public expenditure (1.65 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 9.79 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.35 per cent of EAFRD) and 12.26 million EUR of public expenditure (0.34 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 10.59 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.38 per cent of EAFRD) and 13.26 million EUR of public expenditure (0.37 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.5820.727Agri-environment payments (214)111.231139.041Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy has been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. Projects on the in situ conservation of crop varieties (1 launched, 2 just starting and 2 being prepared; with a total estimated budget of 24,000 Euro). The main aims of the projects are to conserve and monitor landraces (ecotypes, populations) in their original habitats and allow their dynamic conservation. Of most importance is the ongoing project on in situ conservation of selected fruit trees (ca 790 fruit trees- landraces of 6  species) maintained in 12 locations in the Czech Republic. Valuable landraces typical for particular regions are included. In situ conservation is proposed especially in locations within protected areas and /or on municipal or state-owned land. Contractual collaboration with nature protection authorities has been established. Another two smaller locations were proposed for in situ conservation of some endangered herb species and two locations are monitored with the aim of preparing in situ projects.15-20 projects are annually implemented on the in situ conservation of livestock breeds and races (totalling some 500,000 – 700,000 Euro).','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1)-(4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. No information on payments for genetic conservation measures was available for Hungary.','-','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','16/013/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed that specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used. Below an overview of the legislative requirements for afforestation and deforestation operations impacting biodiversity is provided.Afforestation: Operations are implemented in accordance with national legislation. Foreseen measures mainly support biodiversity indirectly, and assessment of biological diversity is not the primary focus of most of these regulations. Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape, as amended, states that binding opinion of the relevant nature conservancy authority is required for the approval of forest management plans and forest management guidelines, for afforestation of land exceeding 0.5 ha, for building of forest roads and forest drainage systems. In addition, the nature conservancy authority may order compensatory planting of trees. Act No. 289/1995 Coll., on Forests, as amended, states that seeds or transplants of forest tree species from the same or corresponding natural forest area and from the corresponding altitude must be used for afforestation activities. Act No. 149/2003 Coll., on Trade in the Reproductive Material of Forest Woody Plants sets out the conditions under which the reproductive material of forest woody plants may be introduced for forest regeneration and reforestation, for maintaining and enhancing the biological diversity, including the genetic diversity of trees, and for sustainable cultivation of forests. Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on EIA, as amended explicitly requires EIA assessment for afforestation activities larger than 25 ha. This act comprises the impacts on the environment, on fauna and flora, ecological systems, the soil, the geological environment, water, air, climate and landscape, natural resources, and on the mutual interactions between them.Deforestation:Deforestation operations must also be provided in accordance with several legislative acts. Previously mentioned Act No. 114/1992 Coll. applies also to deforestation activities - binding opinion of the relevant nature conservancy authority is required for the approval of forest management plans and guidelines, for deforestation of land exceeding 0.5 ha, for building of forest roads and for forest drainage systems. It also stipulates permitting procedure and conditions for logging activities concerning non-forest land - e.g. standalone trees, alleys, trees in urban areas, etc. Act No. 289/1995 Coll. states that logging activities must be done in accordance with the forest management plans and guidelines and in a way that reduce the damage to the stand to a minimum. Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on EIA, as amended explicitly requires EIA assessment for deforestation activities larger than 5 ha. This act comprises the impacts on the environment, on fauna and flora, ecological systems, the soil, the geological environment, water, air, climate and landscape, natural resources, and on the mutual interactions between them.     ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.mzp.cz ','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 the Czech Republic had a total certified forest area of 1.94 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.65 million hectares, which corresponds to approximately 73 per cent of the total forest area. 53,282 hectares (approximately two per cent of the total forest area) were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 1.88 million hectares in the Czech Republic were certified (approximately 71 per cent of the total forest area). According to reporting my the Member Stat, no forest area was certified under other forest certification schemes in 2010. ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','15/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in the Czech Republic amounted to 1.04 million ha, representing a share of 21.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_4','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Additional GAEC standards that have been introduced of relevance to biodiversity control certain invasive species (Impatiens glandulifera, Heracleum mantegazzianum) and prohibit stubble burning. In addition, other GAEC measures refer to the application of solid farm fertiliser or solid organic fertilisers, and the use of plant species as under-sow. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://eagri.cz/public/eagri/zivotni-prostredi/ochrana-pudy/organicka-hmota-v-pude/gaec/navrh-podminek-dobreho-zemedelskeho-a.html ','10/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010',NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Advisory services to farmers are carried out especially during various agricultural exhibitions and fairs, (e.g. TECHAGRO in Brno or Země Živitelka in České Budějovice). Usually, issues related to the biodiversity protection and conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture are presented. Various genetic resources that are the subject of conservation efforts are exhibited and relevant information on importance of genetic resources for crop and animal breeding and plant protection is presented. As far as local farmers are concerned, workshops on biodiversity have been organized as part of the Cross Compliance requirements.','15/10/2010','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_8','','National monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	Tree species composition.In addition the Czech Republic is able to evaluate most of the SEBI2010 indicators the majority of which are directly or indirectly related to biodiversity. As well as the populations of farmland birds and tree species composition in forests, indicators can be evaluated for forest bird species, common birds, species of European interest, livestock genetic diversity, national designated protected areas, fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas, and other themes.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, 4th National Report of the Czech Republic to the CBD Secretariat (chapter 1.4 - Biodiversity and agriculture)Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04 ','15/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 42 million € has been added to the Czech national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, the Czech Republic provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: no link','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, currently neither a monitoring programme for soil biodiversity exists at the national level, nor projects identifying potential indicators for soil biodiversity have been undertaken. However, many local scale research projects have been carried out to map the state of soil biodiversity, for example by the Institute of Soil Biology, which operates under Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture have also been subsidising different research projects on soil biological diversity. For detailed information on the projects see links below.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.upb.cas.cz. http://aplikace.isvav.cvut.cz/ ','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the 14 occurrences of Pannonian and continental freshwater habitats in the Czech Republic have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data. ','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for freshwater habitats.ALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences14000100%0%0%0%14            Pannonian Number OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U11  U24       Continental Number OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9000100%0%0%0%U11   U28       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in the Czech Republic, oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, going from 3.38 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.18 mg O3/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. No information on ammonium concentrations was available.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 3.32 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.04 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were clearly above the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 14.8 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 15.2 mg NO3/l in 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005; values were 0.112 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.087 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly lower than the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','No additional changes and information needed.','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 the Czech Republic had a total number of 97 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 51.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the Czech Republic has developed all four assessment methods for rivers and lakes, including phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish fauna.According to reporting by the Member State, as of 31 March 2010, for rivers no assessment method on phytoplankton was developed or no information was available. As regards macrophytes and phytobenthos methods still were under development or information was incomplete. For lakes no biological assessment methods were developed or no information was available.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','01/04/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','In 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by the Czech Republic under the Water Framework Directive.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2008 the Czech Republic had a total number of 1803 IPPC installations and issued 1294 permits. 35 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/cz/eu/ippc/envswehtg/Q2.1-_ippc-q2-template_CZ.xls/manage_document  ','12/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_4_2','','According to the Czech Republic’s national reporting under the NEC Directive, in 2008 relevant pollutant emissions (ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds) were already below NECD ceilings. Air pollution went through a phase of moderate decline from 2007 to 2008. Emission model projections based on existing measures indicate that national emission ceiling targets will be met in the Czech Republic for all air pollutants in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','18/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in the Czech Republic the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 28 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 27,626 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 22 and 20 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 5 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 99 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, the Czech Republic’s gross nitrogen balance was 70 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 9 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, the Czech Republic’s national farmland bird indicator has decreased. In 2006 the indicator was at 68.1 per cent, a 31.9 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 20 species were assessed.Further information on trends of farmland bird species can be found in the 4th National Report of the Czech Republic to the CBD Secretariat submitted in May 2009 (figure 20, page 20)','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04 ','15/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in the Czech Republic generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitat with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the continental heath and scrub habitats, where 60 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 40 per cent is unfavourable). All of the Pannonian heath and scrub habitat in the Czech Republic has an unfavourable conservation status. The highest percentages of unfavourable conservation status are found in the Pannonian and continental grassland habitats of the Czech Republic (100 and 91 per cent respectively). The remaining 9 per cent of continental grassland habitats in the Czech Republic have a favourable conservation status. A high percentage of the Pannonian and continental forest habitats of the Czech Republic have an unfavourable conservation status (89 and 100 per cent respectively). The remaining 11 per cent of the Pannonian forest habitats have a favourable conservation status. The vast majority of the continental peat land habitats (86 per cent) in the Czech Republic have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining continental peat land habitat is favourable. 50 per cent of the Pannonian peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 50 per cent is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage212010095%5%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U11  U29       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage111010091%9%0%0%U12   U28       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage252410096%4%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9810089%11%0%0%U10  U28       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1616000100%0%0%0%U10   U216       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7430057%43%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U11   U21       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9720078%22%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U10  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U14   U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A3','A3_4','','The Czech Republic’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes some environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 2 is €15,902,583 and among other measures includes specific environmentally friendly activities such as protecting and improving the natural environment in relation to aquaculture. Axis 3 (€18,432,539) supports the protection of aquatic organisms alongside other measures. There are no activities or funding under Axis 1 and Axis 4 as the Czech Republic has only an inland fishery and no marine fishery (being land-locked). ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm  http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_13_en.htm ','10/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A3','A3_5_2','','The National Strategic Plan for Fisheries (2007-2013), which sets out priorities for the Czech Republic freshwater fisheries, includes the protection and development of aquatic animals and plants. This priority encompasses: the restoration of inland water bodies including places for spawning; construction of fish passages for free migration; and modernization and enlargement of hatcheries which enable appropriate restocking of watercourses. One of the overarching aims of the Operational Programme (2007-2013) is to improve the status of water organisms through measures of common public interest, primarily through creation of new reproduction areas in the existing river systems and construction of fish passages. Another activity includes the introduction of eels into the river systems to enhance existing species community. Specifically, the objective is to implement at least 5 projects for creating spawning areas, and at least 5 projects for construction of fish passages with the aim to achieve free migration corridors for species from water and water related ecosystems. In addition: a species survival/recovery programme is in place for river mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera); there is an ongoing project for reintroduction of salmon (Salmo salar) called LOSOS 2000; and a proposal for a framework for the restoration of free migratory passages within the riverine environment. Lastly there are activities to keep selected populations of threatened species as a gene bank for future restorations. ','','-','Weblink: http://www.vurh.jcu.cz/en','16/03/2010','','','28/4/2010','');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Czech Republic','A3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','A4','A4_3','','The ecological networks constitute a system called \"territorial systems of ecological stability\" which is basically embedded in two acts of the Czech legislation framework:- in Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Conservation of Nature and Landscape, as amended, which employs several instruments for the general territorial protection, i.e. territorial systems of ecological stability, important landscape elements, landscape character, nature parks, and temporarily protected areas. The competent spatial planning authorities and nature conservancy authorities are obliged by law to designate the territorial systems of ecological stability (differentiated to local, regional and supra-regional biocentres and biocorridors) in cooperation with water management, agricultural and forestry authorities. These territorial systems are also being regularly assessed by the authorities that designated them. Moreover, this act stipulates in paragraph 2 that nature and landscape protection shall be, among other measures, ensured by the protection and creating of these territorial system of ecological stability.- in Act No. 183/2006 Coll., on Town and Country Planning and the Czech Building Code also stipulates that territorial systems of ecological stability are part of the town and regional plans.The above mentioned systems are being considered during various decision making processes and before the particular development project can be implemented.','','-','Reference to Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Conservation of Nature and Landscape: http://portal.gov.cz/wps/portal/_s.155/701?number1=114%2F1992&number2=&name=&text= Reference to Act No. 183/2006 Coll., on Town and Country Planning:http://portal.gov.cz/wps/portal/_s.155/701?number1=183%2F2006&number2=&name=&text=','16/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A4','A4_4_1','','In Czech Republic, the CBD Guidelines implementation process is in the initial phase and covers mainly areas of the national parks (its main steps and principles are reflected in recently prepared National Parks Development Strategy), besides the CBD Guidelines were taken into account when preparing the State Conception of Tourism Policy, State Environmental Policy, State Program of the Nature and Landscape Conservation, on the National Biodiversity Strategy of the Czech Republic and are the basis for preparing a large project for the creation of the sustainable tourism certification system (Ministry for Regional Development in the cooperation with Ministry of the Environment). The Czech Agency for Nature and Landscape Conservation is also working with guidelines principles in the frame of its working group for Recreational, Sportive and Touristic Activities in Protected Areas when developing methodologies and recommendations for the Protected Areas Authorities.The main goals of the State environmental Policy of the Czech Republic for the Years 2004 - 2010 are :1) to monitor tourism development effects using indicators of its impacts on the environment and local development;2) to promote the development of sound, environmentally acceptable forms of tourism and/or attempt to increase the share of this type of tourism in the total volume of tourism;3) to create a network of regional centres of environmentally sound tourism coordinated by a national centre for the purpose of greening regional tourism, methodical and practical support;4) to promote the creation of a National System of Certification of Environmentally Sound Tourism Services (accommodation and catering services, tour operators and entire destinations);5) in specially protected areas, to support the implementation of the principles of the “European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas” and take into consideration the introduction of the NATURA 2000 network;6) to extend tourism and hiking to include less attractive areas using European structural funds;7) to introduce environmental certification and promotion of tourist destinations that respect the principles of protection of the living environment;8) to concider landscape management through the development of rural tourism, eco-tourism and eco-agro-tourism;9) to promote the development of environmentally sound transport systems in all tourism areas, support public mass transport, especially in Protected Landscape Areas, National Parks and historical cities;10) to provide conditions for pedestrian or cyclist accessibility of the landscape through reconstruction and establishing of field and forest roads in connection with land-use planning.The CBD Guidelines were verified in the frame the GEF project in the area of the Biosphere Reserve Sumava Mountains. The title of this 3-years (2005 - 2008) project was \"Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe\" and the main output was the \"Strategy of sound tourism development\" in Sumava region.All the principles of the CBD Guidelines were used here and this project serves as a model for the rest of the biosphere reserves (and rest of area) of the Czech Republic. The Guidelines principles are promoted also through the National Geoparks (1 European Geopark UNESCO in Bohemian Paradise, 2 others in  process of preparation).','','','Reference to the State Environmental Policy: http://www.mzp.cz/en/sep_czReference to the GEF project in Sumava:http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/su_activities/su03.htm ','16/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Czech direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 737.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).Moreover the Czech Republic was using the resources from these financial sources for biodiversity also in the period 2004-2006. This was done through the Operational Programme Infrastructure (OPI) being at that time one operational programme for both transport and environment sectors in the Czech Republic. Two axis of OPI were designed to support measures for biodiversity conservation - 3.1.A (river revitalisation measures, restoration of water spring areas, environmental renovation of ponds and polders) and 3.1.B (removal of barriers for migrating animal species in water courses) with the total spending of some EUR 16,242,760 (total public sources) froe which EUR 12,994,208 were allocated from ERDF.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','16/03/2010','','','04/01/2010','30/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The Ministry of Environment Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Nature and the Landscape Protection (as amended) in the Czech Republic addresses invasive alien species (IAS) in general with a focus on introduction. There is also specific legislation that addresses the issues of introduction, import and export and control and eradication of IAS. The deliberate introduction of alien species into the Czech Republic is prohibited by the Ministry of Environment Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Nature and the Landscape Protection (as amended) unless a permit has been obtained from the nature protection authority. In protected areas, deliberate introduction of alien species is prohibited (with some forestry exceptions). The import and introduction of non-native animal species is covered by the Game Management Act No. 449/2001 of 27 November 2001. Under the Act, some alien species have to be hunted by game managers. The import of alien plant species is covered by the Phytosanitary Act (No. 326/2004) which focuses on agricultural weeds and pests. Possession and trade of IAS is not addressed by legislation in the Czech Republic.According to reporting by the Member States, as for the aquatic species, according to the Act No. 99/2004 Coll. on Fisheries, fish and aquatic organism that have occurred less than three subsequent generations in a particular fishing ground are considered as non-native. Thus, such species / taxa may be introduced only with a permit of the Nature Conservancy authority. Furthermore, the Act No. 254/2001 Coll. on Water prohibits releasing non-indigenous, genetically improper or unverified populations of fish and other aquatic fauna into water courses and water reservoirs without an approval of the respective water authority. As for the aquatic species, according to the Act No. 99/2004 Coll. on Fisheries, fish and aquatic organism that have occurred less than three subsequent generations in a particular fishing ground are considered as non-native. Thus, such species / taxa may be introduced only with a permit of the Nature Conservancy authority. Furthermore, the Act No. 254/2001 Coll. on Water prohibits releasing non-indigenous, genetically improper or unverified populations of fish and other aquatic fauna into water courses and water reservoirs without an approval of the respective water authority. In terms of forestry, according to the Act No. 289/1995 Coll. on Forests, forest owners are obliged to take measures to prevent damage to forests caused by any harmful agent. This includes obligations to identify, monitor and report the occurrence of harm / harmful agent / damage. In general, IAS can be considered to also fall under this legislation.Furthermore, Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on the Environment introduces penalties for parties causing damage to the environment. The Act defines ecological damage as “a loss or impairment of the natural functions of ecosystems, caused by damaging their components or disturbing their natural relations and processes as a result of a human activity”. According to the Member State’s this Act could also be used to address environmental damage caused by unapproved intentional imports and/or regulation of non-native species.Possession and trade of IAS is not addressed by legislation in the Czech Republic.Finally, according to the Member State the national IAS database is envisaged to be finalised by 2011. This database will be based on the IAS National Strategy, which is also planned to be finished by 2011.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','17/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 19 are present in Czech Republic. This equates to between 0.10 to 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','17/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_1_2','','The Czech Republic has no national plan or strategy specifically in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), but IAS are addressed in the National Biodiversity Strategy albeit not in the biodiversity action plan. The Czech Republic has no national plan or strategy specifically in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), but IAS are addressed in the National Biodiversity Strategy albeit not in the biodiversity action plan. However, the updated version of the State Programme of Nature and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic was published on 30 November 2009. According to the Member States, this Programme has the same functions as the national biodiversity action plan, The Programme outlines the trends in the status of and threats to Czech nature and landscapes (e.g. biodiversity), setting out concrete targets, required measures and deadlines for conservation. One part of the Programme is specifically targeted to species protection, e.g. dealing with issues related to invasive alien species. The relevant objectives include: By the end of 2011 and from 2011 onwards: establish an enabling framework (e.g. risk assessment) to 1) prevent the release and further spread of IAS and 2) allow for a rapid action and long-term management of IAS. It is foreseen that any possible legislative changes at the national level are to follow / seek synergies with the EU level developments (Measure D8).By the end of 2011: create a national list of IAS and/or priority areas to which regulative measures should be specifically targeted at (Measure D9). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','17/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_1_3','','The Czech Republic has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','17/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, up until now, the Czech Republic has no comprehensive early warning and information system for IAS at national level.  The list of IAS has been developed, but is currently operational only for the phytosanitary sector.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:- ','17/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A5','A5_2_2','','The Czech Republic has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. There are no specific procedures in place with regards to the cultivation of genetically modifed crops for the different regions within the Czech Republic. The titles and references of the co-existence legislation in the Czech Republic are: Act No. 441/2005 Coll. on Agriculture (amended Act No. 252/1997 Coll. on Agriculture) and; Decree on more detailed requirements for cultivation of GM variety.  (Decree 89/2006, amended on 16 February 2010 under the reference of 58/2010 Coll). Accordint to the Member State, there are no bans on GMO cultivation at national level in the Czech Republic. ','','  According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','10/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in May 2009. The “National Biodiversity Strategy of the Czech Republic” was published in 2005.The Czech Republic had paid their contributions to the CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','17/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any aid budget for the Czech Republic.','No clarification on the information presented above','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Czech Republic','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any aid budget for the Czech Republic.','In the period of 2006-2008, Ministry of the Environment financed 2 bilateral development projects focused on biodiversity protection: - Biodiversity Protection of the Southern Altai in the Context of Contemporary Environmental Transformations and Socio-Economic Development in Kazakhstan (2005-2007)- Support to Natural Reserves and National Parks in Senegal (2007-2009)Therefore, quantification of annual spending on biodiversity-related bilateral aid in the table is not correct. Total sum that Ministry of Environment has provided for biodiversity projects was in the particular years following: 115 080 € in the year 2006, 166 480 € in the year 2007 and 100 000 € in the year 2008.','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','18/03/2010','','','06/01/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A7','A7_1_4','','The Czech Republic contributed EUR5.80 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.24% of the total replenishment. The Czech Republic contributed EUR5.51 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.26 % of the total replenishment.','The figures presented Czech Republic anticipates to contribute to 5th GEF Replenishment about 116,9 mil. CZK (=4,6 mil. Eur), whereby it forms 0,30% of the total replenishment. Please note that the final decision on the exact national financial contribution will yet be made at the GEF Assembly in May 2010 thus the information given above has a preliminary character only. ','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Czech Republic','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A7','A7_2_2','','No additional clarification on the information presented above.','','The implementation of SEA and EIA assessments is ensured by Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended. Several steps in the process of the EIA assessment takes place before the final decision takes place, and thus the thorough verification of the biodiversity status is ensured. If the investor’s intention according to Annex 1 of this Act lays in or is in the neighbourhood of the Natura 2000 site, the specific Natura 2000 assessment of influence of this intention on species and habitats is being carried out according to Article 45 i) of Act 114/1992 Coll. and is an important part of the EIA/SEA. ','Reference or title: Weblink:www.mzp.cz ','17/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','A8','A8_1','','The Czech Republic provided EUR10,000 for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing in 2008. While there is no legislation specifically implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing and no specific public awareness activities relating to the Bonn Guidelines have been undertaken, the Czech Republic is a Party to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and its ABS principles are embedded in the national legislation. Three seminars were held specifically on the issue of the International Treaty’s Standard Material Transfer Agreement with the various stakeholders.  The majority of forests in the Czech Republic are certified under the PEFC certification system. In addition, some forests are also certified under the FSC system. Therefore, the majority of forests are managed in a sustainable way and therefore the majority of wood products are derived, at the national level, from sustainable forest sources. Non-EU countries (e.g. Russia, Canada, USA and others) contributed very marginally to the import figures.The Czech Republic has issued a large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008 and many items were seized. There is no information on import, export and re-export applications denied. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','17/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The Czech Republic is a Party to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and its ABS principles are embedded in the national legislation - mainly Act No. 148/2003 Coll. on Conservation of plant and microorganism genetic resources for agriculture. For more information, please consult the 4th National Report of the Czech Republic to the CBD Secretariat.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04','17/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','The Czech Republic provided financial resources of the amount of EUR10,000 to the CBD Secretariat for ABS-related issues in October 2008.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','17/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is implemented through national legislation and public awareness of it is being raised. Three seminars were held specifically on the issue of SMTA with the various stakeholders.  ','-','','-','17/03/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A8','A8_1_4','','As indicated in other part of this questionnaire, the majority of forests in the Czech Republic are certified under the PEFC certification system. In addition, some forests are also certified under the FSC system. Therefore, the majority of forests are managed in a sustainable way and therefore the majority of wood products are derived, at the national level, from sustainable forest sources. According to the 2006 National report on the State of the forest management in the Czech Republic, the total import of roundwood was 1,366,000 m³ from which 1,342,000 m³ (88 %) were imported from EU countries. Non-EU countries (e.g. Russia, Canada, USA and others) contributed very marginally to the import figures.In 2007, 1,267,000 m³ were imported from which 1,090,000 m³ (86 %) came from EU countries. In 2008, 1,122,000 m³ were imported from which 1,073,000 m³ (96 %)  came from EU countries. Even though we cannot present exactly the precise percentage, we are convinced that the overall majority of wood products on the market in our country were derived from sustainable sources.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.uhul.cz/zelenazprava/ ','17/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 971, 315 and 24, respectively. An aggregated number of denied import, export or re-export applications was 19. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 1057 for 2007 and 1588 for 2008. The most significant quantity of specimens confiscated include 171 dead mammals in 2007, 294 and 393 dead invertebrates in 2007 and 2008, respectively and 1044 live reptiles in 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to staff and stakeholders involved with CITES implementation. The Czech Republic has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. The Czech Republic paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','01/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','A9','','','In December 2009, the Government of the Czech Republic adopted the document \"Proposed thesis for the adaptation to climate change in the Czech Republic\". Based on this document the full version of Adaptation strategy to climate changes has been under development with participation of all relevant sectors with the aim of finalising this strategy till 31.12.2010.','','','Unfortunately, this thesis is not publicly available yet; MoE plans to finish the strategy by the end of this year.','17/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_3_2','','-','','Some clarifications need to be added on the issue of key mechanisms in implementing sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids in Czech Republic. The recently amended Act No. 86/2002 on the Protection of Air basically transposes two European directives - 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC into the Czech legislation framework, including sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids. However, the regulation setting up concrete measures, controlling and certification mechanisms has been still under development, mainly because the European Commission has not yet issued the detailed conditions on implementation of these criteria. The national regulation scheme needs to be based on the full framework of the legislation at the European level.','Act No. 86/2002 on the Protection of Air:http://portal.gov.cz/wps/portal/_s.155/701?number1=86%2F2002&number2=&name=&text=','17/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_4_1','','In December 2009, the Government of the Czech Republic adopted the document \"Proposed thesis for the adaptation to climate change in the Czech Republic\". Based on this document the full version of Adaptation strategy to climate changes has been under development with participation of all relevant sectors with the aim of finalising this strategy till 31.12.2010.',NULL,NULL,'Unfortunately, this thesis is not publicly available yet; MoE plans to finish the strategy by the end of this year.','17/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'30/04/2010',NULL),
	('Czech Republic','A9','A9_4_3','','A number of research projects financed through the Departmental Research Programme of the Czech Ministry of Environment are under way to identify habitats and species at risk from climate change and to indicate suitable adaptation measures.They are for example: Specification of existing estimates of climate change impacts in hydrology, water management, agriculture and forestry sectors and proposals for adaptation options; The impact of forest management type on biodiversity of forest ecosystems in the context of global climate change; The dynamics of spreading of invasive plant species in the Czech Republic taking into account different scenarios of global climate change; Specification of current estimations of impacts of climate change in the sectors of water management, agriculture and forestry management, and adaptation measures proposals; and Long-term changes in abundance and distribution of waterfowls in the Czech Republic in relation to climate and environmental change.','','-','These studies are not finalized and published yet. Unfortunately we cannot provide the links at this moment.','17/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have yet been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, the Forest and Nature Agency has, in recent years, acquired experience in economic partnerships with foundations, waterworks and municipalities in co-financing nature-restoration, afforestation and recreational use of the country side. Several agreements have been made with waterworks and municipalities for co-financing and buying agricultural land resulting in the establishment more than 10.000 hectares of new state forest. Several financial foundations have co-financed nature-restoration and related projects in co-operation with the Agency e.g. Vilsted Lake in Northern Jutland, Vestvolden close to Copenhagen, Visitors centre at Moen, Nygaard lake in North Zealand and Svanninge Hill on FunenFurthermore, a Nordic Business and Biodiversity initiative (including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) will be initiated in 2010 during the Danish Presidency for the Nordic Council of Ministers. ','','','','19/02/2010','','','04/05/10',''),
	('Denmark','A1','A10_1','','Denmark does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. However, biodiversity occupies a marginal position the following research programmes, in the sense that the programmes are not specifically targeting international challenges and obligations regarding biodiversity in Habitats, Birds, Water Frame and Groundwater directives as well as the 2010-target of halting the loss of biodiversity: National Strategic Research Programme, Pesticide Research programme, Organic Farming Research Programme, Wildlife Research Programme. The Danish Council for Strategic Research encompasses environmental technology and hence addresses biodiversity. The Danish Council for Independent Research addresses all aspects of natural sciences including biodiversity. ','','','The Danish Council for Strategic Research: http://en.fi.dk/councils-commissions/the-danish-council-for-strategic-research; The Danish Council for Independent Research: http://en.fi.dk/councils-commissions/the-danish-council-for-independent-research; National Strategic Research Program: http://www.fi.dk; Pesticide Research Program: http://www.mst.dk; Organic Farming Research Program: http://www.icrofs.dk; Wildlife Research Program: http://www.sns.dk ','22/02/10','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','A10_1_2','','Denmark does not currently have any plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) at either a national or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. ','','','','11-02-2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','A10_1_8','','Denmark has national biodiversity platform. The Ministry of Environment has a contract with the Danish Research Institute (DMU) that is renewed every year. In between, several meetings are held with different units of the DMU and the Ministry of the Environment. ','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info DMU: http://www.dmu.dk/','25/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','A10_1_9','','Denmark has been a Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) voting Participant since January 2001. The Danish Biodiversity Information Facility (DanBIF) is Denmark’s national node for GBIF. DanBIF carries out the work on making Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic biodiversity data and resources accessible. DanBIF is a also a communication forum for a Danish Network of biodiversity researchers.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen is a member of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). They are a lead contractor of Work Package 13 (Non European Data Globally Available) and Contributors to Work Packages 4 (IPR, Copyrights & Financial issues),10 (Generic analysis tools and data mining) and 12 (Info Services on European Data).','','According to the DK FP7 Danish researchers have received 7.93 %  financing for biodiversity  under the programme for environment. There is no relevant Danish contribution from the research infrastructure ESFRI etc.','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','23/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, all (3 of 3) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 6 of the 7 (86%) forest habitats are in favourable condition. 67% or more of freshwater (5 of the 7), heath and scrub (2 of 2), grasslands (3 of the 4), and bog, mire and fen (4 of the 6) habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of 1 (100%) sclerophyllous scrub and 4 of the 8 (50%) coastal habitats is unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, the condition of all coastal habitats and rocky habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad and unknown respectively.In the Continental biogeographical region, 6 of the 9 (67%) forest habitats are in favourable condition. 12 of 2 (100%), 6 of the 7 (86%) and 4 of the 5 (80%) heath and scrub habitats, bogs, mires and fen habitats and grassland habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. The condition of all sclerophyllous scrub and rocky habitats is unknown.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticCoastal habitats00%00%3100%00%00%3AtlanticCoastal habitats113%00%338%450%00%8Dunes habitats217%433%325%325%00%12Freshwater habitats00%114%571%114%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands00%00%375%125%00%4Bogs, mires & fens00%117%467%117%00%6Forests686%00%00%114%00%7Marine Baltic Coastal habitats00%00%4100%00%00%4Rocky habitats00%00%00%1100%00%1ContinentalCoastal habitats111%111%333%444%00%9Dunes habitats217%217%542%325%00%12Freshwater habitats00%114%571%114%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands00%00%480%120%00%5Bogs, mires & fens00%00%686%114%00%7Rocky habitats00%00%00%1100%00%1Forests667%111%111%111%00%9','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Denmark has designated 261 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 19,300 km², totalling 12.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 118 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 7959 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 113, with a total area of 14,709 km², totalling 5.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 59, with a marine area of 12.173 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','17/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Development of management plans for each of the 246 Danish Natura 2000 sites is in progress. The legally binding plans are published in a hearing in January 2010.   ','','Eight marine Natura 2000 sites submitted to the Commission in 2009 have status as pSCI and a management plan for these sites will be developed.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.blst.dk/Vandognatur/','17/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_2_3','','Ecological corridors are considered in the spatial planning by the municipalities, see also 4.3 on the basis of guidelines from the Ministry of Environment','','',':http://www2.sns.dk/udgivelser/2006/87-7279-752-5/pdf/87-7279-752-5.pdf','02/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_3','','Of the 278 regularly occurring bird species in Denmark, 8 are globally Near-threatened and 2 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Denmark, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! The national Danish red list for birds comprises 31.6% of the 209 breeding species.See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) mammals are reported to be in a favourable and an unfavourable-bad condition, respectively. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates, 8 of the 13 (62%) mammals and 3 of the 11 (27%) plants were reported to be in a favourable condition. 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates and 3 of the 11 (27%) plants are in are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of the 7 (43%) amphibians and reptiles and 2 of the 4 (50%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 2 of the 7 (29%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 8 (50%) fish and 4 of the 13 (31%) mammals is unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) mammals are in a favourable condition while 2 of the 3 (67%) are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. Of the species in the Continental biogeographical region, 10 of the 18 (56%) mammals are in a favourable condition and so are 25% of amphibians and reptiles (3 of the 12), fish (2 of the 8) and plants (3 of the 12). 5 of the 12 (42%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 12 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 7 of the 13 (54%) invertebrates and 4 of the 12 (33%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 4 of the 8 (50%) fish and 5 of the 18 (28%) mammals is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern , Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html; http://www.dmu.dk/Dyr_planter/redlistFrame/Artsgrupper/ ','24/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','National action or management plans are under implementation or being prepared for: Birds: Corncrake, Red Kite, Ruff, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit; Mammals: Otter, Eurasian Beaver, Dormouse, Grey Seal, Harbour Seal, Common Porpoise, and in preparation are Northern Birch Mouse, European Bison, and 17 species of bats; Fish: Houting and Salmon; Invertebrates: Euphydryas aurinia (a butterfly species); Plants: Saxifraga hirsute. Besides species-specific action plans 246 Natura-2000 plans provide concrete actions for species covered by the Habitats and Birds Directives. Indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes include, among others, indices on farmland birds, woodland birds, and other common birds. Denmark has a red list for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.dmu.dk/Dyr_planter/redlistFrame/Artsgrupper/ ESBEN TINDMore information:http://www.dmu.dk/International/Monitoring/NOVANA/http://www2.blst.dk/download/blst/NOVANA2007_6maj.pdf ','02/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','B1_1_1','','Since 1989 the Danish Parliament has through the yearly Fiscal Act provided financial resources for a fund for Nature Management operated by the Danish Forest and Nature Agency of the Ministry of Environment. In addition funds are allocated each year to the counties for use at regional level for the same purposes excl. afforestation. The state funds for Nature Management - Natura 2000 are as follows:  2004:  DKK 96,1 mill – 2005: DKK 62,7 mio – 2006: DKK 88,8 mio – 2007: 27,1 mio – 2008: awaiting final account – 2009: awaiting final account  Funding from Hunting license is as follows: 2006= 8.4 mio. DKK; 2007= 12.4 mio. DKK; 2008= 13.7 mio. DKK; 2009= 12.2 mio. DKK.Due to restructured Danish public administration the municipalities now have much broader responsibilities with regard to nature and biodiversity. The amounts of public funds for biodiversity financing at municipality level is unknown.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Denmark spent up to EUR5,637,649 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Denmark spent up to EUR3,158,665 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Denmark’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009.The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 sites refers to Denmark’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated.  The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','25/02/2010 ','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','B1_1_4','','While there is no allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013, Denmark’s allocation for category 55 (protection of natural assets) is EUR6.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) also EUR6.1m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/02/2010','','','06/10/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','B1_1_8','','There is no specific Danish research programme dedicated to biodiversity.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B2_4','','In June2009, the Danish government and Danish People’s Party agreed a long-term plan for both the environment and nature policy and for the agricultural industry growth conditions—called ‘Green Growth’. This plan will ensure that a high level of environmental, natural and climate protection go hand-in-hand with modern and competitive agricultural production. The Green Growth agreement includes several actions in accordance with the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Green Growth: http://www.fvm.dk/Fakta_om_Grøn_Vækst.aspx?ID=41803 ; http://www.fvm.dk/Groen_Vaekst.aspx?ID=41799 ','25/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','B3_1_2','','Twenty one farming and biodiversity partnerships exist consisting of grazing cooperatives between farmers, established with support under the Danish RDP2007-13. These may include partnerships with and co-financing from the relevant municipality. Denmark facilitated the creation of a web-site for national coordination of grazing animals to grasslands in need of grazing through work with a local farming association, Vesthimmerlands Landboforening, Local green partnerships existed between 2007-2009 as a partnership between the Ministry of the Environment, the association of the communities and two NGOs the Outdoor Council and the Danish Nature Protection Association. During this period, 133 forestry and biodiversity projects were initiated with 50 million Danish kroner of funding. The projects were spread in 65 out of the 99 Danish communities. The purpose of the projects was improving nature, open air activities and nature interpretation.   New funding from the Ministry of the Environment of 5 million Danish kroner year from 2010-2015 will secure that this local partnerships will continue in the years to come.','','','http://www.graesning.dk/','1) 01/02/20102) 25/02/2010','','','03/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B3_1_5','','Regular meetings are held between Ministries concerning biodiversity objectives. Inter-ministerial working groups are established ad-hoc to address challenges for biodiversity and farming/forestry at the local, regional and national levels.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.graesning.dk/',' 16/02/2010 ','','','03/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have yet been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, the Forest and Nature Agency has, in recent years, acquired experience in economic partnerships with foundations, waterworks and municipalities in co-financing nature-restoration, afforestation and recreational use of the country side. Several agreements have been made with waterworks and municipalities for co-financing and buying agricultural land resulting in the establishment more than 10.000 hectares of new state forest. Several financial foundations have co-financed nature-restoration and related projects in co-operation with the Agency e.g. Vilsted Lake in Northern Jutland, Vestvolden close to Copenhagen, Visitors centre at Moen, Nygaard lake in North Zealand and Svanninge Hill on FunenFurthermore, a Nordic Business and Biodiversity initiative (including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) will be initiated in 2010 during the Danish Presidency for the Nordic Council of Ministers. ','','','','19/02/2010','','','04/05/10',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity. However, the Forest and Nature Agency has, in recent years, acquired experience in economic partnerships with foundations, waterworks and municipalities in co-financing nature-restoration, afforestation and recreational use of the country side. Several agreements have been made with waterworks and municipalities for co-financing and buying agricultural land resulting in the establishment more than 10.000 hectares of new state forest. Several financial foundations have co-financed nature-restoration and related projects in co-operation with the Agency e.g. Vilsted Lake in Northern Jutland, Vestvolden close to Copenhagen, Visitors centre at Moen, Nygaard lake in North Zealand and Svanninge Hill on Funen.Furthermore, a Nordic Business and Biodiversity initiative (including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) will be initiated in 2010 during the Danish Presidency for the Nordic Council of Ministers.','','','','23/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B3_1_8','','The Akwe Kwon guidelines have not been directly applied in projects affecting the territorial  lands of indigenous and local communities. However, the principles in the guidelines are being applied indirectly: projects involving biodiversity and indigenous peoples in protected areas take the appropriate considerations into account. No projects are in violation of the Akwe Kwon Guidelines.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign has been developed or initiated at the national level in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). However, communication and information on Nature Conservation & Biodiversity are widely distributed to the general public and to specific target groups.','','',' http://www.blst.dk/English/  Danish Nature Interpretations Service http://naturvejledernet.skovognatur.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BD562C93-4D22-44FD-B2C3-FADAA4D6B58A/93984/TheDanishNatureInterpretationService.pdf; http://naturvejledernet.skovognatur.dk/Nyheder/engelskfolder.htm','22/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Denmark','A1','B4_1_2','','The Danish Ministry of the Environment launched the Danish Countdown 2010 initiative on 9 February 2007 in Copenhagen and promoted the Countdown 2010 initiative as a useful communication tool at local level. In February over a third of all municipalities in Denmark had  signed the Countdown 2010 declaration by committing to 1-3 actions with the aim of halting biodiversity loss. Several Danish NGOs also signed the declaration.Four of the Countdown 2010 municipalities (Kolding, Hedensted, Herning and Holstebro) also took part in a project under the Council of Nordic Ministers with the aim of disiminating the 2010 goal to the local level and engaging the local level with the aim of halting biodiversity loss. Denmark communicated to the IUCN Countdown Initiative that funding will be increased in a number of areas including: nature conservation with action funds on nature restoration and local green partnerships; strengthening the engagement of local and regional authorities around biodiversity matters; raising the awareness of the 2010 biodiversity target in Denmark through outreach activities such as biodiversity games and involving civil society on nature and biodiversity issues; and developing and implementing a Danish response to the EC Biodiversity Communication. Between 2006 and 2008, Denmark contributed at total sum of 13,000 euros in funding towards Countdown 2010 projects. ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedReference or title: Nordic ProjectWeblink: http://www.dirnat.no/2010-malet/','22/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','C1_2','','Denmark currently applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators. The implementation of indicators is based on monitoring and the national commitments to the relevant EU Directives. Model-based indicators such as indicator 11 (impact of climate change on bird populations) are found to be rather difficult to use at the national level. The remaining 4-6 further SEBI indicators will be finalised in 2010.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; national weblinkWeblink: http://www.blst.dk/Biodiversitet/Indikatorer/DK ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','C1_2_1','','Denmark applies 15 national biodiversity indicators, which mirror 14 of the SEBI indicators, with the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality split into two national indicators. The national indicators address all CBD focal areas, with the exception of Status of access and benefit-sharing.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. ',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; national weblinkWeblink: http://www.blst.dk/Biodiversitet/Indikatorer/DK ','15/02-2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A1','C1_3_1','','Through the National Monitoring and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment (NOVANA/DEVANO) Denmark has a systematic monitoring of habitats and species encompassed by the Habitats Directive and the Wild Birds Directive. The programme also covers other EU Directives, international conventions, and national plans regarding nature and environment. The programme covers the above mentioned habitat types and species groups. The primary goal of the programme for monitoring of habitat types within NOVANA is to monitor state (area of coverage, structure and function), pressures and development of the relevant habitat types. The primary goal of the programme for monitoring of species within NOVANA is to monitor population size and distribution of the relevant species. NOVANA is currently under revision and the revised programme is scheduled to enter into force in 2011. Results from the National Monitoring and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment (NOVANA) is reported yearly. The latest report (2007 data) was published in April 2009 (‘Aquatic and Terrestrial environment 2007’). In early 2010 \'Aquatic and Terrestrial environment 2008’ will be published (2008 data).','','','','23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Denmark:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features at archaeological sites. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* only concerning archaeological sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Denmark total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 577.92 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 1020.91 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 320.73 million EUR, and 537.32 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 55.49 and 52.63 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Denmark was 180.03 million EUR (301.61 with co-financing) and amounted to 31.15 per cent of the EAFRD (29.54 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 6.99 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.21 per cent of EAFRD) and 11.7 million EUR of public expenditure (1.15 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Denmark for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)36.86078.422Forest environment payments (225)0.0040.007According to reporting by the Member State, for the period 2007 to 2009 the Danish Rural Development Programme has executed EAFRD payments of 153.9 million. €. Of these 72.8 million € were paid according to budget line 214 agri-environment payments and 36,645 euro was paid on line 225.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','16/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to reporting by the Member State, a national strategy which specifically addressed the conservation of genetic resources is under development. A national strategy has been developed to address the conservation of tree genetic resources, and action plans exist for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (2008-10) and farm animals (2009-2012). The action plan on plants includes a 3-year project on in situ conservation of Crop Wild Relatives (CWR), with an annual budget of €134000. The aim of the project is to assess the distribution and status of conservation of approximately 100 high priority species of CWR. Denmark also supports in situ conservation of old crop varieties through the RDP. The cost of in situ measures for maintaining the genetic resources of commercial tree species is estimated to have been approximately €100,000 for the period 2005-2010. The current action plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources for food and agriculture includes several actions with regard to in-situ conservation through national support schemes. Support is paid to breeders, who own and keep records of Danish endangered breeds, and financial support is given to small breeders organizations.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, DEN LEVENDE KULTURARV\" Fødevareministeriets handlingsplan 2008-10 for jordbrugets plantegenetiske ressourcer (Februar 2008), ”Vision, mål og strategi for Genressour-ceudvalgets arbejde med husdyrgenetiske ressourcer 2009-2012” (September 2009  Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri), Weblink: http://pdir.fvm.dk/Admin/Public/Download.aspx?file=Files%2fFiler%2fVirksomheder%2fFroe%2fPlantegenetik%2fDen_levende_kulturarv.pdf   http://www.netpublikationer.dk/FVM/978-87-7083-504-6/978-87-7083-504-6.pdf ','1) 25/02/20102) 16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Denmark in this regard, and thus no payments were made. However, according to reporting by the Member State, Denmark has used payments under the Rural Development Programme, to support plant genetic resources. Accordingly a supporting scheme has been implemented amounting to around € 537,000, of which 55 per cent was EAFRD funding and 45 per cent national funding. ','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Additional planning tools such as local planning and site surveys for afforestation operations are in use. The application of all tools is generally not limited to the size of an area affected, with the exception of EIA for deforestation. EU Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA) was transposed into national law BEK No. 1335 of 06 December 2006 (Bekendtgørelse om vurdering af visse offentlige og privates anlægs virkning på miljøet i medfør af lov om planlægning).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.plantevalg.dk ','25/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Denmark had a total certified forest area of 416,214 hectares out of a total forest area of 500,000 hectares. 192,147 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system under which 224,067 hectares were certified. In total, 83.24 per cent of the forest area in Denmark was certified.According to reporting by the Member State, some forests are certified under both the FSC and PEFC scheme. This is the case for all state owned forests, which account for 21 per cent of the forest area, and for some private forest areas as well. ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','25/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Denmark amounted to 0.17 million ha, representing a share of 5.0 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','25.02.10','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Denmark:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features at archaeological sites. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* only concerning archaeological sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State, training or advisory services have not been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_8','','According to reporting by the Member State, national level monitoring schemes have been put in place or are under development for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.As for the farmland birds index, Denmark has chosen to rely on the index proposed originally by the JRC/IRENA: Reversing Biodiversity decline Change in trend measured by population index for 18 farmland bird species, baseline index value106.1 (2001). Target is to maintain value in 2013.Additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators refer to environmentally and ecosystem-friendly management of grassland. The indicator measures whether progress has been achieved to maintain grass area and ensure their conservation. The concrete target refers to the maintenance of 100,000 ha under agri-environment support agreements in Denmark’s Rural Development Programme by 2013. The baseline used refers to the existence of approximately 177,000 ha grass area in 2005 (permanent grass or uncultivated grass). In addition forest indicators (including biodiversity indicators) are collected on national level and are reported to Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE).','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','25.02.10','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 124 million € has been added to the Danish national Rural Development programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Denmark attributed € 34 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 27 per cent of total national additional programmed funding. ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. For the Sustainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation (SoCo) project, performed by the Joint Research Centre\'s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, the Danish University of Aarhus and University of Copenhagen prepared a case study on soil/land management in the two Danish municipalities Bjerringbro and Hvorslev in 2008. In addition, the Member State emphasised that the Danish Administration has prepared a tentative delineation for the further deliberations of Less Favoured Areas on the basis of eight bio-physical indicators (including soil).','',' Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Report on ‘Threats to soil quality in Denmark - A review of existing knowledge in the context of the EU soil thematic strategy (DJF rapport Markbrug, Nr. 143, 2009)Weblink: http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/index.asp?action=show&id=1073 ','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 86 per cent of the Atlantic and 86 per cent of the continental freshwater habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remainder is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage141202086%0%14%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U11  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U11   U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Denmark oxygen demand (BOD5) figures decreased from 2002 to 2005, going from 1.68 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.49 mg O3/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.72 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a slight decrease from 0.13 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.11 mg N/l in 2004. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers moved upward from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 4.65 mg N/l in 2002 to 4.76 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 5.05 mg N/l in 2004. No data were available for 2005. 2004 figures were clearly above the weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 24.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 37 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a more or less stable tendency from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.063 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.064 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly below the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a downward trend, decreasing from 0.113 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.107 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values well above the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.According to reporting by the Member State, 20 years monitoring results show a statistical significant drop for all the indicators mentioned above.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','25.02.10','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Denmark had a total number of 92 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 80 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Denmark developed all four biological assessment methods for lakes, but methods were only partially available for macrophytes and phytobenthos and undeveloped for phytoplankton assessment in rivers. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were developed, including phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, and macro-algae and angiosperms.According to the Member State in 2010, the following applies:The Danish rivers are relatively small – therefore no assessment methods for phytoplankton in Danish rivers have been developed.For lakes the assessment methods for phytoplankton have been only partly developed. The method for chlorophyll has been accepted in the first phase of the intercalibration process under the Water Framework Directive. The missing elements are under development.Assessment methods for macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish in lakes are still under development.For coastal waters, assessment methods using phytoplankton are only partly developed. The missing elements are under development.For coastal waters, assessment methods for benthic invertebrates are developed. The method for the North East Atlantic GIG area has been accepted. The method for the Baltic Sea is included in the ongoing intercalibration process.For coastal waters, an assessment system for angiosperms is developed and accepted in the Baltic Sea. The method is included in the ongoing intercalibration process for the North East Atlantic GIG area.For coastal waters,an assessment system for macroalgae is developed and is included in the ongoing intercalibration process in both the Baltic Sea and in the North East Atlantic GIG area.The missing assessment methods will be finished during the intercalibration phase II.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Denmark under the Water Framework Directive.Reporting on the number of the monitoring stations within protected areas will be part of the submission of Denmark’s Water District Management Plans due by March 22, 2010.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','25/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, at the end of 2008 Denmark had a total number of 1689 IPPC installations and issued 0 permits. 23 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaire, Reporting under the IPPC DirectiveWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/dk/eu/ippc/colsqpg7q/envsqphww/Template_question_2_1_final__2_.xls/manage_document ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_4_2','','According to Denmark’s national reporting under the NEC Directive, in 2008 Denmark complied with the ceiling for sulphur dioxide by a very large margin, and with the ceiling for ammonia by a smaller. Nitrogen oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions significantly exceeded Denmark’s ceilings. However, according to the country’s projections, the country expects to meet related ceilings.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Denmark the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 50 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 3,584 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 42 and 37 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 2 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction in 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 99 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.According to reporting by the Member State, during 2009 the Danish government developed and endorsed a Green Growth plan with the aim of significantly reducing the problems of eutrophication. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that a high level of environmental, nature and climate protection goes hand in hand with modern and competitive agriculture and food industries. According to Denmark, it is an ambitious and long-term plan defining environmental and nature policies and the agriculture industry’s growth conditions. A total of DKK 13.5 billion is to be invested in Green Growth until 2015, which is about a 50 per cent increase in investments compared to previous initiatives. The funding of the plan will primarily be provided by national funding and repatriation of funds under the European Rural Development Programme.Among the targets in the plan are:  19,000 tonne reduction in nitrogen discharge to the aquatic environment from 2010 to 2015210 tonne reduction in discharge of phosphor to the aquatic environment from 2010 to 2015. Improvement in the physical conditions of selected stretches of watercourses totalling 7,300 km from 2010 to 2015 Among the concrete initiatives to reduce the discharge of nitrogen and phosphor to the aquatic environments are the establishment of a quota system for the use of nitrogen, establishment of permanent spraying-free, fertilizer-free and cultivation-free buffer zones and wetlands, as well as taking out agricultural land of production and to establish new aquatic nature areas.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicators, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','25/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Denmark’s gross nitrogen balance was 127 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 29 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.According to the Member State, Denmark’s field balance for nitrogen was i 141 kg N/ha n 1991 and 78 kg N/ha in 2008. ',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaire, NERIWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, Denmark’s national farmland bird indicator has decreased. By 2006 the indicator was at 62.7 per cent, a 37.3 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 16 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','','02/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Denmark generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitat with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the Atlantic and continental forest habitats, where 86 and 67 per cent respectively are considered favourable. The remaining 14 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats have an unknown status. 22 per cent of the continental forest habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable status, the status of the remaining 11 per cent is unknown. All of the Atlantic and continental heath and scrub habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable conservation status. 75 per cent of Atlantic grassland habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable status, the status of the remaining 25 per cent is unknown. Of the continental grassland habitats in Denmark, 80 per cent have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 20 per cent has an unknown status. The vast majority of both the Atlantic and continental peat land habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable conservation status (83 and 86 per cent respectively), the status of the remaining peat land habitat is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9702078%0%22%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4301075%0%25%0%U10  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5401080%0%20%0%U10   U24       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage162122013%75%13%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage706100%86%14%0%U10  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9261022%67%11%0%U11   U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10   U22       Status of peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131102085%0%15%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6501083%0%17%0%U11  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U10   U26       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','Ref. Commission. We do not verify the above information. We refer to DG Mare for check and verification. You can not assess individual member states in this respect. Stocks are shared between several member states.','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below.  Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Denmark found that the three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region all had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). Of the  five marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region, four had a ‘Bad’ status (80%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (20%). There were 8 coastal habitats assessed in the ‘Atlantic’ biogeographical region of Denmark—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (12.5%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (37.5%) and the remaining four had an ‘Unknown’ status (50%). There were nine coastal habitats assessed in the ‘Continental’ biogeographical region of Denmark—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (11.1%), one had an ‘Inadequate status’ (11.1%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (33.3%) and four were ‘Unknown’ (44.4%). A total of three marine species, all mammals, were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and the remaining two had a ‘Bad’ status (67%). There were also three marine species assessed in the Marine Baltic region—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and the remaining two had a ‘Bad’ status (67%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=TitleChecklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','10/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_1_4','','Denmark reported that, in 2009, it had 34 surveillance stations and 51 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Denmark has 141 coastal water bodies. Approximately 22% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates.  A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is being developed.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','27/02/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_1_5','','The local government structure in 2007 has elevated the municipal plan to be the most important type of plan in Denmark. A municipal plan contains objectives and guidelines for development and protection in towns, the countryside and in the coastal zone as well. In 2009 all municipal plans were revised. According to the Planning Act the municipal plans must include guidelines for the land use in coastal zones. These guidelines have to comply with national objectives as:- to preserve the coastal areas so they continue to be a part of the landscape with high value of nature and landscape character- to promote the quality of the development of housing and infrastructure, which needs to be located in the coastal zone- that the future development in the coastal zone is based on solid and updated knowledge and decisions - that the development of tourism and recreation areas along the coasts respects and is based on the value of nature and landscape characterThe municipal plans are binding and set the framework for sectoral activities.','','The Danish planning system is in general perceived to be adequate for managing the use of coastal areas while balancing development and protection. All existing or planned activities in the coastal zone have to be mapped as an annex to the municipal plan.All municipal plans in Denmark have to be revised every four year.','https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=127131 Chapter 2 (the legal provisions) and http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/2006/Statslige_interesser_2009.htm chapter 18 (guidelines for the municipal planning regarding national interests)For further information a publication in English \"Spatial Planning in Denmark\" describes the spatial planning system in Denmark after the local government structure in 2007, see especially page 13 \"Planning in coastal areas\":http://www.blst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/8C9E90F0-9086-4934-A6F1-C577149057D5/49285/Planning_260907_NY.pdf','16/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_2','','Denmark currently has 1,149 coastal bathing waters. The large majority of these reach mandatory standards: 96.4% in 2008; 92.9% in 2007 and 93.5% in 2006. Less of the bathing waters have reached the stricter guidelines standards and the percentage has dropped slightly over the past three years: 84.2% in 2006; 80.9% in 2007 and 79.9% in 2008. Eight bathing areas had to be closed in 2006 and six in 2007. However no areas had to be closed in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations, there has been a declining trend when year to year variation in fresh water discharge is taken into account.  Between 1985 and 2005, 5 out of 46 recording stations showed decreases in both nutrients in the Baltic Sea, as has 1 out of 21 stations in the North Sea. Concentrations of nutrients were low in 2005 and 2006 (based on Member State data). ','','-','','19/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_4','','Denmark’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €53,730,684 and includes measures such as reducing discards and by-catch. Axis 2 (€75,299,048) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and conversion to organic production. Axis 3 (€70,330,532) promotes biological sustainability and certification systems and Axis 4 (€24,922,558) aims to make fisheries areas attractive both ecologically and socially.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_99_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','19/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','Ref. Commission. We do not verify the above information. We refer to DG Mare for check and verification. You can not assess individual member states in this respect. Stocks are shared between several member states.','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Denmark had 3,136 vessels and 10% were involved in a serious infringement (323 vessels). A total of 181 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €542 and maximum fine of €2,682.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','19/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_5_2','','Denmark has a long tradition of release plans in streams and coastal areas, especially for trout. Denmark also has a detailed action plans for salmon, houting and eels. Within these plans Denmark undertakes habitat restoration for trout, salmon and houting; stock enhancement for trout, salmon and eels and has removed migratory barriers for trout, salmon, houting and eels. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink: http://fd.fvm.dkTrout plan: http://www.fiskepleje.dk/vandloeb/udsaetning.aspxSalmon plan: http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/2004/laks.htmEel plan: http://fd.fvm.dk/Ål.aspx?ID=34550Houting plan: http://www.sns.dk/udgivelser/2004/Forvaltningsplan_for_snaebel_DK1.pdf','19/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_5_3','','Denmark has a large fishing fleet but this capacity has reduced consistently between 1999 and 2008. The number of vessels has dropped from 4,220 to 2,893 (31% reduction) and tonnage has dropped from 104,455 to 73,038 tons (30% reduction). Fishing power has also reduced from 387,873kW to 265,855kW (31% reduction).  Between 2000 and 2006 seven scrapping orders were carried out under the FIFG programme with a total of 304 vessels decommissioned. Since the autumn of 2005, Denmark has operated a rights-based system where fishing shares can be sold and transferred. In practice this has meant that fishing rights have been concentrated within fewer but more efficient vessels. The result of both these initiatives has been better fishing opportunities for the remaining vessels in the fleet today. ','','2008 data: 2893 vessels; 73038 tons; 263855 kW','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5//2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Denmark had 3136 active vessels. There were 90 type D breaches in this year, with 63 penalties imposed with an average fine of €587.  There have also been initiatives to reduce by-catch, for example Denmark has signed an bilateral agreement with Sweden to introduce closed areas in the Kattegat and the northern part of Oresund to protect cod stocks. Denmark is also a lead country in a project on discard elimination in the Baltic Sea.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_6_2','','The oldest monitoring programme for seabirds is the international annual mid-winter-counts of waterbirds coordinated by Wetlands International. These started in 1965 and have been carried out annually since then (i.e. for over 45 years). National countrywide counts were carried out in Denmark during the following periods: 1968-73, 1987-92 and in 2000. The NOVANA programme started in 2004, and national countrywide mid-winter-counts of waterbirds have been carried out in 2004 and 2008. Moulting sea ducks and other waterbirds are monitored in countrywide surveys every 6th year, the latest taking place in 2006. Breeding seabird species (terns and alcids) are monitored annually, every 3rd year or at least every 6th year ','','','http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/FR713.pdf','24/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','23/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','In 2008, Denmark had 88 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). Denmark created 6 new marine areas to the Site of Community Interest (SCI) list in 2009: eight new areas were designated and three existing areas were merged.  DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.Denmark has not made any specific requests to the Commission regarding fisheries management within any marine Natural 2000 site. However the need for Fishery regulations within marine Natura 2000 sites is under consideration. Draft management plans for two marine Natura2000 areas (1170 and 1180) contain requirements for protection of natural habitats against physical harm, including bottom trawling. The sector ministry will analyse to what extent there is a need for fisheries regulation in these specific areas to enable the fisheries measures before 31 December 2015.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 101Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 5Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','10/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A3','A3_7_1','','Denmark has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. The Danish National Programme for the collection of fisheries data for 2009-2010 for the collection of data includes environmental indicators listed in Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. To calculate indicators 1, 2 and 3 listed in Appendix XIII of the Commission Decision data is required on species abundance and length distribution by species from fishery independent research surveys. Such information is collected routinely in established trawl surveys such as IBTS (North Sea and East Arctic region) and BITS (Baltic Sea Region). The Danish information is available for part of the marine region where the Danish vessel has surveyed on a haul by haul basis.Indicator 4 requires extended information on age, length, sex and maturity from fishery independent research surveys. During the ICES/PGCCDBS, the ICES/IBTSWG and the ICES/WGBIFS is has been discussed how to coordinate and to standardize this data collection. Denmark from 2009 onwards collect this information for the target species in the surveys mentioned above.VMS data is required for indicators 4-7.  VMS data has been made available for DTU Aqua for research purpose under certain conditions such as safeguarding the confidentiality of the identity of individual the vessels. The data are available is on a resolution of one record every 1 hour. Management of the data, logbooks and selling slips data are also available. Therefore, it is possible to link VMS, Logbook and sales slips data.Indicator 8 can be calculated by using the at sea observer data. The economic data collection carried out by DST includes data on fuel consumption. It is therefore possible to estimate fuel costs per quarter and métier for some segments for Indicator 9. ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture',' Danish National Programme for collection of fisheries data for 2009-2010 https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_tabs1=folders&_20_folderId=95004&_20_cur1=1&_20_delta=20&_20_keywords=&_20_advancedSearch=false&_20_andOperator=true&cur2=1 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','19/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The trophic index for EEZ in Denmark (excluding Faroe Islands and Greenland) is 3.10. It has decreased by 0.05 between 1999 and 2004, and has decreased by 0.24 during the past 20 years (1984-2004). In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','The data does not include the EEZ of Faroe Is. and Greenland. From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx  Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Denmark','A4','A4_3','','Regarding spatial planning, Danish municipalities are required to take into consideration the planning of ecological networks, and most of them have done so. The Danish Ministry of Environment endorses the municipality plans. Before 2007 the former counties have considered ecological networks in their spatial plans, as shown in the referenced link.','','','http://www.blst.dk/Naturbeskyttelse/naturnetvaer','25/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A4','A4_4_1','','In Denmark, the following initiatives have had fundamental impacts to secure the development of sustainable tourism in accordance to the CBD guidelines: Planning law: the country is divided into three different planning zones: Town zones, country zones and coastal zones. The planning law secures that the 7,300 long coastal zone is free of all unnecessary building construction and tourism businesses. It also means that Denmark has avoided buildings close to the water, as it is commun to see in many touristic areas around the world.Clean water: an indicator of sustainable tourism is clean air and water. For the past 25 years, the changing Danish governments have invested massively in securing a clean water environment. Today, the water bathing quality along the 7,300 km of the Danish coasts is good, and the environmental authorities only discourage swimming along 10 km of the coast. Environmental assessment: a third decisive factor that secures sustainable tourism is the obligation for large tourist businesses (e.g. hotels, holiday resorts and amusement parks) to undergo a special environmental assessment before their construction is approved.Protection and restoration of nature : a fourth important aspect is the old Danish tradition of protecting natural areas by legislation.Environmental schemes: the majority of Danish tourist businesses and operators are conscious of the fact that a clean environment and a rich biodiversity nature are all-important prerequisites for them to make their living. Tourism has introduced a labelling scheme \"The Green Key\", for environmental quality as an addition to the state environmental schemes (\"the swan and the flower”). The labelling scheme requires accommodation places to act on energy and water consumption, reduction of waste and use of renewable energy sources. Furthermore, there are requirements to use environmentally labelled cleaning products, organic food and reduce pesticides use in green areas management.','','','','15/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Danish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 12.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spendings under categories 55 and 56 are foreseen by the Danish Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS, provided by DG Regio.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','23/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Denmark has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). Specific legislation in Denmark addresses a number of issues related to import, introduction, control and eradication of IAS but does not address export or possession and trade. Import of muskrat and American gray squirrel has been prohibited according to statutory order 1987/78. For an updated list of regulation see chapter 4.3 in the Danish Action plan on Alien Invasive Species. Under a statutory order of the Nature Protection Act (Lovbekendtgørelse no. 749, updated on 21 June 2007) alien species that are considered to be a threat to native species can be eradicated. §31 of the Act contains a general prohibition on the release into the wild of non-native animals without permission. Exemptions are decided by the Environment Minister. Chapter 12, Article 63 of the Fishing Act (828/2004) prohibits the deliberate introduction of fish and eggs or the brood thereof without permission. The Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries has to approve any species to be introduced and the plan for the introduction. The Hunting Act (no. 114/1997) regulates the introduction of game animals including alien species. This includes those alien game animals deliberately introduced or those that unintentionally escaped and established self-reproducing populations in the wild. The Statutory Order on eradication of muskrats (819/1987) states that an owner or user of real estate/real property is responsible for notifying the authorities should they suspect or sight the presence of a muskrat and are subsequently obliged to perform or assist in its eradication.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkhttp://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Myndighed/InvasivHandlingsplan.htm','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 69 are present in Denmark. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2. In comparison, the Danish Action Plan on Alien Invasive Species has a black list of 54 species. The action plan also includes an \"observation\" list of IAS.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity http://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Myndighed/InvasivHandlingsplan.htm ','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_1_2','','Denmark adopted an Action Plan on Invasive Alien Species in February 2009. The plan contains IAS specific activities, e.g. to control American Prayfish. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkhttp://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Myndighed/InvasivHandlingsplan.htm http://www.skovognatur.dk/NR/rdonlyres/DB812145-4733-4D7F-95AA-9EB940A61D1E/0/Handlingsplanforinvasivearter2.pdf','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_1_3','','Denmark has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  However, according to the Member States comments, Denmark expects to provide the legislation necessary.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions. MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Denmark has established a portal where you can register on a map an observation of most of the alien species found in Denmark. No early warning and information system for Invasive Alien species is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Indberetning/  ','23/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A5','A5_2_2','','Denmark has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The titles and references for the legislation are as follows: Act on Growing etc. of GM Crops; Executive Order on the Growing etc. of GM Crops; Executive Order on Compensation for Losses due to Certain Occurrences of GM Material; Executive Order on the Growing etc. of GM Crops References; and Executive Order on Compensation for Losses due to Certain Occurrences of GM Material. There are no specific procedures for different regions in Denmark with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops.  According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Denmark.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in January 2010, as was an additional national report for Greenland. The National Biodiversity Strategy was adopted in 2000. The Action Plan for Biodiversity and Nature Conservation in Denmark 2004-2009 was adopted in 2004. In 2006 the Government adopted a statement concerning Nature Policy (Naturpolitisk Redegørelse) and in 2009 the government adopted an agreement for Green Growth. Denmark has paid all contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/cda/ramsar/display/main/main.jsp?zn=ramsar&cp=1-31^7761_4000_0__http://whc.unesco.org/document/102009  ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_1','','While the OECD markers do not show multilateral spending on biodiversity, the publication ‘Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity’ shows support in form of multilateral aid for implementation of the CBD for the years 2001 to 2005 as follows (in DKK mill.): 1,332 (2001); 1,418 (2002); 1,241 (2003); 1,255 (2004), and 1,260 (2005). In addition, through support to REDD-related activities as well as to climate adaptation activities related to integrated land and water management, Denmark supports activities which are aimed at reducing the pressure on natural resources.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. ','Reference or title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2007. Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity. Copenhagen.OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','18/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Denmark spent EUR45.2m in 2006 and EUR3.0m in 2007 for biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which is 0.04% and 0.003%, respectively, of the total bilateral biodiversity-related aid. The publication ‘Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity’ shows support in form of bilateral aid for implementation of the CBD for the years 2001 to 2005 as follows (in DKK mill):  745 (2001); 470 (2002); 438 (2003); 1,112 (2004) and 935 (2005).','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2007. Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity. Copenhagen.OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','25/02/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_1_4','','Denmark contributed EUR36.03 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 1.48% of the total replenishment. Denmark contributed EUR40.91 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.91 % of the total replenishment. Denmark expects to make a contribution to the 5th replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_1_6','','The table below is illustrating financial funding to biodiversity in Greenland through an ad hoc funding to biodiversity project in Greenland. The fund is called DANCEA. That means that it is not a specific financial contribution each year but a case by case decision.20092008200720062005Biodiversity1511846','','','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_2_2','','This information cannot be provided.','','','','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A7','A7_2_5','','For Danish overseas countries and territories, ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects is mandatory. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','11/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A8','A8_1','','Denmark has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing in 2009, and in addition supported an ABS Ministers Conference in March 2010 in Namibia. National legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on ABS is under development, and Denmark raises public awareness of ABS issues. While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, the common Nordic genebank NordGen is using the sMTA. While no statistics on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is available, the Government has declared a national target addressing timber trade and timber procurement and has launched guidance on public procurement of timber. Many import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens were issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.  ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','19/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','National legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing is under development. Regular meetings are arranged by Ministry of Environment with representatives from the private sector, research institutions, other ministries and with NGOs on ABS matters.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Denmark provided DKK300,000 for five CBD meetings, which include the 8th meeting of the ABS Working Group in 2009. In addition, Denmark provided DKK600,000 for the participation of indigenous and local community representatives in the 8th and 9th meetings of the ABS Working Group and the 6th meeting of the Article 8(j) Working Group. In 2009 the Danish Government further decided to financially support an ABS Ministers Conference in March 2010 in Namibia. The funding was of approximately EUR0.5mio. The Conference supported the African Ministers of Environment and their ABS National Focal Points to coordinate and develop further the African positions in the international ABS negotiations and provided an opportunity to exchange views on critical matters with Ministers from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and Norway. The conference was arranged by the “ABS Africa Initiative”.','','The amount indicated for 2009 was calculated through an equal allocation to each of the meetings indicated, using the exchange rate of 1 January 2009.','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, the common Nordic genebank NordGen is using the sMTA.','','The majority of Danish ex situ conserved PGRFA material is stored in the common Nordic genebank, NordGen. When implementing the treaty, we started at the Nordic level, that is with material in NordGen. NordGen is now using the sMTA and has informed about  the sMTA on its website.','','22/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A8','A8_1_4','','Statistics addressing the issue are not available. However, wood consumption in Denmark corresponds to approx. 7-8 million cbm raw wood equivalents annually. The annual Danish timber production is approx. 2-2½ million cmb. Thus an estimated 5-6 cbm raw wood equivalents or just about 60-70 % are net imports, with the lions share in terms of volume being imported as construction wood and paper. No statistics account for the share of, for example, certified timber. An estimated 85-90 % of all imports of wood based products (per value) to Denmark is exported from other EU countries. A large share of the imports is supposed to originate from certified sources even if the timber is not sold and marketed as certified (due either lack of CoC-certification amongst Denmark retailers or lack of demand). The Danish government has declared a national target addressing timber trade and timber procurement. Thus, in the 2009 strategy on sustainable development (Growth with Care) it is stated that: The government will promote legal and sustainable forest management both through initiatives in relation to timber trade and through policy on public procurement of legal and sustainable timber. The goal is to eliminate the presence of illegally produced timber in the market and that public and private purchasers actively seek to buy legal and sustainable timber. To these ends the government supports the adoption of an ambitious EU due diligence regulation, which prohibits the marketing of illegal timber in the EU, and promotes a public procurement policy for timber aiming to increase public demand for verifiably legal and sustainable timber, e.g. verified by certified forest products. Guidance on public procurement of timber has been launched in 2003 and 2006. New and improved guidance is under development.','','','','23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 1993, 426 and 415, respectively. There were no import, export or re-export applications denied. The number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 61 for 2007 and 79 for 2008, representing a net increase of 18. As to capacity-building at the national level, The Danish CITES authorities provided oral or written advice/guidance and training to the Management Authority and the enforcement authorities and oral or written advice/guidance to traders and the public. Denmark has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Denmark paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2009, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2009 was used.','','18/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','A9','','','','','','http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Klima-%20og%20Energipolitik/klimatilpasningsstrategi_UK_web.pdf','25/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_3_2','','Danish National biomass strategy issues will be included into the NREAP.','','','','11/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Klima-%20og%20Energipolitik/klimatilpasningsstrategi_UK_web.pdf','25/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Denmark','A9','A9_4_3','','More studies relevant in this field can be accessed with the links hereunder. Denmark also refers to a catalogue of 14 indicators which demonstrate the impact on climate change on terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems in the Nordic region (findings published in \"Signs of Climate Change in Nordic Countries”','','','\"Signs of Climate Change in Nordic Countries\", to be ordered from www.norden.org/order   (TemaNord 2009:51)http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/MB13.pdf National reports in the framework of UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','23/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A1','','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, in 2009, a scientific research centre FIBIR (Frontiers in Biodiversity Research) in Tartu University was created with the aim, among others, to promote business and biodiversity partnerships. ','','One of the FIBIR first projects with the private sector was to develop across ecosystems regionally, and globally repeatable bio monitoring tools based on environmental DNA. Other examples of initiatives are mentioned in the agriculture and forestry related parts of the report. There is a regular round table organised by the Ministry of Environment with the Estonian Council Environmental NGOs.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','     20/03/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A1','A10_1','','Estonia does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, but biodiversity research is incorporated into other research programmes. The majority of biodiversity research in Estonia is funded by Ministry of Education and Research as well as by its subsidiary agency Estonian Science Foundation. Research can also be funded by Environmental Investment Fund (species inventories, monitoring, research, birds survey) and by Environmental Board (monitoring). The National Programme on Environmental Technology and Research which is currently under preparation will include biodiversity research. With regards to research in agriculture, The Estonian Agricultural Research Development Plan 2007 – 2013 foresees the preservation of the following fields of research in the institutions belonging to the governance of the Ministry of Agriculture: plant breeding; developing environmentally friendly and effective plant breeding technologies; rural economy and its sustainable development; research on the protection and monitoring of the agricultural environment; food safety and biological diversity.','',' ','Reference or title:Weblink: Estonian Science Foundation http://www.etf.ee/  Ministry of Education and Research http://www.hm.ee/index.php?0 Environmental Investment Center http://kik.ee/?setlang=eng https://www.etis.ee/index.aspx','03/03/2010','     ','','   19/03/2010  ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','A10_1_2','','Estonia does not currently have any plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. ','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:      ','05/03/2010','     ','','  19/03/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','A10_1_8','','Estonia’s national bioplatform was developed in the form of  EELIS, an Estonian Nature Infosystem. It is a central national database which includes information such as protected areas in Estonia, protected nature monuments, list of species protected in Estonia, list of habitats protected in Estonia, legislative acts of protected species and a database of water bodies. The website is used by nature conservation specialists, administrators of protected areas, research institutes and government bodies. EELIS is administered by the Estonian Environment Infocentre of the Nature Bureau. EESLIS is not the only platform disseminating biodiversity-related information in Estonia. There is also the Estonian Biodiversity Clearing-House Mechanism and a biodiversity database eElurikkus held by the University of Tartu. In 2009, the scientific centre FIBIF (Frontiers in Biodiversity) of University of Tartu was created. It concentrates specificially on biodiversity research and one of its aims is also to promote the science-policy interface and partnerships. ','','','Reference or title: European Bioplatform websitehttp://www.bioplatform.info/index.htmEPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info eElurikkus:  http://elurikkus.ut.ee/   ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','19/03/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','A10_1_9','','Estonia became a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in September 2003. Estonia currently hosts 34,561 records for the country shared on GBIF. Estonia has also recently established a task force of taxonomy and phylogenetics under the Academy of Sciences of Estonia that has started to coordinate data streamlining into GBIF databases from Estonia.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.The Institute of Zoology and Botany of the Estonian Agricultural University (renamed The Estonian University of Life Sciences in 2005) is the Estonian organisation participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). They are members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums, which provide other ENBI Work Packages and the ENBI Community at large with a communication space and also consolidates outcomes of the communications as an open access information resource.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','02/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','   19/03/2010  '),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_1','','','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine Baltic Coastal habitats3100%00%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats990%110%00%00%00%10Dunes habitats563%113%00%225%00%8Freshwater habitats00%229%457%114%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Sclerophyllous scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands338%563%00%00%00%8Bogs, mires & fens00%563%225%113%00%8Rocky habitats375%125%00%00%00%4Forests110%660%330%00%00%10','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','03/03/2010','     ','    ','12/01/2010','    09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Estonia has designated 531 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 11,321 km², totalling 16.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 36 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 3716 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 66, with a total area of 12,592 km², totalling 13.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 26, with a marine area of 6654 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available. The total amount of Natura 2000 areas in the marine environment is 45.1 % (out of this 51.3 % are SPA and 32.9 % SCI areas). However, it is currently not possible to calculate how much of the territorial waters are covered by Natura 2000 areas. ','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','03/03/2010','','     ','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Estonia has 531 Natura 2000 sites. Management plans have been compiled and adopted for 3.5% of the areas and are in the last stages of preparation for 20% of the areas. However, many Natura sites are already partly covered with management plans, which might not cover the whole Natura 2000 area (there are different protected areas in one Natura site). So the actual coverage of the areas by management plans is bigger. In addition, in 2010 Estonia is planning to order another 78 management plans. Management plans for all Natura sites are planned to be ready by 2013.','','One management body has been established to manage all the Natura 2000 sites.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','08/03/2010','     ','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_2_3','','The following information corresponds to the information provided in Measure of Progress 4.3. Green network protection in Estonia is regulated by law. The Planning Act enacts that one of the objectives of the national spatial plan is to create the basis for a system ensuring the preservation of various types of ecosystems and landscapes and balancing the impact of settlement systems and economic activities; the system is comprised of natural and semi-natural biotic communities (hereafter green network). The National Spatial Plan Estonia 2010 is in force until the end of 2010 and the new National Spatial Plan Estonia 2030+ is currently in preparation. On the lower level of planning one of the objectives of the County plan is to plan measures to ensure the preservation of natural resources, valuable arable land, landscapes and natural biotic communities, and the functioning of the green network, as well as take account, in planning, of protected areas and of the provisions for their use and, where necessary, to make proposals for the amendment of such provisions, the establishment of new protected areas or the termination of the protection regime. As a thematic plan for the County Plans the specified plans “Green Network” have been composed. The main aim of the “Green Network” plans is to prevent that the network will be fragmentized by the developments planned by the comprehensive and detailed plans. Through these regulations and plans the green network should be protected in Estonia, although there might sometimes be the problem that the green network protection is not always the first priority. As comprehensive and detailed plans can suggest changes in county plans, which can threaten the integrity of the green network. Also the conceptual basis and meaning of the green network should much more be explained to planners, as currently many cases within the green network are treated as social value and kept as recreational land for human beings, building sport facilities etc; it is not always understood to be kept as a migratory corridor network for wild species. As according to the Planning Act the national spatial plan shall be prepared in co-operation between the county governors, county local government associations and ministries; and a county plan in co-operation between the local governments of the planning area, the county governors of counties neighbouring the planning area, the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries whose area of government covers matters treated in the planning; we can say that there is a mechanism for interministerial coordination which addresses inclusion of ecological network considerations in spatial planning. Protection of the green network is covered by planning, but this, however, is not always considered sufficient legal protection. Also, compensatory measures for private properties that are in green corridors and therefore can be in principle restricted at their activities have not been drafted yet. In forestry in addition to a high proportion of forest cover and planned buffer zones around habitats, the Forest Act favours narrow clear-cut areas, strips along streams and waterbodies, maintaining key habitats and retention trees in commercial forests to strengthen coherence and connectivity. ','','','Reference or title:','03/03/2010','','','     09/05/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_3','','Of the 254 regularly occurring bird species in Estonia, 6 are globally Near-threatened and 3 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Estonia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 2 of 2 (100%) mammals was reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, the conservation status of 3 of the 9 (33%) amphibians and reptiles, 11 of 23 (48%) mammals and 7 of the 25 (28%) plants are in a favourable condition. 5 of the 9 (56%) fish and 14 of the 25 (56%) plants, are in an unfavourable-inadequate and so are 4 of the 9 (44%) amphibians and reptiles and 15 of the 29 (52%) invertebrates. The conservation status of 2 of the 9 (22%) fish is in an unfavourable-bad condition. 11 of the 29 (38%) invertebrates, 9 of the 23 (39%) mammals and 2 of the 9 (22%) fish were reported unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below.Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Baltic Amphibians and reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Fish00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%2100%00%00%00%2Plants00%00%00%00%00%0BorealAmphibians and reptiles333%444%111%111%00%9Fish00556%222%222%00%9Invertebrates27%1552%13%1138%00%29Mammals1148%14%29%939%00%23Plants728%1456%14%312%00%25','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International data                         Weblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','03/03/2010','     ','','12/01/2010','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Estonia has the following completed species action plans: 10 for birds, 5 for mammals, 2 for amphibians and reptiles, and 7 for plants. In addition, the following action plans are in preparation: 1 for birds, 1 for invertebrates and 5 for plants. Estonia has developed indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes; the Farmland Bird Index has been developed and is used. The Red Data List was first compiled in 1979 and the latest update was made in 2008 (in this version reptiles were not assessed). According to the Red Data Book out of 4300 assessed species (16% of total species number) 1296 (30%) are under threat.','','Concerning species action plans, the numbers indicated are the ones that have been adopted or in the last stages before adoption. In 2010 there are plans to start preparing species actions plans for another 73 protected species. ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://elurikkus.ut.ee/prmt.php?lang=eng','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','B1_1_1','','Funding programmes for biodiversity relate in particular to the financing of activities under the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), which includes, among others, funding for the preservation of landscapes and biological diversity. Local budget financing was the most extensive in the field of water management. The State Budget Strategy 2007-2010 provides the principles of the government for composing the state budget within four years, as well as the priorities and goals for use of the EU funding within the 2007 – 2013 period. The foreword to the document mentions, among others, preservation of the unique natural environment as a detail of a more flexible and sustainable model of the welfare society nature capital, including biodiversity. As a part of Priority 4: Lower environmental load, preservation of biodiversity as a basis for assuring generally favourable environment is seen, mostly by means of Natura 2000 areas and other protected areas and general nature protection management. The applied action plan of the document for environment includes measure 2.3 Preservation of biodiversity and securing sustainable use of natural resources as an investment from the European Regional Fund.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Estonia spent up to EUR816,337 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites.','','The information on national programmes is taken from Estonia’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Estonia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward and the zero figures for restoration above do not reflect that Estonia does indeed fund restoration. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','B1_1_4','','Estonia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR21.7m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR12.2m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) also EUR12.2m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','08/03/2010','     ','     ','06/01/2010','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','B1_1_8','','According to the EU Biodiversa project, in 2006 the total annual funding for biodiversity research in Estonia amounted to approximately € 2.8M. The Ministry of Education and Research is the main biodiversity research funder. There are no specific programmes for funding for biodiversity. The sums given below refer to funding research fields connected to biodiversity research from two general per review R&D funding instruments: targeted funding by the Ministry of Education and Research according to the proposal of Scientific Competence Council and research grants allocated by the Estonian Science Foundation. The majority of biodiversity research is funded from these budgets. However, these funds are included under an overall environment and natural sciences research headline. A separation is currently not possible. The funded topics include ecology, biosystematics and -physiology, forest science, and agricultural sciences, state of the environment and environmental protection research, environmental hazardous substances, environmental politics, environmental economy, and law. The Ministry of Education and Research environmental research funds for the years 2006 to 2009 are as follows: 2006: 5,477,031 EUR, 2007: 5,837,759 EUR, 2008: 7,167,235 EUR, and 2009: 6,741,247 EUR. Research can also be funded by the Environmental Investments Fund (species inventories, monitoring, research, birds survey) that has allocated the following funds for the years 2006 and 2009: 2006: 255,624 EUR, 2007: 657,115 EUR, 2008: 464,035, and EUR 2009: 50,971 EUR. There are funds allocated for biodiversity monitoring by the Environmental Board (a subsidiary of the Ministry of Environment). The funds allocated for the years 2006 and 2009 were: 2006: 255,624 EUR, 2007: 153,846 EUR, 2008: 192,308 EUR, 2009: 170,929 EUR, and 2010: 160,256 EUR. The Ministry of Agriculture is devising research and development programmes within the field of activity of the Ministry and organising their implementation. The annual funding for biodiversity research amounted to approximately € 0,1M (data from the 2006 EU Biodiversa project). Overview of current agricultural research: In agricultural science there is the Estonian Agricultural Research Development Plan 2007 – 2013, which foresees the preservation of the following fields of research: plant breeding; developing environmentally friendly and effective plant breeding technologies; rural economy and its sustainable development; research on the protection and monitoring of the agricultural environment; food safety and biological diversity. There is the National Programme \"Applied Research and Development in Agriculture. 2004-2008\" and \"Applied Research and Development in Agriculture 2009-2013\" which includes the topics of food safety and health, plant production and plant health, animal husbandry (including aquaculture), activities supporting agriculture, research in rural economy and social study. The funds are: 2006 1,528,759 EUR, 2007 1,602,379, EUR 2008 1,832,357 EUR, 2009 1,161,525 EUR, and 2010 1,373,592 EUR, The main goals and tasks of activities are defined in the National Programmes „Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2002–2006“ and “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007–2013“. The objectives of the programme are as follows: collection, conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources of Estonian origin; characterization, evaluation and documentation of accessions; development of the online searchable database (cooperation with the Nordic Genebank); regional and international cooperation. The characterisation and evaluation of accessions is a main task of genebanks and will result in further utilisation of collections. These efforts are directed towards further co-operation between plant genetic resources holders, to assure the most efficient exchange of information and preserved germplasm. The funds are: 2006 161,703 EUR, 2007 160,744 EUR, 2008 185,670 EUR, 2009 191,423 EUR, and 2010 191,423 EUR. National Programme \"National programme for plant breeding 2009-2019\". The aim of the national programme for plant breeding is to guarantee the sustainable development of plant breeding in Estonia and to safeguard the preservative breeding of the existing varieties by means of a funding scheme for coordinated activities. Other objectives include the increase in the competitiveness of the Estonian agricultural sector (production, processing); healthy and safe food; sustainable use of natural and environmental resources, preservation of genetic and landscape diversity; and mitigation of threats arising from climatic change. 2009 430,142 EUR, and 2010 557,970 EUR','','As statistics do not allow us to separate sums especially dedicated for biodiversity research and sums above include also other research aspects, all of those sums cannot be taken for biodiversity research only and therefore we did not put an amount into above boxes. ','Reference or title:Weblink:See links from Target: A10.1. https://www.etis.ee/index.aspx','3/03/2010','     ','','09/05/2010     ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B2_4','','The Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 will be adopted in 2010. It is an umbrella strategic document, involving all areas regulated under the Conservation on Biological Diversity (CBD), including areas that do not have any strategic documents so far (e.g. protection of nature outside of protected areas, soil, biosafety, and alien species). The Development Plan is based on Environmental Strategy until 2030 and on the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also takes into account also other international conventions  such as the European Landscape Convention. The Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’ as such is not the basis of the document, but indirectly the principles of it have been incorporated into the development plan.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','1/03/2010','     ','',' 19/03/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','B3_1_2','','The Forestry Council was created by the Minister of Environment in 2007 (order nr 1319) to support the implementation of Forestry Development Plan and the involvement of the various stakeholders for solving strategic problems in forestry. Members of the Council include: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Centre of Forest Protection and Silviculture, Estonian Private Forestry Union, Estonian Fund for Nature, Estonian Forest Industries Association, State Forest Management Centre, Environmental Board, Private Forest Centre, Environmental Inspectorate and Ministry of Environment (the head of the council). Other partnerships include the contract system in forestry (set by Forest Act) for preserving valuable forest habitats (protected by forest owners). Farming and biodiversity partnerships include those where farmers apply for support under agri-environment measures. ','','It is difficult to quantify the number of partnerships.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','','     ','','     20/03/10',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B3_1_5','','Estonia does not have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development of biodiversity and planning partnerships.  ','','Although no forum or similar platform/framework are set up for biodiversity and planning partnership,   under the Planning Act, all plans have to be made public during the preparatory process. This enables all stakeholders to participate in the planning process. Some efforts have been made at sectoral planning level, for instance there is under compilation handbook for road planners on wildlife passages held by the Estonian Road Agency. Some municipalities have used expert advice on updating local level green network plans and integrated these in their comprehensive plans','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for EstoniaWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','03/03/2010','     ','     ','11/12/2009','  20/03/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, in 2009, a scientific research centre FIBIR (Frontiers in Biodiversity Research) in Tartu University was created with the aim, among others, to promote business and biodiversity partnerships. ','','One of the FIBIR first projects with the private sector was to develop across ecosystems regionally, and globally repeatable bio monitoring tools based on environmental DNA. Other examples of initiatives are mentioned in the agriculture and forestry related parts of the report. There is a regular round table organised by the Ministry of Environment with the Estonian Council Environmental NGOs.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','     20/03/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage biodiversity partnerships with the finance sector. However, some companies and banks have supported biodiversity related activities on their own initiative (e.g. gathering funds for flying squirrel, supporting species at the zoo etc). The Estonian Environmental Investments Fund under Ministry of Finance finances projects from environmental usage fees. These funds are available for businesses to apply.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','  20/03/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','    19/03/2010 ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. ','','      The EU BAP will be covered in the Nature Conservation Development plan until 2020 which will be adopted in summer 2010.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','1/03/2010 ','     ','','   24/04/2010  ',''),
	('Estonia','A1','B4_1_2','',' The Estonian Ministry of Environment made a declaration in support of the 2010 Countdown Initiative on 20th October 2006. Estonia joined IUCN at the end of 2007. As part of this, Estonia declared that a biodiversity development plan and related detailed action plan for years 2007-2013 would be drafted and adopted in 2007 with the 2010 target as one of the main objectives.  No funding contributions appear to have been made by Estonia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','Although there have not been direct contributions to the Countdown 2010 initiative, Estonia has paid its annual contribution (10 000 EUR) to IUCN since joining. ','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown InitiativeWeblink: unpublished','03/03/2010','     ','     ','11/12/2009','     19/03/10'),
	('Estonia','A1','C1_2','','Estonia currently implements one of the SEBI indicators: nationally designated protected areas. The Estonian environmental indicator system is still under development and cannot be considered an official complete set as there has not been yet a decision on it at state level','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and additional information provided by Estonia. As mentioned in the answer to the EEA survey, the Estonian environmental indicator system is still under development and cannot be considered an official complete set as there has not been yet a decision on it at state level. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink','05/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','C1_2_1','','Estonia currently implements one of the SEBI indicators: nationally designated protected areas.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and additional information provided by Estonia.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink','05/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A1','C1_3_1','','Monitoring schemes exist for the following habitats: coastal landscapes and meadows; alvars and heaths; dry and wooded meadows, floodplain meadows, coastal meadows, agriculture landscapes; bogs, fens, forest and moor fire zones; forests, and forests on clint. There is a range of monitoring schemes for all the vertebrate groups, for invertebrates, plants, fungi and soil biodiversity.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','08/03/2010','     ','',' 09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Estonia:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture: Requirement 1: natural features and grasslands placed under protection according to the Nature Conservation Act, the requirement for mowing and/or grazing must be met by 20 August.Requirement 2: when grass is mown it must be gathered by 31 July; cutting is allowed from 1 July. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Damaging or destroying individual protected natural features is prohibited under the Nature Conservation Act and immovable monuments under the Heritage Conservation Act. Other additional GAEC measures related to biodiversity include:Arable stubble management: burning forage, hay and straw on agricultural land is prohibited. Requirements for crop rotation plans (except for permanent grassland, fruit crops and berries or medicinal plants or herbs or in case of a field smaller than 0.3 ha).','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfRegulation on GAEC\'s https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/ert.jsp?link=searchRes   ','03/03/2010','','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Estonia total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 723.74 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 934.95 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 267.57 million EUR, and 334.46 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 36.97 and 35.77 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Estonia was 168.71 million EUR (210.89 with co-financing) and amounted to 23.31 per cent of the EAFRD (22.56 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 6.92 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.96 per cent of EAFRD) and 31.44 million EUR of public expenditure (0.93 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 25.15 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (3.48 per cent of EAFRD) and 31.44 million EUR of public expenditure (3.36 per cent of public expenditure). There are no forest-environment payments (measure 225) for Estonia for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.530.662Agri-environment payments (214)2.6293.286Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/03/2010 ','','','',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','There is no national strategy covering all types of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds is promoted in the Estonian Nature Conservation Development Plan and through the Estonian National Programme “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013”. The Programme aims to collect, conserve and sustainably use genetic plant resources of Estonian origin; to describe, evaluate and document them; to develop an online searchable database (in cooperation with the Nordic Genebank); and to participate in international cooperation. The budget for the Programme from 2007-2013 is approximately 1,350,000 EUR. In addition, the national biodiversity strategy and action plan refer to the conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds and races. Information is provided on commercial tree species and a 10,000 EUR genetic resources project has been established for the Purdi spruce tree (15.6 ha). A Ministry of Agriculture regulation provides protection for listed endangered livestock breeds (1 bovid and 3 horses). Most of these also have conservation and breeding programs, which are supported by RDP measures.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:      ','05/03/2010','     ','','    12/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Estonia in this regard, and thus no payments were made. However, according to reporting by the Member State, the following local endangered breeds and crop varieties are supported in the framework of the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007 – 2013: Estonian native cattle, Estonian native horse, Tori horse and Estonian heavy draught; winter rye variety \"Sangaste\".','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','03/03/2010 ','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. A limited list of foreign tree species (13) is allowed for afforestation (e.g. forest regeneration).No national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. Nevertheless, in addition to high proportion of forest cover and planned buffer zones around habitats, the national Forest Act favours narrow clear-cut areas, strips along streams and water bodies, and the maintenance of key habitats and retention trees in commercial forests to strengthen coherence and connectivity.According to the Member State, no planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. However, other tools have been implemented. The strategic objectives on forestry are derived from the Estonian Forestry Development plan up to 2010. It stipulates that the productivity, renewal capacity and vitality of forests must be preserved to ensure the long- and short-term production of benefits from forests. The preservation of all of the current elements of biological diversity in Estonian forests must also be guaranteed. Deforestation is only allowed if a valid planning document (detail plan) exists. The area of deforestation is ca 1000-1500 ha annually, being 10 times lower than natural afforestation of unused agricultural lands during previous years. Deforestation measures are set by the national Forest Act and other related acts. ','04/03/2010','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, List of allowed alien tree species for afforestation Weblink: http://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=771527 ','','','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Estonia had a total certified forest area of 1.08 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.28 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Estonia was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 47.41 per cent of the total forest area. According to reporting by the Member State, most of the certified forest was state owned. Also some private forest was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','05/03/2010','','     ','','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Estonia amounted to 0.38 million ha, representing a share of 22.5 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area.According to reporting by the Member State, national HNV areas in agriculture currently include all semi-natural habitats covered by the Natura 2000 network. Related sites amount to 57,000 ha, of which 21,000 ha are supported by the national Rural Development Programme.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Estonia:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture: Requirement 1: natural features and grasslands placed under protection according to the Nature Conservation Act, the requirement for mowing and/or grazing must be met by 20 August.Requirement 2: when grass is mown it must be gathered by 31 July; cutting is allowed from 1 July. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Damaging or destroying individual protected natural features is prohibited under the Nature Conservation Act and immovable monuments under the Heritage Conservation Act. Other additional GAEC measures related to biodiversity include:Arable stubble management: burning forage, hay and straw on agricultural land is prohibited. Requirements for crop rotation plans (except for permanent grassland, fruit crops and berries or medicinal plants or herbs or in case of a field smaller than 0.3 ha).',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfRegulation on GAEC\'s https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/ert.jsp?link=searchRes   ','03/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'     12/05/2010   ',NULL),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. RDP measure 1.1 provides training and information activities for priority topics including environmental-friendly agriculture, organic production and forestry issues  related to biodiversity and cross-compliance etc. Measure 1.3 provides support for an advisory system and services, that provide advice to agricultural producers and private forest owners. Advice is given by agricultural advisors, who have been trained in issues connected to biodiversity, cross compliance and environmental friendly agriculture.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.    ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:      ','02/03/2010','','','','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_8','',' National monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (as compulsory baseline and impact indicators).HNV farming.An additional programme-specific biodiversity impact indicator has also been developed for bumble bees. The monitoring, which started in 2006 and is coordinated by Agricultural Research Centre, is carried out annually at 66 monitoring sites.In Estonia there are two different monitoring schemes for compulsory baseline indicator ‘Population of farmland birds’ and impact indicator ‘Reversing biodiversity decline (change in trend in biodiversity decline as measured by farmland bird species population)’. This has caused some problems, and the quality of the baseline indicator is very low as it is based on the Estonian National Bird Monitoring Scheme which has few sample sites on agricultural land. The monitoring of the bird impact indicator is coordinated by Agricultural Research Centre for the evaluation of agri-environment schemes, and the monitoring methodology is different to that used for the baseline indicator. The monitoring of the bird impact indicator started in 2005 (30 monitoring areas and from 2006 66 monitoring areas) and is carried out every year. In the context of the Estonian RDP and HNV baseline indicator, HNV areas are considered to be semi-natural habitats. According to the advice of the Ministry of Environment, only Natura 2000 sites are currently considered as supported areas of HNV farming and forestry in the RDP and all indicators (including obligatory indicators) in the frame of RDP relate to semi-natural communities. However, according to the CMEF, HNV farmland areas should include more than just semi-natural areas. The Agricultural Research Centre has therefore started to define HNV farmland more broadly, although no monitoring schemes have been put in place yet.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','08/03/2010','     ','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 9 million € has been added to the Estonian national Rural Development programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Estonia provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’. ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','02/03/2010','     ','','     ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are herby mandatory.  In addition, projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. In 1995, a National Monitoring Programme started on earthworm diversity in Estonian agriculturally used soils (including natural grassland soils). Monitoring parameters included: abundance of earthworm community, number of species, abundance of species, ecological structure of community (relative importance of ecological groups), relative importance of dominant species Aporrectodea caliginosa in arable soils, microbial biomass SIR and respiration activity. In the framework of the Agri-Environmental (AE) Programme, the monitoring of earthworms and biomass activity started in 2004 and lasted until 2008. The number of monitoring sites was about 10-36, depending on the year. The goal of monitoring was to identify the impact of AE measures on soil biodiversity according to different farming types. The results indicate the positive influence of organic farming on the number of earthworm species, sensitive to farming and biomass activity. In 2009, the elaboration of a new soil biodiversity indicator – abundance and species diversity of Collembola – was started. If the method turns out to be suitable for description of arable land soil biodiversity, the introduction of a monitoring programme including the indicator will start. Other factors influencing soil biodiversity are monitored in the framework of the National Environmental Monitoring Programme (started in 1983), which currently involves 30 monitoring sites and has a monitoring interval of 5 years. It is responsible for especially monitoring parameters which describe the change in soil organic matter status by the use of the following parameters: depth of humus horizon, content of humus (%) and the stock of humus (t/ha). 2008/2009 results showed positive trends of organic matter status where in most of the monitoring sites the depth of humus horizon, content of humus and stock of humus had been stable or had slightly increased. Only for three monitoring sites out of 16, the parameters describing organic matter status had decreased. In addition, bulk density was determined at the same monitoring sites to observe the compaction of agricultural soils. Results showed an increasing trend towards more compacted soils, with potentially negative influence on soil biodiversity.Between 2006 and 2009, several studies were carried out to identify the geographical risk areas for wind and water erosion. The GIS queries and analyses of the Estonian soil map in conjunction with data from ARIB (Agricultural Registers and Information Board) indicated that soils vulnerable to water erosion exist on 40,000 ha of ARIB registered land, of which 16,000 ha is arable land. Although this finding means 40 per cent of agricultural land is at risk from water erosion, the proportion of arable land varies considerably from one county to another. The use of water erodible soils for arable land is greater in counties, in which intensity of erosion is low and the proportion of erodible soils is fairly small (27-54 per cent). Estimates, based on the GIS queries, indicated that wind erodible soils comprised approximately 100,000 ha of Estonia’s agricultural land, of which about 34 per cent are high wind erosion risk arable fields. The Universal Soil Loss Equation model enabled to estimate the average soil erosion intensity of fields covered by natural vegetation as a low rate of 0.04 t ha-1 y-1, even in the high risk areas (i.e counties where the eroded soils are wide spread). However, changes in land use from natural vegetation to intensively managed arable land accelerate the intensity of soil erosion to 0.43 t ha-1 y-1.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.   ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eelis.ic.envir.ee:88/seireveeb/index.php?id=13&act=show_reports&subact=&prog_id=628219542&subprog_id=937429638    http://eelis.ic.envir.ee:88/seireveeb/index.php?id=13&act=show_reports&subact=&prog_id=95920640&subprog_id=-2087961898  http://pmk.agri.ee/pkt/index.php?valik=53&keel=1&template=template_test.html  ','03/03/2010','','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 86 per cent of the boreal freshwater habitats in Estonia have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 14 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','     ','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Estonia.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U12  U24       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','05.03.2010','     ','     ','     ','   12/05/2010     '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Estonia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 1.66 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.52 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly below the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data remained the same between 2002 and 2005, amounting to 0.08 mg N/l in 2002 and 2005 and with a peak of 0.11 mg N/l in 2003. 2005 values were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.32 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.29 mg N/l in 2005, but with a peak of 1.47 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were slightly below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 6.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 4.8 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 7.1 mg NO3/l in 2003. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.034 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.029 mg P/l in 2005, but with a peak of 0.044 mg P/l in 2003. 2005 values are well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a downward trend, decreasing from 0.057 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.047 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values slightly below the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes.The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink:http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Estonia had a total number of 21 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 75 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has increased, though at the same time the number of all inland bathing waters has decreased. ','     ','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','     ','     ','     ','','     '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Estonia developed three out of four biological assessment methods for lakes, with the exception fish fauna. However, all methods on biological assessment for rivers were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). All biological assessment methods for coastal waters were under development or the information was incomplete','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','',''),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','In 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Estonia under the Water Framework Directive.','No additionl comments','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives.','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, in October 2009 Estonia had a total number of 112 IPPC installations and issued 86 permits. 0 permits were outstanding. According to reporting by the Member State, at the end of 2009 the following applied:Number of installations: 90 Total number of permits issued: 90 Total number of outstanding permits: 0 ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ee/eu/ippc/envst2_ja ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, In 2008 Estonia’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic (NMVOCs) compounds were well below the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Emissions are also expected to remain below these targets levels in 2010, although a slight increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and  NMVOC is further anticipated for 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','03/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','  12/05/2010      '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Estonia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 67 per cent respectively, considering an area of 24,728 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will still be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 57 per cent in 2010 and 47 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 5 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink:http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','03/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','   12/05/2010     '),
	('Estonia','A2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, Estonia’s gross nitrogen balance was 63kg/ha with mineral fertilizers (161kg/ha with organic fertilizers) kilogram of nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 10 per cent (42 per cent) compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information availablePercentages have been calculated based on information provided by the Member State.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 1994, Estonia’s national farmland bird indicator had decreased by 24.6 per cent from the 1990 baseline. By 2006 the indicator was at 91.9 per cent, an 8.1 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 12 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','08/03/2010','     ','','',''),
	('Estonia','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Estonia generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status in Estonia are the boreal grassland habitats, where 38 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining boreal grassland habitats have an unfavourable status). The only existing boreal heath and scrub habitat in Estonia has an unknown conservation status. The highest percentage (90 per cent) of unfavourable conservation status is found in the boreal forest habitats of Estonia, the remaining 10 per cent have a favourable status. The majority of the boreal peat land habitats in Estonia have an unfavourable conservation status (88 per cent), the status of the remaining peat land habitat is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Estonia.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U15  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10910090%10%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10910090%10%0%0%U16  U23       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8701088%0%13%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8701088%0%13%0%U15  U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/03/2010 ','','     ','',''),
	('Estonia','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL).Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole.In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','01/03/2010','na','     ','10/12/2009','na     '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Estonia found that of the three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all had a ‘Favourable’ status (100%). There were ten coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region—nine had a ‘Favourable’ status (90%) and the remaining one had an ‘Inadequate’ status.  There were two marine species assessed, both mammals, and both had an ‘Inadequate’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below: Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticMarine habitats3100%00%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats990%110%00%00%00%10SpeciesBiogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%2100%00%00%00%0The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','     ','     ','10/12/2009','25/03/2010     '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_1_4','','Estonia reported that, in 2009, it had 55 surveillance stations and 0 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Estonia has 16 coastal water bodies. About 100% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Methods for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates and for monitoring macroalgae or angiosperm were under development. Programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is developed in the frames of water management plans of WFD (which are currently in the final stages of adoption in government).','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework','09/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10','  19/03/10   '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_1_5','','An ICZM plan/strategy is being developed','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','08/03/2010','     ','','   19/03/2010  ',''),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_2','','Estonia has 28 coastal bathing waters. In 2008 100% of these reached the mandatory water quality standard which has been an improvement from 91.2% in 1996 and 1997. Under half of coastal bathing waters currently reach the stricter guideline standard (42.9% in 2008), with similar percentages in 2006 (47.1%) and 2007 (42.9%). In terms of nutrient concentrations, there has been no change in nitrogen concentrations between 1985 and 2005, but one sampling station out of the three in Baltic coastal waters off Estonia has shown a decrease in phosphate concentrations.','','-','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','09/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink:2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_4','','Estonia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €20,352,708 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and introducing more environmentally friendly fishing measures. Axis 2 (€32,778,572) contributes to the sustainability of the aquaculture sector. Axis 3 (€28,279,552) involves improving the selectivity of fishing gear and restoring spawning grounds and Axis 4 (€25,708,684) promotes socio-economic diversification.','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/8&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','01/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10',' 12/5/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL).Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole.In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','01/03/2010','na','     ','10/12/2009','na     '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. Estonia had 994 vessels operating in 2006. Although the commission report on MS behaviours that infringed rules of the CFP did not record any serious infringements by the Estonian fleet, more up to date records from the Estonian Environmental Inspectorate (and sent to the commission in February 2009) record 32 serious infringements in 2006 (representing 3.2% of the fleet). ','01/03/2010','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','     ','     ','13/01/10','12/5/2010     '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_5_2','','Estonia has two relevant plans for the management of salmon: 1. IBSFC Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010 and 2. State program for reproduction and re-stocking of fish 2002-2010. Through implementation of these plans, Estonia carries out stockings of salmon with the purpose of restoring the natural populations of salmon and sea trout. For the future, Estonia is waiting for a new proposal on salmon management plan from the European Commission.Estonia also has a specific management plan for Eel, developed in 2008. For the purposes of Eel management Estonian water bodies are divided into two management units: 1) Narva River Basin District – where the main measure is to maintain the population of eel through stocking; and 2) West-Estonian Basin District (coastal waters and West-Estonian inland water) where the priority is on reducing fishing pressure to protect the natural eel population. A research project is looking at options for restoring natural river habitats for the enhancement of sea trout spawning and production (2008-2011).  In the context of the Water Framework Directive, Estonia has planned several projects to reopen migratory routes for migratory species to the spawning grounds and habitats.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','','','     ',' 12/5/2010    '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_5_3','','Since the break-up of the USSR there have been dramatic reductions in fishing capacity for example out of 75 distant-water fishing vessels there around 12 units now active. Since accession to the EU, Estonia has used FIFG funds to fund specific decommissioning schemes. Estonia’s fishing capacity decreased between 2004 and 2008 from 1053 vessels to 966 vessels (8% reduction); from 24923 tons to 17813 tons (28.5% reduction) and from 63322kW to 45973kW (27% reduction). The Estonian fleet is subject to TAC reductions for cod in the Baltic Sea and to the NAFO rebuilding plan. The operational programme 2007-2013 reports that fishing capacity still exceeds the available resource and will need to be reduced further. It is suggested that a scientific study is carried out to determine the amount of reduction required and the means by which it can be achieved.  ','','2008 data: 966 vessels; 17813 tons; 45973 kW.','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','03/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_6_1','','In terms of Type D infringements of the CFP (which concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats), there were no recorded Type D infringements for Estonia in 2006 or 2007. Estonia has contributed to reduction in by-catch by implementing the Council Regulation 1226/2009 which requires the use of a wider top window codend BACOMA trawl net in the Baltic Sea which reduces the by-catch of juvenile cod.','','-','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','02/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10','     12/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_6_2','','Estonia has undertaken some seabird monitoring but there are no specific monitoring programmes for sharks. The project ‘Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ (LIFE05NAT/LV/000100) (2005-2009) included monitoring of seabirds.. During this project by-catches of seabirds was assessed and found to be around 2,200 birds per year in Estonian coastal waters. The main species caught as by catch are  the long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) and tufted duck (Aythya fuligula). ','','     ','Reference or title: Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea Project (LIFE05NAT/LV/000100Weblink: http://www.balticseaportal.net      ','','12/5/2010   ','','     ',''),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','','     ','',' 12/5/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Estonia has 63 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarifications below). All these sites are within territorial waters. There are no offshore Natura 2000 marine sites. It is possible in Estonia to regulate fisheries activities in Natura 2000 sites (within territorial waters) on a case-by-case basis by establishing and implementing protection rules, which are approved by the Government. This has been implemented in some cases (in more than 3 Natura 2000 marine sites).','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data:Marine sites within territorial waters: 38Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. ',' DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','01/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10','12/5/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A3','A3_7_1','','Estonia has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem will be carried out in the Estonian EEZ; in other areas fishing activities of the Estonian fleet is limited, and therefore sampling for these areas is also limited. However, data concerning other regions will be collected and delivered, if needed, in the frame of international cooperation.  The surveys which contribute to the collection of data for the estimation of ecosystem indicators are Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS Q4), Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Autumn) and Gulf of Riga Acoustic Herring Survey. In addition to the indicators (conservation status of fish species, proportion of large fish, mean maximum length of fishes and size at maturation of exploited fish species) will be calculated for the gill-net test-fishing data available since 1992 (in one area) or 1993-97 (other permanent research areas) VMS data will be available for North Atlantic fisheries from the Environmental Inspectorate.','',' Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Estonian National Programme for collection of fisheries dta for 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1841&folderId=94846&name=DLFE-15005.pdf Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','02/03/2010','          ','','  19/03/2010        ',''),
	('Estonia','A3','Objective3','','The mean marine trophic index for Estonian EEZ waters was 3.19 in 2004. This represents a 0.05 decrease since 1999 and a decrease of 0.46 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially over aggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx ','09/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','    04/05/2010 ');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Estonia','A4','A4_3','','Green network protection in Estonia is regulated by law. The Planning Act enacts that one of the objectives of the National Spatial Plan is to create the basis for a system ensuring the preservation of various types of ecosystems and landscapes and balancing the impact of settlement systems and economic activities. The system is comprised of natural and semi-natural biotic communities (hereafter green network). The National Spatial Plan Estonia 2010 is in force until the end of 2000, and the new National Spatial Plan Estonia 2030+ is currently under preparation. On the lower level of planning, one of the objectives of the County plan is to determine measures to ensure the preservation of natural resources, valuable arable land, landscapes and natural biotic communities, as well as the functioning of the green network. Besides it seeks to take it into account in planning of protected areas and of the provisions for their use and, where necessary, to make proposals for the amendment of such provisions when establishing new protected areas or terminating a protection regime. As a thematic plan for the County Plans the specified “Green Network” plans have been composed. The main aim of the “Green Network” plans is to prevent fragmentation of the network by comprehensive planning. Through these regulations and plans the green network should be protected in Estonia, although there might sometimes be the problem that the protection is not always the first priority. In fact comprehensive and detailed plans can suggest changes in county plans, and therefore threaten the integrity of the green network. The conceptual basis and meaning of the green network need to be more explained to planners, as currently the green network areas are often treated as social and recreational values, but it is not always understood as a key migratory corridor network for wild species. According to the Planning Act, the national spatial plan shall be prepared in cooperation between the county governors, county local government associations and ministries; and the county plan in cooperation between the local governments of the planning area, the county governors of counties neighbouring the planning area, the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries whose area of government covers matters treated in the planning. There is also a sort of mechanism for interministerial coordination which addresses inclusion of ecological network considerations into spatial planning. Protection of the green network is covered by planning, but this, however, is not always considered sufficient legal protection. Also, compensatory measures for private properties located in green corridors are being drafted and will soon enable to restrict their activities. In forestry in addition to a high proportion of forest cover and planned buffer zones around habitats, the Forest Act favours narrow clear-cut areas, strips along streams and waterbodies, maintaining key habitats and retention trees in commercial forests to strengthen coherence and connectivity.','','   ','Reference or title:     Weblink:','03/03/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A4','A4_4_1','','In 2006 Estonia adopted its National Tourism Development Plan for 2007-2013 which includes a chapter on sustainable tourism. Estonia is also preparing a National Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020, (to be adopted in summer 2010) that will include a chapter on nature tourism and will integrate elements from the CBD Sustainable Tourism Guidelines.','','     ','Estonian National Tourism Development Plan from 2007-2010 http://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12755212','','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Estonian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 46.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). ','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','04/03/2010','     ','     ','04/01/2010','24/04/2010'),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Estonia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), however, there is specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. The possession and trade of IAS is not addressed.The Nature Conservation Act (2004, amended 2007) prohibits the introduction of non-native species into the wild. Permits may be granted to fur farms but regulations are in place to prevent escape into the wild. Secondary legislation from 2004 under the Nature Conservation Act provides a list of species it is prohibited to import into Estonia (13 plant species, 30 animal species). Also, all transactions related to these species are prohibited. The Fisheries Act (1995, amended in 2007) prohibits the introduction of alien fish or other aquatic species without written permission from the Minister of Environment. The Environmental Surveillance Act of 2004 contains regulations for the environmental surveillance of organisms potentially harmful to human health or the environment and the Environmental Register Act (2003, amended 2005) contains an obligation for a national environmental database which includes alien species. The alien species database is currently under development by the Estonian Environment Information Centre. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','02/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 43 are present in Estonia. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2. According to the most recent information provided by the Member States 40 of the 163 worst invasive alien species are present in Estonia.  In addition, Cervus Nippon and Pontogammarus robustoides have been eradicated and/or died out naturally.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10, EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','01/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_1_2','','There is currently no national strategy or action plan in Estonia for invasive alien species (IAS). For reasons of limited funding, it is not possible to develop IAS management plans more than once every one or two years. The Nature Conservation Development Plan is currently under development (to be adopted in 2010), with one of its subchapters focused on alien species. However, it is not yet clear whether this plan will deal with IAS in a comprehensive manner.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','02/03/2010 ','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_1_3','','Estonia has not yet ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. According to the current plans, the convention is to be ratified in 2013.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','02/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','   12/05/2010     '),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_1_4','','According to Member State Reporting, Estonian database is mainly based on species information. In some cases information on IAS impacts and the origin / pattern of introduction is documented. Estonia is participating actively in NOBANIS and uses its possibilities and contacts for early warning system. NOBANIS is also developing automated early warning system, which will be used by Estonia.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eelis.ic.envir.ee/voorliigid/    ','02/03/2010','     ','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A5','A5_2_2','','Co-existence measures are developed in cooperation with Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture. Estonia notified EC from draft of coexistence measures in May 2009 and sent the Answer for EC detailed Opinion in December 2009. They have been revised by the EC and will be adopted in 2010. According to the unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Estonia.','','      According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','1/03/2010','     ','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted on 5 December 2008, the first 4th National Report submitted to the CBD Secretariat among all CBD Parties. The Estonian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was published in 1999, however, it has not been formally adopted (it is a guideline document). Instead, Estonia started to develop the Nature Conservation Development Plan until the year 2020 that has most of the elements of the previously mentioned strategy. The development plan is expected to be adopted by the Government in summer 2010.Estonia had paid her annual contribution to the CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention, AEWA and World Heritage Convention.','','','','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A7','A7_1','','Estonia does not provide multilateral biodiversity aid.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Estonia. However, the Estonian Ministry of Environment has a bilateral environmental cooperation project with Georgia that includes elements about forestry (budget 13,000 EUR), but there are no projects directly connected to biodiversity.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','02/03/2010','     ','','06/01/2010; 09/05/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A7','A7_1_4','','Estonia has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A7','A7_2_2','','Estonia does not give external development assistance.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:      ','02/03/2010','     ','','  09/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','A8','A8_1','','Estonia has not inserted the CBD Bonn Guidelines into its national policy. However elements of it exist in national strategies and plans. The Ministry of Agriculture has compiled the Estonian National Programme “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013”. From the year 2008 crop genetic resources information is available in the Nordic and Baltic common web-based database SESTO. The Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 will have a special chapter about genetic resources. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I and maintained in Estonia have been included in the Multilateral System. Germplasm held in the collections listed above will be made available to users under the conditions of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Nearly 100% of the national consumption of wood products derives from sustainable sources. Estonia has issued a small number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008 and a small number of items were seized in 2005/2006. No import, export and re-export applications were denied. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','02/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/2010','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','Estonia has not inserted the CBD Bonn Guidelines into its national policy. However elements of it exist in national strategies and plans. The Ministry of Agriculture has compiled the Estonian National Programme “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013”. From the year 2008 crop genetic resources information is available in the Nordic and Baltic common web-based database SESTO. The Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 will have a special chapter about genetic resources.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','05/03/2010','','',' 09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Estonia has not provided funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I and maintained in Estonia have been included in the Multilateral System. 1. The collections held by the Genebank of the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute, located in Jõgeva. 2. The potato collection held by the Department of Plant Biotechnology EVIKA of the Estonian Agricultural Research Centre, located in Saku. 3. The Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Ribes, Rubus, Fragaria collection held by the Polli Horticultural Research Centre of the Estonian University of Life Sciences, located in Polli. Germplasm held in the collections listed above will be made available to users under the conditions of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. ','','   ','Reference or title:Weblink:Detailed data on the composition of the collections is available through the website: http://www.nordgen.org/sesto/index.php?scp=est&thm=sesto','03/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','A8','A8_1_4','','For the years 2006 and 2009 there were less than 1 % of fellings, where regulations were violated.','','Estonia does not import CITES listed tree species from outside the EU.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','05/03/2010','     ','',' 09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 122, 12 and 8, respectively. Information on the number of import, export or re-export applications denied is not available. An number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 10 for 2007 and 11 for 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, training was provided to the enforcement authorities. Oral and written advice/guidance was provided to the public. Estonia has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Estonia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2009, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). ','','02/03/2010','06/01/2010','     09/05/2010','     ','     '),
	('Estonia','A9','','','There is no special biodiversity adaptation plan to climate change developed in Estonia. However, a draft climate change chapter is expected to be part of the Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 to be adopted by mid-2010.','','     ','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','1/3/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_3_2','','There is an existing Estonian Biomass and Bioenergy usage enhancement development plan for the years 2007-2013, which was adopted in 2007. The NREAP is in development and should be completed in summer 2010. It will also include a biomass development plan.','','This information, based on Internet search, has not been re-checked by experts and suffered from a lack of available information.','This information based on Internet search and has not been re-checked by experts.','08/03/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_4_1','','There is no special biodiversity adaptation plan to climate change developed in Estonia. However, a draft climate change chapter is expected to be part of the Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 to be adopted by mid-2010.',NULL,'     ','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','1/3/2010','     ',NULL,'24/04/2010',NULL),
	('Estonia','A9','A9_4_3','','There have not been special assessments focusing on climate change impacts on species and habitats. In Estonia, Tallinn University\'s Institute of Ecology is performing some research on impacts of climate change on environment, in particular on landscape changes and development (but not on species or habitats). ','','     ','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php','05/03/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','A10_1','','No information provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity in Finland.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','A10_1_2','','No information provided on Finland’s plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','A10_1_8','','The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) site link to a national biodiversity platform directs users to the FIBRE website. FIBRE was a six year biodiversity research programme in Finland which ended in 2002. BITUMI, a project under FIBRE aimed to provide a platform for the transfer of scientific knowledge in Finland and promote communication. However, it is not clear whether this programme has carried over into a national biodiversity platform that is current and still updated regularly. ','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','A10_1_9','','Finland has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility since April 2001. Finland has a national GBIF node, which coordinates the activities for GBIF within the country. The Finnish GBIF node carries out a number of projects, including a project in cooperation with the Environmental Administration, an update of the metadatabase of Finnish collections, biodiversity surveys, databases and datasets of biodiversity data. A project currently underway is developing a joint Nordic e-infrastructure for organism names to facilitate data sharing, in collaboration with the other Nordic GBIF nodes.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. From Finland, the University of Turku Dept. of Biology-Centre for Biodiversity and the Finnish Museum of Natural History both participate in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). The University of Turku Centre for Biodiversity is the lead contractor on ENBI Work Package 7: Observational Survey Data. The goals of this Work Package are to: Develop strategies and networks for common European standards on analysing and presenting biodiversity data that is based on observations, systematic sampling or surveys; Define methodologies linking taxonomic, collection and specimen databases with the observational data; and Establish links with existing projects and programmes that analyse and promote the use of GIS and remote sensing in biodiversity studies.The Finnish Museum of Natural History is an independent research institution functioning under the University of Helsinki. The museum is a collaborator on Work Package 7: Observational Survey Data and also a member of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, the condition of all freshwater, grassland and rocky habitats is favourable. The condition of 6 of the 7 (86%) bogs, mires and fens, 4 of the 5 (80%) forests and 1 of 1 (50%) health and scrub habitats is also reported as favourable. The remaining 1 of the 2 (50%) health and scrub habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate.The condition of all Marine Baltic coastal habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate.In the Boreal biogeographical region, 3 of the 4 (75%) rocky habitats are in favourable condition. 5 of the 7 (71%) dune habitats, 8 of the 12 (67%)forests, 5 of the 8 (63%) freshwater habitats and 5 of the 9 (56%) bogs, mires and fens are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 9 of the 11 (82%) grassland habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats6100%00%00%00%00%6Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands2100%00%00%00%00%2Bogs, mires & fens686%114%00%00%00%7Rocky habitats3100%00%00%00%00%3Forests480%120%00%00%00%5Marine BalticCoastal habitats00%3100%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats330%440%330%00%00%10Dunes habitats00%571%229%00%00%7Freshwater habitats113%563%225%00%00%8Heath & scrub133%133%133%00%00%3Grasslands19%19%982%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%556%333%00%111%9Rocky habitats375%125%00%00%00%4Forests00%867%433%00%00%12','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','10/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Finland has designated 1715 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 48,552 km², totalling 12.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 98 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 5460 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 468 with a total area of 30,838 km², totalling 7.5% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 66 with a marine area of 5567 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage of ‘Terrestrial area’ refers here to the total area of the Finnish territory, including the marine area. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','07/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','The latest statistics is included in the art 17 reporting.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','11/05/2010','07/01/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','A1_2_3','','Regional and General plans under the physical planning system of the Land Use and Building Act; METSO-programme for the additional protection of valuable forest ecosystems in private land; The Natural Resource Planning system in state-owned land. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','A1_3','','Of the 266 regularly occurring bird species in Finland, 6 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Finland, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of 1 or 100% of amphibians and reptiles, 3 of 3 or 100% of fish, 2 of the 4 (50%) invertebrates, 7 of the 9 (78%) mammals and 9 of the 15 (60%) plants was reported to be favourable. 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates and 2 of the 15 (13%) plants are in an unfavourable-adequate condition while 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates and 3 of the 15 (20%)  plants were reported to be unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) mammals was reported to be favourable and the status of the other 1 of the 2 (50%) mammals was reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 2 of the 4 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of the 9 (89%) fish, 9 of the 39 (23%) invertebrates, 12 of the 21 (57%) mammals and 12 of the 44 (27%) plants are in a favourable condition. 15 of the 39 (38%) invertebrates and 20 of the 44 (45%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. As for the conservation status of species that was reported unknown, this includes 1 of the 4 (25%) for amphibians and reptiles, 13 of the 39 (33%) for invertebrates, 6 of the 21 (29%) for mammals and 11% apiece for fish (I of the 9) and plants (5 of the 44). ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.  An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Alpine Amphibians and reptiles 1100%00%00%00%00%1Fish 3100%00%00%00%00%3Invertebrates250%125%00%125%00%4Mammals778%00%111%111%00%9Plants 960%213%17%320%00%15Marine BalticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals150%150%00%00%00%2Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0BorealAmphibians and reptiles 250%125%00%125%00%4Fish 889%00%00%111%00%9Invertebrates923%1538%25%1333%00%39Mammals1257%210%15%629%00%21Plants 1227%2045%614%511%12%44','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/;http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','12/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Finland has the following completed species action plans: 5 for birds, 5 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 10 for invertebrates and 65 for plants. In addition, the following species action plans are in preparation: 1 for birds, 2 for mammals and 2 for plants. Red lists exists for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','The number of action plans for plant species includes action plans for lichens and other fungi.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=1757&lan=fi#a2http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=1758&lan=fi','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','B1_1_1','','Of particular importance regarding funding programmes for biodiversity are Finland’s National Forest Programme 2015, the METSO Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland for 2008–2016 and the Finnish Agri-Environment Scheme (AES). Within Life projects, from 2004 – 2008, Finland spent up to EUR3,363,307 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Finland’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Finland’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','B1_1_4','','Finland’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR1.9m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR2.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR12.1m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','07/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','B1_1_8','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Finland has created a new national plan or strategy or updated an existing one in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B3_1_5','',' The planning process in Finland has helped to identify and protect many valuable ecosystems, and has introduced new practices such as the maintenance of connectivity areas such as commercially managed forests. Natural resource and landscape ecological plans have been produced for all state-owned lands. Significant policy tools for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity include legislation and environmental impact assessments for development projects, land use planning for protected areas and other forms of land use planning. Finland  does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships. ','','No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnershipsat the local, regional and national levels.','Reference or title: Finland CBD 4th National ReportsWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','','','','11/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A1','B4_1_2','','The Finnish Ministry of the Environment made a declaration in support of 2010 countdown initiative on 21st September 2006. The Finnish government communicated its support to the 2010 biodiversity target by helping to integrate the 2010 target to address environmental concerns in the Peruvian Amazon via its BIODAMAZ Project; adopting a Second Finnish National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2006-2016 focusing on the 2010 target. Additionally, it proposed helping to prepare the EU Environmental Council Conclusions on the EC Biodiversity Communication and to promote Youth & biodiversity during the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy meeting in Helsinki in November 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, 10,000 euros was contributed by Finland to fund Countdown projects.','',' In 2007 Finland contributed 10,000 euros to the project “C2010 in Finland”','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','C1_2','','Finland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 4 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances and another one is under development. There are several other biodiversity-relevant indicators, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','C1_2_1','','Finland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 4 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances and another one is under development. There are several other biodiversity-relevant indicators, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A1','C1_3_1','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Finland total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2154.43 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 6823.5 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1550.09 million EUR, and 5498.2 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 71.95 and to 80.58 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Finland was 682.21 million EUR (2420.24 with co-financing) and amounted to 31.67 per cent of the EAFRD (35.47 per cent with co-financing). There are no payments in Finland for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)179.595642.046Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Finland in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Finland had a total certified forest area of 20.82 million hectares out of a total forest area of 22.5 million hectares. 9706 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the vast majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification scheme (PEFC) under which 20.81 million hectares were certified. In total, 92.51 per cent of the forest area in Finland was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Finland amounted to 1.33 million ha, representing a share of 44.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'11/05/2010',NULL),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/Agriculture/eu_agriculture_do_better.html ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 68 million € has been added to Finland’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Finland attributed € 1 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 17 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the alpine and 13 per cent of the boreal freshwater habitats in Finland have a favourable conservation status. The status of the remaining (88 per cent) boreal freshwater habitats is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A breakdown of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of fresh water habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage14770050%50%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U15  U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage606000%100%0%0%U10 U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Finland oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.56 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.69 mg O3/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.70 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated no clear trend, remaining at the same level of 0.06 mg N/l between 2002 and 2005, with a peak of 0.09 mg N/l in 2003. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 0.33 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.44 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.51 mg N/l in 2004. Figures corresponded more or less to the weighted average of 0.45 mg N/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden, Finland and Norway only) in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2004, amounting to 1.2 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 1.5 mg NO3/l in 2005.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Finland had a total number of 232 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 88.9 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009 , Finland developed three out of four biological assessment methods for lakes, with fish fauna presumably under development. Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates assessment were also developed for rivers, the other two probably under development. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were implemented.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009,  the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 112 in Finland.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Finland had a total number of 689 IPPC installations and issued 664 permits. 25 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject.The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions were below the targets set by the NEC Directive. As regards ammonia, the country still exceeded the target.  According to projections, emission ceilings can be attained by 2010, taking all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures into account. The projected 2010 non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia emissions, however, are expected to be relatively close to the emission ceilings, causing some uncertainty as to whether the targets will be met. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Finland the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 3 and 47 per cent respectively, considering an area of 273,634 km2 and 240,403 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 2 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 41 per cent in 2010 and 36 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 2 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Finland’s gross nitrogen balance was 55 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 34 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, Finland’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. By 2006 the indicator was at 78.5 per cent, a 21.5 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 9 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. ','','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Finland generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status in Finland are the alpine grassland habitats (100 per cent have favourable conservation status) and the alpine peat land habitats, where 86 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 14 per cent is unfavourable). 89 per cent of the boreal peat land habitats in Finland have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 11 per cent was not reported. The highest percentages of unfavourable conservation status are found in the boreal forest habitats of Finland (100 per cent unfavourable) and the boreal grassland habitats where 91 per cent have an unfavourable status (the remaining 9 per cent have a favourable status). 80 per cent of the alpine forest habitats in Finland have a favourable conservation status, the remaining 20 per cent has an unfavourable status. Of the boreal heath and scrub habitats in Finland, 67 per cent have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 33 per cent has a favourable status. Half of the alpine heath and scrub habitats have a favourable conservation status, the remaining 50 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131030077%23%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage111010091%9%0%0%U11  U29       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10 U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage171340076%24%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1212000100%0%0%0%U18  U24       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5140020%80%0%0%U11 U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3210067%33%0%0%U11  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11 U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage16960156%38%0%6%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9800189%0%0%11%U15  U23       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7160014%86%0%0%U11 U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Finland showed that of three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all had an ‘Inadequate’ status. There were ten coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region—three had a ‘Favourable’ status (30%), four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (40%), and three had a ‘Bad’ status (30%).There were two marine species assessed in the Marine Baltic region—both mammals. One had a ‘Favourable’ status (50%) and the other had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticMarine habitats00%3100%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats330%440%330%00%00%10Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals150%150%00%00%00%2Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL150%150%00%00%00%2The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_1_4','','Finland reported that, in 2009, it had 62 surveillance stations and 88 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Finland has 255 coastal water bodies. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates. No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','10/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_1_5','','No information was provided on the status of the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A3','A3_2','','Finland currently has 86 coastal bathing areas and a high proportion of these reach mandatory standards for water quality. The percentage reaching mandatory standards reached 100% in 2007 but fell slightly to 98.8% in 2008. The proportion reaching stricter guidelines standards for water quality has fluctuated but reached a new high of 76.7% in 2008. Finland has a large number of sampling stations in Baltic coastal waters (111 measuring nitrogen concentrations and 118 measuring phosphate concentrations). Out of these sampling stations the majority have shown no change in nitrogen or phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005. However 5 have shown an increase in nitrogen concentrations (13 have shown a decrease) and 7 have shown an increase in phosphate concentrations (6 have shown a decrease). ','','-','','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_4','','Finland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €7,985,000and includes measures such as improving fishing gear selectivity. Axis 2 (€39,520,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and specifically aims to reduce nutrient loads. Axis 3 (€34,473,827) includes an objective to disseminate good practice and Axis 4 (€8,412,000) promotes diversification of activities (i.e. away from fishing).','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com07/com07_85_fr.htm http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Finland had 3,196 vessels and 0.3% were involved in a serious infringement (11 vessels). A total of 3 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €198 and maximum fine of €360.','','2007 data is not currently available ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_5_2','','No information on restoration programmes for diadromous species was provided by Finland. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Finland','A3','A3_5_3','','There has been an overall decreasing trend in Finland’s fishing capacity from 1999 to 2008, although there have been a very slight increases in fishing power between 2006 and 2008. The overall decrease since 1999 amounts to a reduction of 14% in vessels; 25% reduction in tonnage and a 17% reduction in power. It is currently assessed that the overall capacity of vessels is in balance with fishing possibilities and therefore no further decommissioning is foreseen, although salmon driftnet vessels will be scrapped since the fishing method was prohibited at the beginning of 2008.    ','','2008 data: 3240 vessels; 16046 tons; 169813 kW.','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en ','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Finland had 3,196 active vessels. There were 6 type D breaches in this year but no penalties imposed. No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures in relation to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by Finland.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_6_2','','','','No information on monitoring programmes for sharks or seabirds was provided by Finland.','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Finland','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','No information on fisheries management plans for N2000 sites within territorial waters was provided by Finland. ','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11//5/2010',''),
	('Finland','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Finland has 84 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). No further information on specific fisheries measures designed for marine Natura2000 sites was provided by Finland. under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','','(1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 113Marine sites outside of territorial waters: Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A3','A3_7_1','','Finland has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Finland plan on calculating ecosystem indicators 1-4 based on two joint Finnish-Estonian BIAS surveys. Indicators 5-7 will be calculated using VMS data, collected and used by the Finnish fisheries control system. Indicator 8 on the discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated based on logbooks and landing declarations and reported annually. The fuel costs for each fleet segment for Indicator 9 will also be calculated based on logbooks and landing declarations, as well as fish price statistics.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Finland was 3.31 in 2004. This represents a small increase (0.01) since 1999, but a decrease of 0.37 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Finnish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 16.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Finland has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is specific legislation that addresses import, introduction, control and eradication of IAS. The issue of possession and trade of IAS is not addressed. The Finnish Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996) restricts the introduction of alien species. The Hunting Act (615/1993, 1268/1993) prohibits the introduction and import of wild bird and mammal species unless permission has been granted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Under the Plant Protection Law (1203/1994) there are provisions to prevent the introduction of pests and diseases of plants. Secondary legislation provides for import, monitoring, eradication, control and containment which is enforced by the Plant Protection Inspection Centre. The Law for Animal Diseases (551/1980) and subsequent amendments provides a legislative framework for preventing the introduction of animal pathogens in Finland which includes alien pathogens.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 48 are present in Finland. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A5','A5_1_2','','The preparation for a national invasive alien species (IAS) strategy and action plan began in June 2008 with the aim of being completed by the end of 2010. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are responsible for its development. It is unclear whether IAS are dealt with comprehensively as part of a national or sub national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A5','A5_1_3','','Finland has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that Data source ','','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, in 2010 the Uusimaa province and the archipelago of Ahven Anmaa were formally or informally declared GMO-free in Finland.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, GMO free EuropeWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in June 2009. The National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland 2006-2016 and National Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland 2006-2016 were published in 2007; they form the second version of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.Finland had paid her contributions to the CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while the payment for the World Heritage Convention for 2008 was still outstanding as of 31 Dec 2008. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid spending for Finland in 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Finland spent EUR2.5m in 2006 and EUR 5.8m on bilateral biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.006% and 0.015%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009, 11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A7','A7_1_4','','Finland contributed EUR26.99 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 1.11% of the total replenishment. Finland contributed EUR31.12 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.46 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A8','A8_1','','Finland has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. No information on national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing or the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources was provided. Information on activities raising awareness on the Bonn Guidelines and the Material Transfer Agreement was not provided either. No information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources was provided.  A low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Finland provided funds for the 5th meeting (2007), 6th meeting (2008) and the 8th meeting (2009) of the ABS Working Group. The amount for the 8th meeting was EUR10,000.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A8','A8_1_4','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 236, 11 and 45, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. An aggregate number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 30 for 2007 and 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have purchased technical equipment for monitoring and enforcement; computerisation and have provided oral or written advice/guidance for staff of Management Authority, staff of enforcement authorities, traders and the public. Training was also provided for staff of enforcement authorities. Finland provided financial assistance to facilitate the participation of developing countries in international CITES meetings. The funds were given to the secretariat to be used at their discretion. The funds were given to the Secretariat to be used at their discretion. Finland paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The number of seizures refers to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms; note the figure provided in the table is the combined figure for 2007 and 2008). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','07/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','A9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','A9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('Finland','A9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','','','France has set up a number of initiatives to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships. These are summarised and listed in chronological order below:In July 2006, a seminar was held on “Offset mechanisms: an opportunity for economic and financial sectors” (included stakeholders such as Shell, BBOP, Forest Trends, IUCN, etc).In 2007, material was published on the advantages biodiversity initiatives for  business «La biodiversité, un atout pour vos sites d’entreprise » (MEDD, EpE, Orée, Comité français de l’UICN). In October, “Grenelle de l’environnement”, was launched consisting of roundtables on different environmental topics (including one on biodiversity, e.g. debates on “green and blue corridors”) with the State, local authorities, NGOs, companies and trade unions.In February 2008 the “Foundation for Biodiversity Research” was created by the Ministries of ecology and of research, within which a structure is dedicated to the dialogue with civil society, the Strategic Orientation Committee, and involves numerous companies. In 2008, the multiyear (2005-2008) programme between the Ministry of ecology and IUCN International ended. One of the outputs included guidelines made with the company Accor on the sustainable use of natural resources in hotels (“Biodiversity: my hotel in action”). This programme was renewed in 2009 until 2013 and will include actions on business and biodiversity, e.g. TEEB report for business.A Conference on Biodiversity in France (in the framework of the International Year for Biodiversity), is planned for May 2010 including panel discussions on business and biodiversity. The involvement of several companies is foreseen.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','A1','A10_1','','Research on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been progressing steadily since 2000, with yearly calls for proposals of the French National Research Agency (ANR). Complementary calls may be launched by other ministries and, more recently, by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity , created in 2008. Between 2006  to 2009, the calls for proposals were targeted, with a comprehensive description of the goals and expected outcomes. Projects receive a significant support from ANR (in the range of 500 k€) and last 3 years. Thus, the impact of these research projects on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity may not be yet visible','','The number of scientists involved in research on biodiversity in France may be estimated to be at least 3000. This involves full time scientists from research institutions and university professors (with a part-time on research).   ','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','A10_1_2','','In 2009, France conducted a study aimed at describing ecosystems and the services they provide in France. With existing data, France produced a typology of terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems (based on land use and land cover) and of ecosystem services, indicators to assess the state of ecosystems and the quality of the services, and a methodology to assess the link between ecosystems’ state and services. This study will be used next year to launch a second part of the French MA which will most likely involve mobilization of French expertise on biodiversity to assess more precisely qualitatively and quantitatively the state of ecosystems and the services they provide. France has used the framework, experiences and findings of the original Millennium Assessment (2001-2005) in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation. Valuation and accounting methods are not used yet in the MA follow up. However, they have been used in another review linking biodiversity and ecosystem services [rapport CAS, 2009]. France also participated to the work of the EEA about environmental accounting and ecosystem services.','','','','','','','',''),
	('France','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','A10_1_8','','The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategies provides a link to the French national biodiversity platform, part of the Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité (FRB). Its mission is to lead, coordinate and disseminate information on biodiversity research and associated activities. Their website includes a ‘news’ section, information on ‘Research in France’ showing different actions in biodiversity research, a publications section and links to other sites.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','A10_1_9','','France joined the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as a voting Participant in March 2001. The French Participant node is GBIF France. GBIF France’s mission is to collect all data hosted in France, as they related to biodiversity within the French territory and the rest of the world. In addition, GBIF France has the following objectives: to raise awareness of GBIF in France; to offer French researchers the tools developed by GBIF to make their data accessible; to support data providers as they use the central GBIF portal; to enable interoperability of databases on biodiversity; and to enable viewing of multiple datasets using GIS and geo-spatial modelling.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. Participating in ENBI in France is the Museum National D’Histoire Naturelle. The Museum National D’Histoire Naturelle is a scientific establishment and a public service, applying itself to research and the dissemination of knowledge. The Department of Molecular Systematics is a platform for research under the Department for Systematics and Evolution. They are contributors to ENBI Work Package 7: Observational Data and Work Package 23: Information Services on European Data. They are also ‘members’ of Work Package 11: Multilingual access.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 4 of the 4 (100%) sclerophyllous scrub and 7 of the 11 (64%) rocky habitats are in favourable condition. 3 of the 6 (50%) both heath and scrub and grassland habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 5 of the 8 (63%) bogs, mires and fens is reported to be unfavourable-bad.All rocky habitats in the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) Marine Atlantic coastal habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 50% or more of the coastal (8 of the 12 or 67%), sclerophyllous scrub (1 of the 2 or 50%), rocky (4 of the 7 or 57%) and forest (7 of the 14 or 50%) habitats are reported to be in unfavourable-inadequate condition. The remaining sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. 8 of the 10 (80%), 6 of the 8 (75%) and 6 of the 9 (67%) grassland habitats, bog, mire and fen habitats and freshwater habitats are in unfavourable-bad condition respectively. Over half the dune habitats (6 of the 11 or 55%) are also reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. Assessments of the condition of 1 of the 9 (11%) freshwater habitats are yet to be reported.In the Continental biogeographical region, the condition of 8 of the 10 (80%) rocky habitats and 2 of the 3 (67%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats is reported to be favourable. 3 of the 5 (60%) heath and scrub habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of all coastal habitats and dune habitats is in an unfavourable-bad condition. The majority of freshwater habitats (8 of the 10 or 80%), grasslands (8 of the 11 or 73%) and bogs, mires and fens (5 of the 7 or 71%) in the bioregion are in an unfavourable-bad condition.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 2 of the 4 (50%) coastal habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of the remaining coastal habitats is reported to be bad. There is a slight proportion of uncertainty, with 3 of the 14 (21%) forests and 2 of the 11 (18%) rocky habitats in the Alpine region, 3 of the 16 (19%) forests in the Continental biogeographical region, as well as 3 of the 13 (23%) grasslands and 2 of the 10 (20%) dunes habitats in the Mediterranean reported as of unknown condition.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%440%660%00%00%10Heath & scrub233%350%117%00%00%6Sclerophyllous scrub4100%00%00%00%00%4Grasslands542%650%18%00%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%338%563%00%00%8Rocky habitats764%19%19%218%00%11Forests214%536%321%321%17%14Marine AtlanticCoastal habitats00%133%267%00%00%3Rocky habitats00%1100%00%00%00%1AtlanticCoastal habitats00%867%325%18%00%12Dunes habitats00%436%655%19%00%11Freshwater habitats00%222%667%00%111%9Heath & scrub00%120%480%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands00%110%880%110%00%10Bogs, mires & fens00%225%675%00%00%8Rocky habitats114%457%229%00%00%7Forests00%750%643%17%00%14ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%2100%00%00%2Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%220%880%00%00%10Heath & scrub00%360%240%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub267%00%133%00%00%3Grasslands00%327%873%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%229%571%00%00%7Rocky habitats880%00%110%110%00%10Forests319%638%425%319%00%16Marine Mediterranean Coastal habitats00%250%250%00%00%4Rocky habitats00%1100%00%00%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats00%550%550%00%00%10Dunes habitats00%220%660%220%00%10Freshwater habitats18%650%542%00%00%12Heath & scrub133%267%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub450%338%113%00%00%8Grasslands18%646%323%323%00%13Bogs, mires & fens00%250%250%00%00%4Rocky habitats889%111%00%00%00%9Forests317%633%739%211%00%18','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and  http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, France has designated 1365 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 72,417 km², totalling 8.5% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 94 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 25,722 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 380, with a total area of 70,140 km², totalling 7.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 72, with a marine area of 26,888 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Out of 1747 Natura 2000 sites, 918 have an approved or completed management plan, 501 have a management plan in preparation and 328 have no management plan.','','To date, there are 1392 steering committees for 1747 sites notified to the Commission, i.e. around 80 % management bodies. Strictly speaking, the steering committee does not manage the site directly: it prepares the objectives document and monitors the site\'s activities. As it comprises socio-professionals and local actors, it is rather a framework for exchange, consultation, concertation and debate. The objectives document (docob) translates the management guidelines, the implementation of which is encouraged by the site coordinator. ','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','A1_2_3','','A legislative tool  is developed but not in place yet: a draft law is proposed and should be decided in 2010 for the establishment of a \"green and blue infrastructure\" in France by the end of 2012 as part of a land management tool. This ecological network will include protected areas (Natura 2000 and non-Natura 2000 areas) and non-protected areas (which provide essential goods and services).This draft law proposes a system at three levels:    - a national level: national guidelines for the preservation  and restoration of ecological continuity to be approved by decree (= highest level of legislative regulation) to be taken into account by:     - a regional level: regional schemes of ecological coherence to be developed before 2012, containing regional issues of ecological continuities to be taken into account by :    - a local level: the spatial and town project documents of local authorities.However, some French regions, local authorities and local stakeholders have already developed local ecological connectivities on a contractual basis. In 2010, a national resources centre on green and blue infrastructure should be created. It will be a platform which may help local authorities and stakeholders to support ecological connectivity on their territory. This platform will also enable experience sharing.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','A1_3','','Of the 352 regularly occurring bird species in France, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 6 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of France, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 12 of the 36 (33%) invertebrates, 10 of the 39 (26%) mammals and 13 of the 41 (32%) plants was reported to be favourable. 4 of the 9 (44%) fish and 13 of the 41 (32%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 13 of the 24 (54%) amphibians and reptiles and 10 of the 41 (24%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 13 of the 36 (36%) invertebrates and 18 of the 39 (46%) mammals is unknown. 1 of the 9 (11%) fish and 2 of the 36 (6%) invertebrates were not reported.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 16 (6%) mammals are in a favourable condition and 1 of the 3 (33%) amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 4 (25%) fish and 2 of the 2 (100%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 3 (67%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 4 (75%) fish and 15 of the 16 (94%) mammals is unknown. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 3 of the 14 (21%) fish and 9 of the 33 (27%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 4 of the 14 (29%) fish and 8 of the 34 (24%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 2 of the 14 (56%) fish were reported to be in unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 33 (67%) mammals, 24 of the 41 (59%) invertebrates and 20 of the 34 (59%) plants was reported to be unfavourable-bad. The conservation status 14 of the 33 (42%) mammals is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 2 of the 22 (24%) fish and 7 of the 47 (26%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 7 of the 22 (32%) amphibians and reptiles and 4 of the 17 (24%) fish are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 13 of the 22 (59%) amphibians and reptiles, 23 of the 47 (49%) invertebrates and 19 of the 35 (54%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 20 of the 39 (51%) mammals is unknown and the conservation status of 2 of the 47 (4%) invertebrates was not reported.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) amphibians and reptiles and 2 of the 6 (33%) of invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 2 of the 3 (67%) amphibians and reptiles, 2 of the 6 (33%) invertebrates and 2 of the 9 (22%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 4 (100%) fish, 2 of the 6 (33%) invertebrates, 6 of the 9 (67%) mammals and 2 of the 2 (100%) plants was reported unknown. In addition, 1 of the 9 (11%) mammals was not reported. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 14 of the 36 (39%) amphibians and reptiles, 12 of the 32 (38%) invertebrates and 12 0f the 41 (29%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 9 of the 17 (53%) fish and 16 of the 41 (39%) plants was reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 5 of the 17 (29%) fish and 11 of the 40 (28%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 32 (25%) invertebrates and 15 of the 40 (38%) mammals was reported to be unknown. The reason why Angiosperms are classified as « unfavourable conservation status » is mainly the identification of poor or bad future prospects (climate change). Other species are declining because of other reasons. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are largely in unfavourable conservation status because of small distribution areas. Moreover, good quality habitats are insufficient for those groups of species. These results are confirmed by national red lists.The distribution of coastal and aquatic species is largely declining, whereas the distribution of species typical of forests and grasslands is rather increasing. The conservation status of Mammals and Reptiles, and, to a lesser extent, Insects is rather encouraging compared to the conservation status of Fishes and Amphibians.Unknown conservation status is rather large for species in France because some groups did not benefit in 2007 and before from accurate monitoring and experts (lichens, mosses). For animal species, assessment criteria were not fully accurate. The distinction between biogeographical zones was not pertinent for some animal species.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Alpine Amphibians and reptiles 313%521%1354%313%00%24Fish 111%444%222%111%111%9Invertebrates1233%26%719%1336%26%36Mammals1026%718%410%1846%00%39Plants 1332%1332%1024%512%00%41Marine AtlanticAmphibians and reptiles 00%133%00%267%00%3Fish 00%00%125%375%00%4Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals16%00%00%1594%00%16Plants 00%00%2100%00%00%2Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 28%521%1667%14%00%24Fish 321%429%536%214%00%14Invertebrates615%512%2459%512%12%41Mammals927%39%721%1442%00%33Plants 39%824%2059%39%00%34Continental Amphibians and reptiles 29%732%1359%00%00%22Fish 424%424%741%212%00%17Invertebrates511%715%2349%1021%24%47Mammals1026%513%410%2051%00%39Plants 514%617%1954%514%00%35Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%133%267%00%00%3Fish 00%00%00%4100%00%4Invertebrates00%233%233%233%00%6Mammals00%00%222%667%111%9Plants 00%00%00%2100%00%2MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 1439%1131%719%411%00%36Fish 212%953%529%16%00%17Invertebrates1238%619%516%825%13%32Mammals820%615%1128%1538%00%40Plants 1229%1639%1024%37%00%41','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','France has the following completed species action plans: 16 birds, 6 mammals, 2 for amphibians and reptiles, and 1 for fish. In addition, the following completed species action plans are in preparation: 4 for birds, 2 for mammals, 9 for amphibians and reptiles, 5 for invertebrates and 11 for plants. France has developed several indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes. These can be grouped as follows: indicators based on growth rates, (habitat specialist indicators and indicators of climate change impacts) and indicators based on community traits (Community Specialisation Index and Community Temperature Index). France has Red Lists for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish and plants. Since 2007, the IUCN France Committee and the National Museum of Natural History, with the support of the Ministry in charge of Ecology, have launched a comprehensive programme aiming at updating national red lists of threatened fauna and flora species (both for mainland and overseas territories). These lists follow the IUCN criteria. So far five lists have been published for mainland France: reptiles & amphibians, breeding birds, mammals, orchids, freshwater fish. As regards the overseas territories, the Reunion island red lists will be published soon. This programme also applies to plants, for which the book \"Livre rouge de la flore menacée de France” has already been issued in 1995 and will be completed in 2010. IUCN red lists for flora will also be issued in 2010.','','The species action plans mentioned are all national. Furthermore, additional action plans will be prepared in 2010 :- 1 for amphibians and reptiles- 1 for fish- 1 for invertebrates- 8 for plants.','Reference or title:Weblink:Olivier, L., Galland, J. P. & Maurin, H., [Eds]. 1995. Livre Rouge de la flore menacée de France. Tome I : Espèces prioritaires. Collection Patrimoines Naturels (Série Patrimoine Génétique). n 20. SPN-IEGB /MNHN, DNP/Ministère Environnement, CBN Porquerolles, Paris. 486 pp.http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/livrerouge1.pdfhttp://www.uicn.fr/Liste-rouge-France.html','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','B1_1_1','','France’s expenses for biodiversity and landscape conservation comprise 4.2% of the total environmental protection budget. The conservation of biodiversity and landscape is mainly publicly financed, but local funding plays also an important role. At the focus of this funding is the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, in particular the Natura 2000 network. Another focus of funding is the implementation of a new law from 2006 on National Parks, Marine Nature Parks and Regional Nature Parks. For France’s overseas territories, increased funding has been foreseen for biodiversity conservation. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, France spent up to EUR8,027,127 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from France’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to France’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','B1_1_4','','France’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR175.2m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR48.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR103.4m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','B1_1_8','','','','','','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B2_4','','The French National Strategy for Biodiversity was created in 2004. Its ten action plans were updated in 2009; taking into account the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-plans-d-actions-de-la.html','24/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','B3_1_2','','Forestry and biodiversity partnerships have been facilitated at the regional and national levels. Twenty have been facilitated at the regional level and one has been facilitated at the national level.Incentives at local level consist in financing territorial partnerships (chartes forestières de territoire) dealing with multifunctional aspects including biodiversity. At regional level, regional action plans for forestry development are implemented, also including biodiversity topics. At national level, an action plan for forest biodiversity includes a number of actions involving diverse partnerships with public/private forest managers/owners representatives, research centres and NGOs. Guidelines for biodiversity integration in forest management have been developed in this context.It seems that similar partnerships for farming and biodiversity have not been facilitated and established.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B3_1_5','','Regional Planning is guided by the implementation of a seven year programme called Contrats de Projets Etat Région 2007-2013 (CPER). This outlines the projects that the national, regional and local governments have agreed to undertake. Biodiversity concerns are integrated into these projects. The Grenelle de l’Environnement (a series of national workshops on biodiversity) also developed tools which will allow coherence for planning and biodiversity. These will be piloted in each region in partnership with local authorities and stakeholders and the results of this will be included in urban planning documents.France does not have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships. However, the process for the development of biodiversity and planning partnerships in underway. In fact, it rests upon the Grenelle de l\'Environnement (started in 2007) and will be encouraged during 2010, international year for biodiversity. A plan entitled \"Nature en Ville\", an outcome of the Grenelle Environnement is being drafted. Its actions will be implemented through a partnership between all stakeholders (national and local governments, corporate professionals, NGOs, scientific experts). One action of this plan is to create a portal dedicated to the subject of nature in towns. In addition, the \"Ville Durable\" plan which includes actions such as \"Eco quartiers\", Ecocités\" will be based on the same kind of partnership.Following the revision of the National Strategy for Biodiversity in 2011, a system for biodiversity governance involving all stakeholders at national, regional and local levels will be designed. This will involve integrating biodiversity into all sectoral policies of regional and local strategies and ensure policy coherence.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for FranceWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/http://www.biodiversite2010.fr/ http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/grenelle-environnement/spip.php?rubrique293http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Presentation,13737.html','24/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/2010'),
	('France','A1','B3_1_6','','France has set up a number of initiatives to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships. These are summarised and listed in chronological order below:In July 2006, a seminar was held on “Offset mechanisms: an opportunity for economic and financial sectors” (included stakeholders such as Shell, BBOP, Forest Trends, IUCN, etc).In 2007, material was published on the advantages biodiversity initiatives for  business «La biodiversité, un atout pour vos sites d’entreprise » (MEDD, EpE, Orée, Comité français de l’UICN). In October, “Grenelle de l’environnement”, was launched consisting of roundtables on different environmental topics (including one on biodiversity, e.g. debates on “green and blue corridors”) with the State, local authorities, NGOs, companies and trade unions.In February 2008 the “Foundation for Biodiversity Research” was created by the Ministries of ecology and of research, within which a structure is dedicated to the dialogue with civil society, the Strategic Orientation Committee, and involves numerous companies. In 2008, the multiyear (2005-2008) programme between the Ministry of ecology and IUCN International ended. One of the outputs included guidelines made with the company Accor on the sustainable use of natural resources in hotels (“Biodiversity: my hotel in action”). This programme was renewed in 2009 until 2013 and will include actions on business and biodiversity, e.g. TEEB report for business.A Conference on Biodiversity in France (in the framework of the International Year for Biodiversity), is planned for May 2010 including panel discussions on business and biodiversity. The involvement of several companies is foreseen.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B3_1_7','','France has set up the following initiatives to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity•  July 2006 : Seminar on “Offset mechanisms : an opportunity for economic and financial sectors” (Shell, BBOP, Forest Trends, IUCN, etc.).• May 2008 : Launch of the first pilot operation in France on compensation banking (with CDC Biodiversité / public bank, in the Plaine de Crau).','','Some banks have adopted the Equator Principles on a voluntary basis in France (BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Dexia, etc.).','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.cdc-biodiversite.fr/  (Website of CDC Biodiversité, sister company of La Caisse des dépôts dedicated to biodiversity)','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('France','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.However, general awareness raising activities on the French National Biodiversity Strategy and biodiversity-related subjects have been developed by the Ministry of Environment. In 2006, the Ministry held a campaign on biodiversity and climate change (national radio and television) together with \"les jardins de l\'écologie\", an event taking place in park in Paris showcasing questions and answers about biodiversity with large potted plants, story telling. It involved visitor participation regarding daily eco-friendly behaviours. Other communication and awareness raising tools used have included: a free exhibition provided for stakeholders with updated information on the importance and relevance of the NBSAP; numerous documents published on biodiversity, including two illustrated booklets on biodiversity; public awareness events on grassland biodiversity and invasive alien species on International Biodiversity dayIn 2009, communication actions were planned to raise awareness in 2010 (international year of biodiversity). Activities of the Directorate of water and biodiversity in the Ministry of Environment include:  1) an institutional campaign: with broadcasting  of short programmes on biodiversity entitled \"les héros de la biodiversité\" from 4 January to 26 December 2010 showcasing concrete actions taken by ordinary people in favour of biodiversity, a press and poster campaign in January and May : “What is Biodiversity ? Why should we take care of biodiversity?”, an internet campaign aimed at raising awareness of young people.2)  general public communication campaigns: a brochure on the issue of biodiversity, a mobile exhibition on invasive alien species, a campaign for amateur gardeners on the reduction of pesticide use; activities in supermarkets and an event \"les rendez-vous aux jardins\", a public rally at the National Museum of Natural History with a  \"pollinator observatory \", updated flyers on species with events in railway stations, motorways and airports, a national call for projects on \"Art and Biodiversity\" with a final event in the autumn, video clips on marine biodiversity on the site of the Ministry of Ecology, French portal for the international year of biodiversity.3) targeted campaign for elected representatives and experts: press and media campaign, brochure on  \"trame verte et bleue\"  (50 000 copies), conference on ‘national action plans, 15 years of policy, experience –sharing’ and a brochure on results and projected outcomes for a wetland policy in France.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-La-biodiversite,1008-.htmlhttp://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-orientations-strategiques-de.htmlhttp://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/2010-annee-internationale-de-la,12584.htmlhttp://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-heros-de-la-biodiversite.htmlhttp://www.biodiversite2010.fr/-Ca-se-passe-pres-de-chez-vous-.html','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','A1','B4_1_2','','The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative on the 10th January 2005.  The French government communicated that it was committed to implementing a strategy for biodiversity based on existing frameworks and restoration plans for threatened species and to reinforce European policies on invasive alien species and biodiversity conservation in the high seas, coastal Mediterranean areas and overseas departments. It also said that a cooperation platform with the private sector would be established on how to reach the 2010 biodiversity target. Between 2006 and 2008, France contributed funding for the supporting the 2010 countdown initiative. The total sum over this period was about 6 million euros. This included about a third of the sum as a contribution to the general budget of IUCN, another third in specifically allocated areas.A new framework agreement was signed in 2009 and hence contributions to IUCN continue.','','Contribution of France to IUCN :                                                                                          2006	     2007	       2008Contribution to the general budget of IUCN (euros)	750 000	   750 00      750 000specifically allocated  contributions (euros)	               627 000	   692 000    627 000technical assistance made available (euros)                 625 000	    625 000    625 000','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedReference or title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Environmental Diplomacy. Biodiversity.Weblink: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/environment_1097/environmental-diplomacy_4155/biodiversity_4158/french-and-european-positions_5871.html','24/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/2010'),
	('France','A1','C1_2','','','','France is implementing a wide range of environmental and biodiversity indicators.  Of the 26 SEBI indicators, France has adopted directly or amended to the national circumstances 22; with only 4 indicators not applied or under development. There are six additional nationally-used biodiversity indicators.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/France-metropolitaine.html ','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','C1_2_1','','Of the 26 SEBI indicators, France has adopted directly or amended to the national circumstances 22; with only 4 indicators not applied or under development. There are six additional nationally-used biodiversity indicators','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.Red List Index for European species: a similar indicator is under construction in France. There are currently no successive evaluations with the same method. The revision of the Red Lists, currently in progress, will be the initial reference.Species of European Interest : it applies only to the species annexed to the Habitat directive. France takes part in the tests to apply this indicator in the context of the Bird directive.Forest: deadwood : A “Deadwood” indicator was calculated in France in the context of an evaluation of national criteria for sustainable management. The similar indicator “Quantity (per ha) of large standing and lying deadwood (diam. >35 cm)” was calculated in the context of the art. 17 Habitats directive to evaluate the “structure and function” parameter. Patent applications based on genetic resources: this indicator exists in France but is very difficult to fill in. Technically, the identification of demands of patents concerning biodiversity is very difficult with the present databases and supposes a considerable work of information collection. Indeed, the international classification of patents and the request by keywords do not allow to precisely determining the demands of patents that would relate to genetic resources. There is also the problem of the European and international demands concerning the national level and the problem, as well, of national demands not concerning our country. The origin of genetic resources is not necessarily filled in. Financing biodiversity management: In France, the “accounts of biodiversity” distinguish the financing for the management of natural sites and species, the financing for knowledge, the financing for the reduction of pressures and the financing for other biodiversity-related actions. This indicator also distinguishes the main categories of organisations involved.   Additional indicators: Number of plant varieties;Natural area lost per year (\"Surface artificialisée annuellement\");Leaf deficit index;Forest area  with guarantee for sustainable management and ratio compared to total wooded area;Dominance of natural and semi-natural ecosystems in the landscape;Trend in the pollutant content in waters.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A1','C1_3_1','','Habitats A method for assessing the conservation status of forests in Natura 2000 sites was tested in 2009 and could be extended to the whole country. Moreover a study about the opportunity to use a similar method for calcareous grasslands will be conducted in 2010.The cartography of all natural habitats will contribute to monitor the extent of Natura 2000 habitats. The methodology will be finalised in 2010. First results will be available before the next reporting period (article 17).Several local and regional monitoring schemes exist in France.BirdsCoordinated by the research centre on bird populations biology –National Museum of Natural HistoryFrench breeding bird survey (STOC) A breeding bird survey (BBS) was started in France in 1989 following two methods inspired from the North American BBS and the British Constant Effort Site (CES). Both methods are based on volunteer skilled ornithologists counting birds in a standardized way at the same site for several years. For the BBS type of survey, individuals are counted on permanent plots during a fixed period of 5 min, counting visible individuals and singers. To be validated, the count must be repeated on approximately the same date of the year (7 days within April to mid-June), the same time of the day (15 min within 1–4 h after sunrise), by the same observer. Each observer counts for 10 plots in the same morning, plots being at least 200m apart. Counts within these groups are summed before analysis. For the CES type of survey, individuals are counted by means of trapping with mist-nets and are marked with individually numbered metal rings allowing further identification, thus avoiding double counting. The number and placement of mist-nets are fixed within a trapping site, as well as the number and date of trapping sessions (three to five, between May and mid-July).Winter farmland bird survey A winter farmland bird monitoring was started in France in 2009, to complete the information given by the French breeding bird survey . Two counts are conducted each winter. In a 5 km radius circle chosen by the participant, 5 parcels are chosen, (being at least 1 km apart) in which the crop the most abundant in the region is grown, along a 300m transect crossing the parcel. All individuals seen on the ground or flying over the parcel are counted.All surveys below are coordinated by the research unit  7204 (CNRS- National Museum of Natural History)  “species conservation, restauration and population monitoring”Mammals French common bat surveyA common bat survey was started in France in 2006, following a protocol based on detection and recording of time expanded calls, involving a network of volunteers, counting bats in a standardized way at the same site for several years. Each area is surveyed twice a year (1st: 15 June 15 July, 2nd : 15 August 30 September). Two methods co-exist: road survey and point count. For the road survey: the volunteers choose a route of 30 km and a random starting point is defined by the lab. Recording are made on ten segments of 2km each, driven at 25 km/h. For the point count: individuals are counted on permanent plots during a fixed period of 5 min, counting visible individuals and singers. Each observer counts for 10 plots in a square of 2x2 km, 5 plots being located in the typical habitats of the square and the 5 others in habitats favourable to bats.Invertebrates French Rhopalocera  survey (STERF)A butterfly survey was started in France in 2006 following the method developed for the British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (Pollard & Yates, 1993). It involves volunteer skilled entomologists, counting butterflies in a standardized way at the same site for several years. The counts are conducted 3 to 5 times a year along 5 to 15 fixed 10 minutes transects (100 to 500m depending on butterflies richness), each with a homogeneous habitat type. The fieldworkers record all butterflies 2.5 metres to their right, 2.5 metres to their left, 5 metres ahead of them and 5 metres above them (Van Swaay et al., 2002). Butterfly counts are conducted between March-April to September-October depending on the region. Visits are only conducted when weather conditions meet specified criteria. Individuals of every species observed are counted. Garden butterflies surveyStarted in 2006, the garden butterflies survey involves volunteers from the general public. Every month from March to October, in the garden they have chosen, participants count individuals of 28 selected butterflies species, (identification tool provided): counts are made at a chosen frequency. Only the maximum number of individuals seen at the same time is recorded for each month, and for each species. Similar protocols were developed in 2009 for garden snails and bumble-bees.Plants French common plant monitoring (Vigie-Flore)A common plant survey was started in France in 2009, involving a network of volunteer skilled botanists conducting inventories in a standardized way at the same site for several years. A 1x1 km square systematically sampled within a 10x10 km square is allocated to each participant. 8 plots are positioned in this square along a systematic grid pattern. All the species are inventoried (1m² square, ten repetitions) at each spot.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.The GAEC standards include a current requirement to maintain environmental areas, such as buffer strips, hedges, woodland edges, fallow land or other habitats of biodiversity value, that are at least 1% of agricultural land. In the calculation of environmental areas, the area of each type of feature is weighted to reflect their biodiversity value. The GAEC rules are being amended and the minimum environmental area will increase to 3% in 2011 and 5% in 2012. The requirement does not relate to farms of less than 15 ha.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfhttp://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/magazine/dossiers/mise-en-oeuvre-du-bilan5127/conditionnalite/  ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in France total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 7557.06 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 13665.9 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 4233.18 million EUR, and 7324.59 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 56.01 and 53.60 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in France was 1876.94 million EUR (3249.75 with co-financing) and amounted to 24.84 per cent of the EAFRD (23.78 with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.055 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (<0.01 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.1 million EUR of public expenditure (<0.01 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in France for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided.NOTE: Corse, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane, La Réunion missing Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)446.2845815.8085Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State, a national strategy has been developed and adopted that specifically addresses the conservation of genetic resources. The aim of the strategy, which is not yet defined as a national action plan, is to list all national collections of genetic resources which are presently under the responsibility of various actors, so called “networks”. After this first step, the “network of the networks” will be coordinated by one single operator, possibly linked with the FRB (Foundation for Biodiversity Research) and all stakeholders. A national enquiry will also investigate the possibility of developing a national database on genetic resources. The Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries has undertaken a second enquiry to better describe the strengths and weaknesses of the variety conservation networks, describe the needs of the networks, and define a global policy.In addition an action pan has been established relating to genetic conservation in forests.Projects have been undertaken on the in-situ conservation of 12 crop varieties, livestock breeds and the conservation of 10 key or endangered forest tree species, and an inventory of forest tree species in French Guyana and in other French tropical territories (nearly 1600 according to the latest results in 2009).  ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.* for forestry (since 2006)**Network of genetic resources conservation     Implementation of a national database on vegetal, animal and microbial genetic resources     *** Commission for conservation of forest genetic resources (since 1991) ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in France in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.Note: Corse, Guadeloupe, Martinique, La Réunion are not covered ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_1_12','','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2010 in France’ outermost regions total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 651.1 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 1002.7 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 116.1 million EUR, and 146.6 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 17.8 and 14.5 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in France’s outermost regions was 45.8 million EUR (56.2 with co-financing) and amounted to 7 per cent of the EAFRD (5.6 with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 18.6 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (2.9 per cent of EAFRD) and 24.7 million EUR of public expenditure (2.5 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in France’s outermost regions for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','Figures above refer to the four French overseas departments Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. As regards afforestation, the national policy for forest genetic resources and the guidelines related to forest reproductive material aim at the proper adaptation of forest tree species to local ecological conditions and organise the harvesting of forest seeds as per a control chain in order to guarantee the origin of reproductive materials. Different guidelines are set up for the thorough list of tree species (including non native ones) which can be used for afforestation at the regional level: - National guidelines for the development and management of national forests (Directives Nationales d\'Aménagement et de Gestion pour les forêts domaniales (DNAG)) and their regional equivalent, the regional guidelines for the development of forests in the public domain (directives régionales d\'aménagement (DRA/SRA), - Regional schemes for private forest management (SRGS).No specific guidelines are available for planting non-native species at the national level.As regards deforestation, the following guidelines apply:- For areas larger than 25 ha, an impact study and a public enquiry are compulsory.- For areas smaller than 25 ha, only notice is given, except if the area covers more than 10 ha and the rate of afforestation is less than 10 %, in which case a public enquiry is requested;- For areas smaller than 4 ha, an authorisation regime (\"régime d\'autorisation\") is required.As regards Natura 2000 sites, ‘incident’ studies are required:- For areas to be deforested larger than 25 ha or larger than 10 ha if rate of afforestation is less than 10%- For DRA (directives régionales d\'aménagement) and SRGS (Schéma régionaux de Gestion Sylvicole) management documents.Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to deforestation operations (see above), but not for afforestation. Forest management documents regarding forests within Natura 2000 sites are subject to impact assessment; exemptions are provided for in Article L. 11 of the Forestry Code.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 France had a total certified forest area of 5.13 million hectares out of a total forest area of 15.55 million hectares. 16,851 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification scheme (PEFC) under which 5.11 million hectares were certified. In total, 32.99 per cent of the forest area in France was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in France amounted to 7.80 million ha, representing a share of 22.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('France','A2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.The GAEC standards include a current requirement to maintain environmental areas, such as buffer strips, hedges, woodland edges, fallow land or other habitats of biodiversity value, that are at least 1% of agricultural land. In the calculation of environmental areas, the area of each type of feature is weighted to reflect their biodiversity value. The GAEC rules are being amended and the minimum environmental area will increase to 3% in 2011 and 5% in 2012. The requirement does not relate to farms of less than 15 ha.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfhttp://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/magazine/dossiers/mise-en-oeuvre-du-bilan5127/conditionnalite/  ','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010',NULL),
	('France','A2','A2_1_6','','Training measures have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2. Training measures can be used to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures that benefit biodiversity. The themes of Axis 2 (including biodiversity) are some of the primary objectives of training measures (in Axis 1 and 3). However, advisory services are not completely implemented in France, only in Réunion.  ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member State, no monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 992 million € has been added to the French national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, France attributed € 468 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 17 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.As regards France’s ‘outermost regions’, out of a total of € 16.6 million € 9.9 million were allocated to biodiversity, representing roughly 60 per cent of total additional programmed funding of the regional RDPs.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.Table below provides an overview of resources generated for France’s ‘outermost regions’: Total million €Biodiversity million €PercentageGuadeloupe 3.61.437.9Guyane 20.314.9Martinique 2.61.764Ile de la Réunion8.46.577.6 16.69.959.64%Final sums and percentage for all regions have been calculated based on information provided by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, monitoring exercises on soil biodiversity are running on pilot sites and in the framework of the French National Soil Monitoring Network, in order to design the national monitoring strategy for soil biodiversity (e.g. indicators, sampling periods, frequency, reporting and costs). Already tested indicators are:- soil microflora diversity (based on DNA methods) and activity (based on respiration and other enzymatic activities)- soil fauna (based on the abundance and diversity of Earthworms, Collembola, Nematodes and total Macrofauna).ADEME (French Agency for Environment and Energy Management) financially supported the following research and monitoring programmes in order to set up the monitoring of soil biodiversity.- “ECOMIC-RMQS” assessed the amount and diversity of soil micro organisms in 2200 soil samples collected within the National Soil Monitoring Network (RMQS) (this work is currently being published)- “RMQS-Biodiv” measured the diversity of soil microflora (diversity, respiration and activity) and of fauna (earthworms, collembola, nematodes, total macrofauna) at 118 locations based in the Brittany region (this work is currently being published) - “Development and validation of soil bioindicators” refers to 20 laboratories currently testing soil bioindicators based on soil flora, microflora and fauna at 12 sites (4 contaminated lands, 4 agricultural sites and 4 forest sites) in order to define more suitable indicators to be selected to monitor soil degradations and changes in land uses.  Complementary to the measurement of biological parameters, more ‘classical’ information is also recorded, such as soil type, climate, land use, physical and chemical parameters. Those research and monitoring exercises will provide data to implement the existing Soil Monitoring Network with biological indicators informing about the status of soil biodiversity in France.Furthermore, some research is underway regarding the distribution and functions of soil organisms through the GESSOL programme, funded by the Ministry in charge of Ecology.All these national programmes include the selected biological indicators recommended by the recent EU study called \"ENVASSO\" (see Gardi et al., 2009 and Bispo et al., 2009).Background information on the French Soil Quality Monitoring NetworkThe French Soil Quality Monitoring Network (RMQS) is already implemented since 2000 and a specific programme named Ecomic RMQS has for aim to assess the soil microflora.More information:Scope of the programme:It is a multi land use network of 2200 sites sampled each 10 years on a 16 km square cell covering the whole French territory. This network aims to monitor the quality of soil (first of all heavy metal contamination) in order to early detect unsuspected evolutions. The other objectives are to: detect gradients by mappings, explore the relation between soil quality and possible controlling factors, constitute a bank of soil samples. Type of indicators: For the Ecomic RMQS programme, the main indicators are based on the DNA extraction, in order to establish the density and the diversity of the genetic structures of the bacterial communities.Parameters related to faunistic or microbiological activity mandatory: None. The heavy metal data collection of the RMQS is financed by the French Ministries of agriculture and Ecology and the French Environment and Energy Management Agency. All the other indicators, and among them the DNA assessment with the Ecomic RMQS programme are financed by specific programmes and therefore not automatically renewed every ten years in order to be monitored.Projects undertaken to identify potential indicators of soil biodiversity:In Brittany (north-western French region) there’s a specific programme (RMQS Biodiv) implemented on 108 out of the 2200 RMQS sites. This programme aims to assess the soil fauna and flora amounts. The first results have already been published in Cluzeau D., Pérès G., Guernion M. et al., 2009. « Intégration de la biodiversité des sols dans les réseaux de surveillance de la qualité des sols : exemple du programme-pilote à l’échelle régionale, le RMQS BioDiv », Étude et Gestion des sols, vol. 16, n 3/4, pp. 187-201.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire    references: Bispo A. et al. 2009. Indicators for monitoring soil biodiversity. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5. pp 717-719.Bispo A. et al. 2009. Le programme ADEME “Bioindicateurs de qualité des sols” : Vers le développement et la validation d’indicateurs biologiques pour la protection des sols. Étude et Gestion des Sols, Volume 16, 3/4, 2009 – pp. 145 - 158Cluzeau et al. 2009. Intégration de la biodiversité des sols dans les réseaux de surveillance de la qualité des sols : exemple du programme-pilote à l’échelle régionale, le RMQS BioDiv. Etude et Gestion des Sols, vol. 16/3-4, 2009. pp. 187-201Dequiedt S. et al. 2009. ECOMIC-RMQS : biogéographie microbienne à l’échelle de la France. Etat d’avancement et premiers résultats. Etude et Gestion des Sols, vol. 16/3-4, pp. 219-231Gardi C. et al., 2009. Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe: ongoing activities and challenges. European Journal of Soil Science. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01177. Weblinks:http://www.gissol.fr/programme/rmqs/rmqs.php  (French Monitoring Network for soil quality)http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/Themes/Biodiversity/Meeting062008/RMQS_BioDivConsortium.pdf  (RMQS-Biodiv)http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=3096 Ranjard L., Dequiedt S., Lelievre M. et al., 2009. « Platform GenoSol: a new tool for conserving and exploring soil microbial diversity », Environmental Microbiology Report. Vol. 1, n 2, avril 2009. pp. 97-99.http://www2.dijon.inra.fr/plateforme_genosol/projets/index.php?cat=anr','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the alpine and continental fresh water habitats in France have an unfavourable conservation status. 89 per cent of the Atlantic and 92 per cent of the Mediterranean freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 8 per cent of the Mediterranean freshwater habitats have a favourable status while the status of the remaining 11 per cent of Atlantic fresh water habitats is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.According to reporting by the Member State, the conservation quality of freshwater habitats and bogs, mires and fens is often low and their area is in decline.','','A breakdown of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage413910195%2%0%2%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9800189%0%0%11%U12  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U12   U28       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U14  U26       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121110092%8%0%0%U16  U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data in France, oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 2.88 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.84 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a slight decrease from 0.36 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.33 mg N/l in 2005. Values were lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 2.60 mg N/l in 2002 to 2.57 mg N/l in 2005, but with a peak of 2.81 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were below weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear trend from 2003 to 2005, amounting to 18.1 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 19.9 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 21.0 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.106 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.111 mg P/l in 2005, but with a lowermost value of 0.099 mg P/l in 2004. 2005 values were slightly below the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005.No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('France','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 France had a total number of 1278 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 95.1 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, France progressed on the development of biological assessment methods for lakes, focusing on phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. The latter was also a method applied for the assessment of rivers, all other assessments for the same water category either development or not developed yet, like phytoplankton. Depending on the districts, methods are either partially developed or underdeveloped for transitional or coastal waters.According to reporting by the Member States, in 2010 the following applies for biological assessment methods in France:RiversPhytoplankton: The data-gathering is in progress in river basin district to develop an assessment method.Macrophytes and Phytobenthos: Two parameters are used for the MP assessment. One method is already available for phytobentos and under development for macrophytes. LakesFish Fauna:  Work is in progress for this element. France coordinates the cross GIG fish for lakes.Benthic Invertebrate: An assessment method more relevant than the current is under development. Generally, work is in progress to improve all biological assessment methods, in particular within the second round of Intercalibration.Considering particularities of French overseas departments   (eg, specific ecosystems functioning, specific flora and fauna, knowledge gathering started relatively recently), specific initiatives are under development to put into place biological assessment methods adapted to the characteristics of overseas departments. Water bodies of overseas departments cover a limited number of national types of water bodies.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 581 in France.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 France had a total number of 6088 IPPC installations and issued 6336 permits. No permits were still outstanding. 4583 was the number of permits that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. According to updated figures provided by the Member State, the following applies for 2009:Number of existing installations : 5758Number of permits : 5758Number of pending permits  (re-examination under way) : 784','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 France’s emissions of nitrogen oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds were well above relevant NECD ceilings. Sulphur oxides and ammonia emissions were already below ceilings set out in the Directive. France’s 2010 emission ceiling targets for sulphur oxides and ammonia are likely to be attained with existing air pollution control measures. However, according to projections, nitrogen oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds targets are unlikely to be met.','','','','','','','',''),
	('France','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in France the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 12 and 98 per cent respectively, considering an area of 177,359 km2 and 180,099 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 8 and 6 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 1 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 95 per cent in 2010 and 91 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 41 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, France’s gross nitrogen balance was 54 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 16 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, France’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. By 2006 the indicator was at 76.3 per cent, a 23.7 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 21 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. ','','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in France generally have an unfavourable conservation status.The habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the alpine grassland habitats, where 42 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 58 per cent are unfavourable). All of the 11 occurrences of continental grassland habitat have an unfavourable conservation status. Furthermore, 90 per cent of the Atlantic grassland habitats have an unfavourable status, the status of the remaining 10 per cent is unknown. Of the Mediterranean grassland habitats in France, the majority (69 per cent) have an unfavourable status, 8 per cent have a favourable conservation status and the status of the remaining 23 per cent is unknown. All of the Atlantic and continental heath and scrub habitat in France has an unfavourable conservation status while 67 per cent of both the alpine and Mediterranean heath and scrub habitat have a status that is unfavourable (the remaining 33 per cent in both cases have a favourable status). All of the 27 occurrences of peat land habitats in France (Atlantic, continental, alpine and Mediterranean) have an unfavourable conservation status. With regards to the forest habitats in France, 93 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats in France have an unfavourable conservation status (the status of the remaining Atlantic forest habitats are unknown). 57 per cent of alpine forest habitats have an unfavourable status, 14 per cent have a favourable status (of the remaining 28 per cent, the status of 21 per cent is unknown while 7 per cent were unreported). 63 per cent of the continental foret habitats in France have an unfavourable status, 19 per cent have a favourable status while the status of the remaining 19 per cent is unknown. Finally, of the Mediterranean forest habitats in France, 72 per cent have an unfavourable status, 17 per cent have a favourable status and the conservation status of the remaining 11 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.According to reporting by the Member State, heath and scrub habitats are rather in a good conservation status because their repartition is not declining and pressures are low. However grasslands are most of the time in unfavourable conservation status (especially in Continental and Atlantic biogeographical zones) because their area is declining. In Mediterranean and Alpine biogeographical zones the status is more favourable.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage463664078%13%9%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10901090%0%10%0%U11  U28       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1111000100%0%0%0%U13   U28       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12750058%42%0%0%U16  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13913069%8%23%0%U16  U23       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage624489171%13%15%2%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage141301093%0%7%0%U17  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage161033063%19%19%0%U16   U24       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage14823157%14%21%7%U15  U23       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage181332072%17%11%0%U16  U27       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage191630084%16%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U11  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U13   U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6420067%33%0%0%U13  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3210067%33%0%0%U12  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2727000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage88000100%0%0%0%U12  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U12   U25       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage88000100%0%0%0%U13  U25       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%U12  U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','24/02/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('France','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for France showed that of the four marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%). Five marine habitats were assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region—three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (60%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (40%). One coastal habitat was assessed in the Alpine biogeographic region—it had a ‘Bad’ status. Twelve coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—eight had a ‘Favourable’ status (67%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (25%), and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (8%). Two coastal habitats were assessed in the Continental biogeographic region—both had a ‘Bad’ status. Finallly, ten coastal habitats were assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region—five had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and five had a ‘Bad’ status (50%).A total of 25 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, including reptiles, fish, mammals and plants. Of these 25, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (4%), one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (4%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (12%) and 20 had an ‘Unknown’ status (80%). A total of 24 marine species were assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region—thrree had an ‘Inadequate’ status (13%), six had a ‘Bad’ status (25%), 14 had an ‘Unknown’ status (58%) and one was Not Reported (4%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%250%250%00%00%4Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats00%360%240%00%00%5AlpineCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1AtlanticCoastal habitats866.7%00%325%18.3%00%12ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%2100%00%00%2MediterraneanCoastal habitats00%550%550%00%00%10Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%133%00%267%00%3Marine AtlanticFish00%00%125%375%00%4Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals16%00%00%1594%00%16Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%2100%00%00%2Marine AtlanticTOTAL14%14%312%2080%00%25Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%133%267%00%00%3Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%233%233%233%00%6Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%222%667%111%9Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%313%625%1458%14%24The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_1_4','','France reported that, in 2009, it had 93 surveillance stations and 61 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. The UK has 164 coastal water bodies. Approximately 55% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed in most coastal bodies of water for monitoring phytoplankton and some methods available or being developed for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm. No information was available on methods for monitoring benthic invertebrates.France reported that a programme of measures has been adopted for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_1_5','','France reported that a national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is being developed. The report submitted by France in 2006 on the implementation of the recommendation of the European Union for ICZM mentioned a number of concrete actions which were current or to be implemented after the recommendation. These actions are still relevant, including the law regulating urbanisation in coastal areas (Law No. 86-2 referred to as the “Coastal Law\").France launched a major debate on the environment, involving government officials, elected representatives, NGOs and professionals, the outcomes of which are currently being translated into legislation. This debate, called \"Grenelle de l\'environnement”, helped to establish the principle of a national strategy for the sea and coastline, through an integrated approach.Following the Grenelle Environment Forum, a \"Grenelle” of the sea was launched to drive a more specific and concerted national debate over the sea and coastline, resulting in 138 commitments, leading to the publication of a blue book, which should feed into the national strategy and guide the various actors involved in planning and sectoral policies. As anticipated by the recommendation, these actions have helped to:-	identify and provide long term solutions to challenging coastal issues, focusing on the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources (chapter II of the recommendation),-	involve stakeholders in the discussions and conduct a public consultation (chapter III of the recommendation),-	adopt the principle of a national strategy for an integrated approach for the sea and the coastline based on existing coastal instruments (chapter IV of the recommendation).','','','Reference or title :Livre bleu - Stratégie nationale pour la mer et les océans, décembre 2009Weblink:http://www.legrenelle-mer.gouv.fr/spip.phphttp://www.sgmer.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2009-12-08_-_Livre_bleu.pdf','24/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('France','A3','A3_2','','France currently has 1,968 coastal bathing areas and a high proportion of these have reached mandatory standards on water quality: 96.4% in 2006; 95.7% in 2007 and 97.2% in 2008. The proportion reaching the stricter guideline standards on water quality was lower in 2006 and 2007 (79.0% and 77.7% respectively) but reached 97.2% in 2008. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as France has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years. ','','-','','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_4','','France’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €142,492,268 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity as well as improving gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€120,502,559) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€157,174,746) supports the protection of aquatic flora and fauna, and Axis 4 (€11,235,580) allows for the diversification of activities outside of the fishing sector thereby supporting capacity reduction. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_05_fr.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','24/02/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('France','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 France had 7,698 vessels and 18% were involved in a serious infringement (1,360 vessels). A total of 454 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €5,105 and maximum fine of €75,000.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_5_2','','France has national management plans for Eel and plans for Salmon and Trout that are implemented at the river basin level. For sturgeon, a plan to apply the international action plan of the Bern convention is currently being written by the French authorities. However, sturgeon fishing is currently forbidden and some stock enhancement is foreseen within the plan. For the other species, mainly Alosa alosa, Alosa fallax, Petromyzon marinus and Lampetra fluviatilis as well as the sea trout, management plans exist, that are implemented in the different basins. For instance, fishing measures are implemented at the regional level through closed seasons and gear restrictions.A national eel management plan was sent to the Commission for approval in December 2008. The measures of this plan aim at reducing the mortality rate by 30% through changes to fishing practices and the implementation of nearly 1,600 separate activities considered to be urgent for eel populations. This plan also provides for monitoring. Management plans at the level of district basins take measures to restore habitats and remove migratory barriers. A national management strategy is also in progress to provide guidelines on the management of fisheries, habitats and research. This is being set up in consultation with professional and amateur fisheries as well as hydro-electricians and associations involved in the protection of the environment (e.g. NGOs).     ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('France','A3','A3_5_3','','France’s fishing capacity decreased from 1999 to 2006 but then increased slightly from 2007 to 2008. Current capacity is 7,918 vessels; 197,183 tons and 1,070,815kW which are down 5%; 8% and 4% respectively from 1999. This was mainly a consequence of measure to reduce fishing effort for cod, hake and sole. The trawler fleet in the Mediterranean has also been reduced. Within France’s 2007-2013 operational programme there is a specific measure for decommissioning vessels in order to reduce over-capacity of the fleet. There is an objective to reduce capacity by 30% by 2012 of the main fleet and a 20% reduction of vessels under 12m which will focus on vessels over 10 years old. ','','2008 data: 7918 vessels: 197183 tons; 1070815 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 France had 7,698 active vessels. There were 688 type D breaches in this year and 249 penalties imposed with an average fine of €1,986. France has no specific measures (beyond implementing CFP measures) related to reducing unwanted by-catch or damage to the benthos. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_6_2','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('France','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('France','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','France has 201 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). No measure regarding fisheries management has been taken or modified for the management of Natura sites within or beyond 12 nm in France. In fact, marine Natura 2000 sites have just been designated and steering committees are being put into place to set up specific objectives for the sites. At the national level, a process was initiated to establish frame of reference for national fisheries management measures which could then be adapted to each marine Natura2000 site. However, it is the preference of fishermen to start at the local level and therefore work is in progress to set specific objectives for each marine natura 2000 site. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 140Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 2 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A3','A3_7_1','','France has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, France has proposed collecting data for ecosystem indicators 1-9 from Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. For indicators 1-3, data will be collected and stored in the IFREMER database ‘Harmonie’. Data collected during surveys will also be used for indicator 4 on the size at maturation of exploited fish species. VMS data will be used by Ifremer to create an algorithm to check vessel position , assess if a vessel is fishing, and characterise the distribution of fishing effort—which will be used for indicators 5-7. Data for Indicator 8 on discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be collected using sampling of effort at sea and the protocol for data collection on board fishing vessels to estimate the discard rate. Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency will be calculated using the cost of fuel and the value of landings.France also collect data on incidental catches of cetaceans (EC 812/2004) (data of 2008) & fishing for deep seas stocks (EC 2347/2002) (data of 2002 to 2009).','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','24/02/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('France','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for French EEZ waters (not including overseas territories) was 3.38 in 2004. This is a slight decrease since 1999 (-0.05) and an overall increase since 1984 (+0.05). ','','From Pauly (2005): Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','A4','A4_3','','In France, a law voted in August 2009, obliges to consider ecological networks in spatial planning (loi n 2009-967 du 3 août 2009 relative à la programmation de la mise en œuvre du Grenelle de l’environnement). This law will be completed by a second one in 2010 (loi portant engagement national pour l’environnement – second “Grenelle” law). In France, there is no need for interministerial coordination to include ecological network considerations into spatial planning, since spatial planning and biodiversity are dealt wihin the same ministry.','','In France, the process to establish the ecological network at a large scale is “only beginning”. The law aims the achievement of regional master plans of the ecological network by the end of 2012. These regional master plans of the ecological network will have to be taken into account in urban planning documents. Meanwhile, the same law establishes a new objective for urban planning which is “to preserve biodiversity, in particular by conserving, restauring and creating ecological connections”.However, some French region and local authorities have already worked on ecological networks and their inclusion in spatial planning. Works have been done at different scales and with different regulatory aftermaths. Besides, for decades national parks and regional natural parks mostly include ecological networks in their master plans, with which all spatial planning documents must be compatible. As monitoring is concerned, environmental impact assessment of plans and programs has taken ecological continuity into account for severals years. For the moment environmental evaluation is the only mean to monitor the effectiveness of measures for ecological networks in spatial planning; however it seems quite difficult to define the good indicators to do so. In 2010, a national ressources center on Green and Blue Infrastructure should be created. It will be a platform that will help local authorities to elaborate green and blue infratructure on their territory, providing scientific backgrounds and methodology. This platform will also enable experience sharing.','Guidelines on “Trame verte et bleue” (Green and bleue infrastructure) are being written and might be published when the second “Grenelle” law will be adopted http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020949548&fastPos=1&fastReqId=507045715&categorieLien=cid&oldAction=rechTexte (loi du 3 août 2009)','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','A4','A4_4_1','','The biodiversity action plan for tourism was adopted in April 2009 and is now under implementation in France. Tourism development is planned as per national laws and regulations as well, including the Tourism code (Code du tourisme), the Environment code (Code de l’environnement), the Urban planning code (Code de l’urbanisme), Law on coastal areas (Loi Littoral) and the law on Mountains (Loi Montagne).','','','Reference or title:Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité - Plan d’action tourisme 2009 - 2010Weblink:http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=12786http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','A4','A4_5_1','','Specific Biodiversity Action Plans have been written and are currently being implemented in each French Outermost Region (\"départements\" and \"collectivités\"). These Action plans are local applications of the National Strategy for Biodiversity, and include actions towards reducing negative impacts on biodiversity (for instance “stop the impact of gravel-pits on aquatic ecosystems” in Martinique or “destruction of sources of introduction of invasives species (targeting farming greenhouses used for local food production)” in Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises).Moreover, a project for a biodiversity network (which could be compared to Natura 2000 network) is currently implemented in Outermost Regions. Lists of determining species are being elaborated and sites will be selected for this network. France also participates to the “Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas” to promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in European overseas entities inspired by the experience with EU nature conservation.The coherence of actions is reinforced by the IFRECOR (French initiative for coral reefs) at a regional scale. In 2010 a new initiative will be launched, aiming at reinforcing the coherence of all actions about biodiversity in overseas and outermost regions (IFREBIOM).','','','http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-plans-d-actions-de-la.html','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, French direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 327.5 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','24/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('France','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','France has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), however, specific legislation addresses the issues of import, trade, introduction and control of IAS. Various Articles under the Code de l’environment address IAS. Articles L.424-10, L.424-11, Annex Ic prohibit the import of all game bird species (with the exception of six species) without prior authorisation. Likewise, Article L.432-10 Annex Ie prohibits the introduction of new aquatic species without Ministerial authorisation. The introduction, trade, transport and/or use of listed IAS may be prohibited under Article L.411-3. Two species (Ludwigia grandiflora and Ludwigia peploides) have already (since 2007) been listed under article L.411-3. Furthermore, lists of vertebrates, plants and invertebrates to be regulated under Article L.411-3 are currently being developed. Plant protection legislation focuses on the control of IAS; secondary legislation concentrates on the control of harmful organisms (Arrêté du 31 juillet 2000 établissant la liste des organismes nuisibles aux végétaux… soumis à des mesures de lutte obligatoire). Trade in species of the genders Chrysemys spp., Pseudemys spp., Trachemys spp., Graptemys spp. and Rana spp. is prohibited under specific measures. These provisions will soon be extended to other invasive vertebrates kept in captivity. In addition, there is also a national list of pest species, both plant and animal of which control is obligatory.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species (IAS) identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 40 are present in France. This equates to < 0.10 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A5','A5_1_2','','France has not developed a national strategy or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS). However, IAS are addressed in the French Biodiversity Strategy and proposals for IAS prevention and control actions have been endorsed as part of the Grenelle de l\'environnement. Most plans for Overseas Territories address IAS. According to the Member State authorities, a national strategy for IAS is under way, addressing IAS with negative impacts on wild biodiversity. Furthermore, a specific strategy for IAS is implemented for overseas territories. In this context, a number of specific actions are being / will be undertaken including: developing national legislation for IAS (e.g. in the  overseas territories), building a national network of IAS experts, elaborating national framework for IAS surveillance (i.e. for the purposes of early detection and rapid response), improving communication and research on IAS, developing a mechanisms to identify high priority IAS, and developing and implementing species-specific action plans for these species, Finally, already existing action plans will be updated (e.g. the existing action plan for ruddy duck will be updated according to the European strategy on buddy duck).','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A5','A5_1_3','','France has ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.   Adhesion to the convention by Act n 2008-476 was signed 22/05/2008. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that Data source ','','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, France is drafting a national strategy for invasive alien species (IAS) with negative impacts on biodiversity (e.g. the outermost regions). This strategy also includes the development of a national framework for early warning and surveillance (for national territory). Furthermore, a national network of IAS focal points is already under construction. The foreseen actions to develop national early warning include: A review of lessons learned / situation of IAS in other countries and regions, especially those sharing similar environmental characteristics. Based on this, identification of priority species (i.e. species not yet present / established in France) to be monitored (e.g. the grey squirrel);Implementation of an early detection and rapid response system including, for example: development of a national database on species currently introduced in natural environment; identification of relevant actors to be involved and establishing coordination between possible new / already existing surveillance initiatives; and further improving cooperation on control measures across national boundaries. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A5','A5_2_2','','France has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (Law 2008-595 published in the French Official Journal on 26.08.2008).   With regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in France, natural parks can exclude their cultivation should there be unanimous agreement of concerned farmers and if this possibility is included in their charter. According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are currently 21 Regions formally or informally declared GMO free:Aquitaine, Auvergne, Basse-Normandie, Bourgogne, Bretagne, Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Corse, Franche-Comté, Haute Normandie, Ile de France,  Languedoc-Roussillon, Lorraine, Limousin, Midi-Pyrennées, Nord-pas-de-Calais, Pays-de-la-Loire, Picardie, Poitou-Charentes, Provence Alpes-Cote D\'Azur, Rhône-Alpes.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in July 2009. The 2nd version of the “Strategie Nationale pour la Biodiversite” was published in April 2009.France has paid her annual contribution to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid spending for France for 2006 or 2007.','','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, France spent EUR17.7m in 2006 and EUR57.3m in 2007 on bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which is 0.002 and 0.009%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009, 12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A7','A7_1_4','','France contributed EUR166.07 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 6.81% of the total replenishment. France contributed EUR150.33 million to the 4th replenishment which is 7.04 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A7','A7_1_6','','The annual spending on biodiversity-related bilateral aid for French overseas territories amounted, for the years 2006-2008, to between EUR0.358 and 0.571 million per year.','','It should be noticed that financing OCTs is not considered as being bilateral aid in France and is not identified as such in financial documents. It is therefore difficult to have accurate figures. Figures given in the tables are a minimum.  ','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A7','A7_2_5','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A8','A8_1','','France has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. National legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing as well as the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development, as are public awareness activities regarding the Bonn Guidelines. While no information on the quantity of sustainable wood imported to France is available, the percentage of certified round wood in the French harvest is as follows: 2006: 29%, 2007: 40%, 2008: 45%, 2009: 42%.A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2005 and 2006, with no information on the number of applications denied, and many items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. No support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided but Andorra was supported. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('France','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','National legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing is under development in France as are national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development in France. France has not implemented national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A8','A8_1_4','','The following figures reflect the part of certified round wood in the French harvest, as stated in the national harvest inquiry: 2006: 29%, 2007: 40%, 2008: 45%, 2009: 42%. It is NOT the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources, which is higher. In low risk countries like France, wood without any proof of legality or sustainability is not necessarily illegal or unsustainable, because the forest administration controls the harvesting. The forest owners and the wood based industries must be able to demonstrate the sustainability of their sourcing to the consumer. That is why France strongly promotes the certification of the forest and the chain of custody through the wood processing branches.Regarding the imported wood from third countries, the implementation of the 2005 FLEGT regulation (VPA), of the FLEGT due diligence regulation and of the Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources will considerably minimize the risk of illegal and unsustainable wood. France is strongly involved in all those processes. France also conducted such a study, but only to assess the French state public procurement policy. The results are not yet public but the draft report shows that in 2009 nearly 60% of the public purchasers refer at least partially to sustainable forest management for the operation involving wood and wood products. A revision of the public procurement policy is due for 2010. No information on the quantity of sustainable wood  imported to France.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2005 and 2006 was 37,855, 1944 and 64,007, respectively. No information is available about the number of denied import, export or re-export applications. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 51,605 for 2005 and 10,820 for 2006, a net decrease of 40,785 specimens. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance to Management Authority, Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities; technical assistance to Management Authority and enforcement authorities; training of Management Authority, Scientific Authority, enforcement authorities and traders. France provided CITES –related technical assistance to Andorra. France paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','','','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','A9','','','The French Climate change adaptation strategy (November 2006) includes a section dedicated to biodiversity. The National biodiversity strategy (2004) also takes into account climate change (notably through the set-up of a national ecological network or for issues pertaining to forests). The revision of this strategy in 2010-2011 will however allow for more thorough consideration of this issue.The law related to the implementation of the Grenelle de l’Environnement, voted on the 3rd of August 2009, includes the adoption of a national climate change adaptation action plan by 2011. To this effect, an inter-ministerial group has been set up on “Climate change: costs of impacts and lines of adaptation”, which included a sub-group dedicated to biodiversity. The report has been published in October 2009 and includes a section on biodiversity, which states the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, their consequences and some recommendations for adaptation. This report will serve as an input for the national multi-parties consultation process which has been launched in December 2009 and will run throughout 2010 in order to plan out the adaptation measures to be implemented in the national adaptation plan. Three groups have been formed for this process, one of them being dedicated to cross-cutting issues – biodiversity, water, health, natural hazards. Some projects for biodiversity adaptation have however already been undertaken: - the development of the national ecological network (“trame verte et bleue”) is underway and will facilitate the migration of species in response to climate change by insuring ecological continuity nationwide. Some local authorities have already or are in the process of setting up such a network on their jurisdiction; - the analysis of the impacts of climate has been added in the elaboration of national species action plans;- a strategy for the creation of protected area is being developed and will allow for more consistent and appropriate coverage of the territory; it will be based on a list of species/habitats in need of protection, which includes species to be affected by climate change in the future- some Life+ projects have focused on adaptative management and protected areas in the context of climate change, notably as regards forests.','','','CBD national reports. Fourth national.1. Observatoire National des Effets du Réchauffement Climatique (ONERC), 2007, Stratégie nationale d’adaptation au changement climatique, La Documentation française2. Direction Générale de l’Energie et du Climat (DGEC)/ONERC, 2009, Evaluation du coût des impacts du changement climatique et de l’adaptation en France – Rapport de la deuxième phase – Partie II Rapport des groupes transversaux – Rapport du groupe Biodiversité, pp.93-173. 3. ONERC, 2009, Climate change : costs of impacts and lines of adaptation – Report to the Prime Minister and Parliament 4. 5th National report in the framework of UNFCCC to be published http://www.cbd.int/countries1. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=131812. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/094000463/index.shtml3. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=123504. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=12575.http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A9','A9_3_2','','A national action plan about energy produced from biomass, covering the 2007-2010 period, is currently implemented in France. Moreover, a NREAP consisting in 50 measures, has been adopted in December 2008.Generally, any financial or supporting tool encouraging energy recovery from biomass (heat, electricity) takes into account environmental impacts, including biodiversity. For instance, the call for proposals under the heat fund (fonds chaleur), launched in October 2009 and dedicated to the development of boilers fueled with biomass, recommends the use of timber from sustainably managed forests (PEFC, FSC). Furthermore, operators are requested to follow guidelines about \"rational management of residual forest\" in some forest areas where soils are fragile and susceptible to be degraded by forest exploitation. Finally, under the third call for proposals launched to develop biomass electricity power plants, candidates have to produce analyses dealing with environmental impacts, and showing that forest exploitation is sustainable.','','A life cycle analysis for biofuels has been achieved by the French agency for environment (ADEME), in which indirect land uses changes (ILUC) have been taken into account.A study, called “biomass and biodiversity” has been realised by researchers, in order to make proposals to reduce impacts of bio-energy on biodiversity. An expertise has been carried out to assess the ways to implement the RED sustainability biofuels scheme in France.','“Grenelle 1” law, article 18 http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020949548','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','A9','A9_4_1','','The French Climate change adaptation strategy (November 2006) includes a section dedicated to biodiversity. The National biodiversity strategy (2004) also takes into account climate change (notably through the set-up of a national ecological network or for issues pertaining to forests). The revision of this strategy in 2010-2011 will however allow for more thorough consideration of this issue.The law related to the implementation of the Grenelle de l’Environnement, voted on the 3rd of August 2009, includes the adoption of a national climate change adaptation action plan by 2011. To this effect, an inter-ministerial group has been set up on “Climate change: costs of impacts and lines of adaptation”, which included a sub-group dedicated to biodiversity. The report has been published in October 2009 and includes a section on biodiversity, which states the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, their consequences and some recommendations for adaptation. This report will serve as an input for the national multi-parties consultation process which has been launched in December 2009 and will run throughout 2010 in order to plan out the adaptation measures to be implemented in the national adaptation plan. Three groups have been formed for this process, one of them being dedicated to cross-cutting issues – biodiversity, water, health, natural hazards. Some projects for biodiversity adaptation have however already been undertaken: - the development of the national ecological network (“trame verte et bleue”) is underway and will facilitate the migration of species in response to climate change by insuring ecological continuity nationwide. Some local authorities have already or are in the process of setting up such a network on their jurisdiction; - the analysis of the impacts of climate has been added in the elaboration of national species action plans;- a strategy for the creation of protected area is being developed and will allow for more consistent and appropriate coverage of the territory; it will be based on a list of species/habitats in need of protection, which includes species to be affected by climate change in the future- some Life+ projects have focused on adaptative management and protected areas in the context of climate change, notably as regards forests.',NULL,NULL,'CBD national reports. Fourth national.1. Observatoire National des Effets du Réchauffement Climatique (ONERC), 2007, Stratégie nationale d’adaptation au changement climatique, La Documentation française2. Direction Générale de l’Energie et du Climat (DGEC)/ONERC, 2009, Evaluation du coût des impacts du changement climatique et de l’adaptation en France – Rapport de la deuxième phase – Partie II Rapport des groupes transversaux – Rapport du groupe Biodiversité, pp.93-173. 3. ONERC, 2009, Climate change : costs of impacts and lines of adaptation – Report to the Prime Minister and Parliament 4. 5th National report in the framework of UNFCCC to be published http://www.cbd.int/countries1. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=131812. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/094000463/index.shtml3. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=123504. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=12575.http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('France','A9','A9_4_3','','No complete work has been undertaken to identify the species and habitats the most at risk in response to climate change in France. However, different initiatives have been taken:- some work has been undertaken to determine the impacts of climate change on forests habitats, in particular on beech groves, within and outside Natura 2000 sites;- work has also been undertaken on the phenology of migration of several trans-saharian sparrows;- in the framework of the Strategy for protected areas creation, a list of species has been set up, which includes some species likely to be impacted by climate change.A synthesis study has just been launched by the Ministry in charge of Ecology in order to gather, summarise and analyse available knowledge on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in France, as well as recommend further studies/research to be launched to fill the gaps. It will also attempt to list vulnerable species as regards climate change. More research on climate change and wetlands is also planned.','','',' ','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','','','At COP 9, the international Biodiversity and Business Initiative was launched. The aim is the integration of the private sector in the implementation of the CBD. The key instrument is a leadership declaration which has to be signed which results in membership. So far 42 companies from Japan, Brazil, Germany, South Africa are members of the initiative. There are regular meetings with member companies including the development of a handbook for the integration of biodiversity issues into company management systems. The overall goal is to have a global B & B strategy with national focal points and an international coordination mechanism. ','','','www.business-and-biodiversity.de','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','A10_1','','Germany has both a dedicated national biodiversity research programme in the form of the ‘Biodiversity and Global Change (BIOLOG) programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. This programme is sub-divided into a German branch (BIOLOG-Europa) and an African branch (BIOTA). In addition, the research programme “Sustainable Land Management” (to commence in 2010) is a framework programme with three modules at present. Biodiversity related research is a component in all modules and is particularly focused in the module “Interaction between Land Management and Ecosystem functions and services”. Under the roof of a European funded ERA-Net, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research together with further European funding institutions will begin biodiversity research projects, to which Germany will contribute approximately € 2 million. Several sectoral research programmes run by different Federal Ministries also include biodiversity research. For example, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety funds each year a range of biodiversity research and development (R&D) projects under the “Umweltforschungsplan”. ','','Research of the Federal Ministry for Agriculture is not covered.','Reference or title:Weblink: www.biolog-online.infohttp://www.biolog-europe.orghttp://www.biota-africa.orghttp://www.fona.de/en/index.phphttp://www.bfn.de/0201_ufoplan_fue.html http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/downloads/doc/43155.php','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','A10_1_2','','Germany does not currently have a plan to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.  The German Government has analysed the MA in terms of its relevance for Germany. The targets and measures resulting from this analysis may be found primarily in the chapters of the National Strategy on Biological Diversity on “concrete vision” and “action areas”. Germany has also presented a comprehensive concept for the national implementation of the MA’s recommendations in the National Strategy on Biological Diversity.  ','','see chapter “Implementation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in Germany” in the National Strategy on Biological Diversity .','Reference or title: Weblink: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/x-download/national_strategy_biodiv.pdf','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','A10_1_8','','The German Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) is the ‘central information, communication and cooperation system of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’. The German CHM also serves as the National Bioplatform, linked from the overall European Platform for Biodiversity. In addition, Germany has a ‘Network-Forum’ (netzwerk-forum) for biodiversity. This platform was created to help scientists to initiate collaborations between representatives of various disciplines and help decision makers to learn about scientific answers to current problems in order to make informed decisions. The mission of the ‘Network-Forum’ is to support biodiversity research in Germany in these functions, and thus ultimately contribute to sustainable development worldwide and in Germany.','','In 2009, the structure \"Network and Forum\" was created through the Federal Ministry of Education and Research start-up funding, which can be referred to as a complementary supplement to CHM. Concepts on sustainable structural safeguarding  of \"Network-Forum\" following conclusion of the project are in process (http://www.biodiversity.de/).','Reference or title: Bioplatform website (European Platform for Biodiversity)Weblink: http://www.bioplatform.info/EPBRS, http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info Network-Forum on Biodiversity: http://www.biodiversity.de/ ','','','','10/12/2009','29/03/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','A10_1_9','','Germany has been a voting participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since February 2001. Germany’s ‘Participant node’ is GBIF Germany (http://www.gbif.de). As one of the founders of the GBIF, Germany makes a substantial annual contribution to support the running of the international GBIF Secretariat and the GBIF work programme. Eight Nodes from different regions form GBIF-Germany, each responsible for a range of taxonomic groups. With a total of 50 different institutions in more than 65 individual projects, nearly all substantial natural history institutes with biological collections and research facilities are involved in the build up of this structure. Germany has already contributed more than 7 million specimen and observation records to the GBIF network, promotion and expansion of national structures (currently GBIF soil zoologie  for three years with approximately €2.9 million ), financing and data mobilization in ongoing research projects, delegation of participants to annual GB conferences. The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A total of 11 German organisations contribute to ENBI.The Institut für Meereskunde (merged in 2004 with the Research Centre for Marine Sciences to form the Leibniz-Institute of Marine Sciences) at the University of Kiel in Germany the leader on the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) Work Package 11: Multilingual access, working to provide multi-lingual access to European biodiversity sites through a website interface. The German publishing of interactive media organisation Verlag fuer interactive Medien (VIM) is the lead contractor on ENBI Work Package 23: Information services on European data. This Workpackage has two objectives: to provide information about the needs of European users of Biodiversity data and to exchange knowledge and ideas that lead to the establishment of an organisational and technological infrastructure to elaborate a first prototype of a Euroepan Dictionary of Domesticated and Utilised Animals. VIM also contributes to WP2: ENBI forum; WP4: IPR, Copyrights and financial issues; and WP 10: Generic analysis tools and data mining. The German Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem at the Freie University Berlin contributes to WP9: Interoperability and Common Access. This workpackage aims to make an inventory of existing interoperability tools in the various domains of biodiversity databases and data collections, to enhance common protocols and approaches; Build a library of functions to support an overarching architecture for interoperability and common access based on elements and efforts existing in the biodiversity informatics community; and  Develop a design for a prototype to demonstrate the feasibility of an interoperable system with common access to selected databases and the Species 2000 europa project in collaboration with work package 8. The Botanic Garden also is a Member of WP6: Cooperation of pan-European databases on biological collections and specimens. Several other German organisations are involved in the ENBI project as well. These include: the Botanische Staatssammlung Muenchen, Department of Mycology (member WP2: ENBI Forums); Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (member WP6: Cooperation of pan-European databases on biological collections and specimens); Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung (member WP5: Check lists and species bank); Humboldt- Universitaet Berlin,  Institut fuer Systematische Zoologie (member WP2: ENBI forums); Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart (SMNS),  Dept. of Entomology (member WP6: Cooperation of pan-European databases on biological collections and specimens); Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und information, Information Centre for Genetic Res (member WP12: Info services on European data); Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen (member WP2: ENBI forums); and Kolleg fuer Management und Gestaltung nachhaltiger Entwicklung gGmbH (member WP12: Info services on European data). ','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 6 of the 7 (86%) rocky habitats and 100% (9 of the 9) of forests are reported to be in favourable condition. 5 of the 8 (63%) and 1 of the 2 (50%) of bog, mire and fen habitats and heath and scrub habitats are also in favourable condition respectively. The remaining heath and scrub habitats (1 of the 2 or 50%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. Over half (5 of the 8 or 63%) of alpine grasslands are also reported to be in unfavourable-inadequate condition.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) coastal habitats is unknown. The remaining 1 of the 3 (33%) coastal habitats is reported to be in unfavourable-inadequate condition.All sclerophyllous scrub and rocky habitats in the Atlantic biogeographical region are in favourable condition. Half of Atlantic heath and scrub and dunes habitats, and 6 of the 10 (60%) coastal habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. The majority of freshwater habitats (6 of the 8 or 75%) and bogs, mires and fens (5 of the 7 or 71%) in the Atlantic biogeographical region are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 50% of both heath and scrub (1 of the 2) and grassland habitats (5 of the 10) are also reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The majority of coastal habitats (2 of the 3 or 67%) in the Marine Baltic biogeographical region are reported as in an unknown condition. The condition of the remaining coastal habitats (1 of 3 or 33%) is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate.In the Continental biogeographical region, 7 of 7 (100%) rocky habitats and 1 of the 2 (50%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in favourable condition. Half or more of dune (6 of 12 or 50%), forest (8 of 16 or 50%), coastal (6 of the 9 or 67%), grassland (8 of the 12 or 67%) and bog, mire and fen (5 of the 7 or 71%) habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 6 of the 12 (50%) of freshwater habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad.Additional clarifications:An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats444%333%111%111%00%9Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands113%563%113%113%00%8Bogs, mires & fens563%225%00%113%00%8Rocky habitats686%00%114%00%00%7Forests9100%00%00%00%00%9Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats00%133%00%267%00%3AtlanticCoastal habitats660%110%330%00%00%10Dunes habitats650%325%325%00%00%12Freshwater habitats113%113%675%00%00%8Heath & scrub150%00%150%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands110%440%550%00%00%10Bogs, mires & fens114%114%571%00%00%7Rocky habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1Forests00%545%545%19%00%11Marine Baltic Coastal habitats00%133%00%267%00%3ContinentalCoastal habitats111%667%222%00%00%9Dunes habitats217%650%325%18%00%12Freshwater habitats18%542%650%00%00%12Heath & scrub240%240%120%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands217%867%217%00%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%571%114%114%00%7Rocky habitats7100%00%00%00%00%7Forests531%850%319%00%00%16Data sourceReference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title andhttp://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here (Member State) : When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here, steps 1 and 2 (Commission) : When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here, steps 1 and 2 (Contractor) : 12/01/201009/05/2010','','','','','','','',''),
	('Germany','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Germany has designated 4622 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 54.343 km², totalling 9.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 53 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 19.134 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 738, with a total area of 59,784 km², totalling 12.2% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 15, with a marine area of 16.061 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (November 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','As of January 2010, management plans are completed for 20.9 % of Natura 2000 sites in Germany. For 30.4 % of Natura 2000 sites management plans are currently  in preparation. The percentage of Natura 2000 sites without a management plan completed or in preparation is 48.7.','','Summation of data provided by the Länder (Federal States)','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','A1_2_3','','The planning and implementation of Ecological networks in Germany occurs at regional level (i.e. at the level of Länder – Federal States). All Länder (Federal States) are obliged under the Federal Nature Conservation Act to establish a network of interlinked biotopes (Biotopverbund) covering at least 10 per cent of the total area of each Land. However, there is no deadline for implementation. There is no overall implementation nationally, beyond the provision of guidance to the Länder.The degree of implementation of ecological networks varies between the Länder. By the end of 2009 most but not all Länder possess plannings for ecological networks. Their integration and degree of consideration in other spatial plannings also varies. Implementation on the ground in some Länder has been running for some years, in others it is only at the beginning.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Hänel, K. (2007): Methodische Grundlagen zur Bewahrung und Wiederherstellung großräumig funktionsfähiger ökologischer Beziehungen in der räumlichen Umweltplanung – Lebensraumnetzwerke für Deutschland. Dissertation. S. 52 – 128. (http://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2007121319883/1/Dissertation_Kersten_Haenel.pdf)Kettunen, M, Terry, A., Tucker, G. & Jones A. 2007. Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna - Guidance on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, 114 pp. & Annexes. (This document partly describes the German situation, but does not cover details).','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','A1_3','','Of the 312 regularly occurring bird species in Germany, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 5 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Germany, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 15 of the 29 (52%) mammals and 37 of the 53 (70%) plants was reported to be favourable. 5 of the 14 (36%) amphibians and reptiles, and 8 of the 23 (35%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 6 (17%) fish are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 6 (50%) fish and 12 of the 29 (41%) of mammals is unknown.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) mammals are in a favourable and in an unfavourable-adequate condition respectively.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 3 of the 17 (18%) amphibians and reptiles and 9 of the 26 (35%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 11 of the 17 (65%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of the 13 (62%) fish and 8 of 26 (31%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of the 13 (23%) fish, 16 of the 26 (62%) invertebrates and 20 of the 55 (36%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 5 of the 34 (15%) mammals and 23 of the 55 (42%) of plants is unknown.In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, all mammals (3 of 3 or 100%) of Community Interest are in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Continental biogeographical region, 6 of the 48 (35%) invertebrates and 12 of the 34 (20%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 9 of the 23 (39%) amphibians and reptiles, 16 of the 48 (33%) invertebrates, 11 of the 34 (32%) mammals and 18 of the 80 (30%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 9 of the 23 (39%) amphibians and reptiles, 20 of the 48 (42%) invertebrates and 18 of the 80 (23%) of plants was reported to be unfavourable-bad. In addition, the conservation status of 11 of the 31 (35%) of fish and 5 of the 34 (15%) of mammals is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below. Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported Alpine Amphibians and reptiles 429%536%214%321%00%14Fish 233%00%117%350%00%6Invertebrates835%835%313%417%00%23Mammals1552%00%27%1241%00%29Plants 3770%611%12%917%00%53Marine AtlanticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals133%267%00%00%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 318%1165%212%16%00%17Fish 215%862%323%00%00%13Invertebrates415%312%1662%312%00%26Mammals935%831%519%415%00%26Plants 713%59%2036%2342%00%55Marine BalticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%3100%00%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Continental Amphibians and reptiles 313%939%939%29%00%23Fish 516%826%723%1135%00%31Invertebrates613%1633%2042%613%00%48Mammals1235%1132%618%515%00%34Plants 1215%1823%1823%3240%00%80','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html ','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','The following number of species action plans are completed (with many more in preparation): 235 for birds, 57 for mammals, 43 for amphibians and reptiles, 24 for fish, 380 for invertebrates and 475 for plants. Data from common bird monitoring are used to report the national state indicator ‘Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity’ (SISD). National Red Lists for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and freshwater fish exist, while those for marine fish, invertebrates and plants are in preparation and will be published during the next years as the next volumes of reference 1 (6 volumes, altogether). For summaries in English see: (BfN)(Ed) (2002): Nature Data 2002.- Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster: 284 p. or (BfN)(Ed) (2008): Nature Data 2008.- Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster: 356 p.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:1. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)(Ed) (2009): Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands, Band 1: Wirbeltiere. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, 70 (1): 386 p.; 2 (²) Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)(Ed) (1998): Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere Deutschlands. – Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, 55: 434 p.; 3. (³) Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)(Ed) (1996): Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Deutschlands. – Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde, 28: 744 p.Weblink: http://www.bfn.de/0321_rote_liste.html (in German only)','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','B1_1_1','','As a federal state, the task of conserving biological diversity in Germany is performed by the federal authorities and by the states (Länder) and local authorities. In addition, financial resources for the conservation of biodiversity are provided not only by the nature conservation sector, but also by other sectors (e.g. agriculture and forestry, transport, urban development, education and research). Among other things, these resources are used to support direct measures in the field of area and species conservation, nature -friendly use, research projects and associations. In addition to resources from the domestic budget, money for nature conservation measures is also provided by a number of foundations (public and private) and by the EU. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Germany spent up to EUR10,165,331 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Germany spent up to EUR2,723,233 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. Germany commented that the figures provided represent only a small fraction of Germany’s spending for Natura 2000 management and restoration, since these tasks are mainly financed through other instruments than LIFE. However, according to Germany it is currently not possible to provide a total for Natura 2000 management and restoration expenditure in Germany.','','The information on national programmes is taken from Germany’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Germany’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','B1_1_4','','Germany’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR50.6m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR56.6m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR86m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','B1_1_8','','From 2006-2009, Germany has spent EUR90,000,000 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure.','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B2_4','','The German Federal Government adopted a National Strategy for Biodiversity on 7 November 2007 to implement the UN Convention on Biological Diversity at the national level. It contains about 330 targets and 430 initiatives, comprehensively dealing with all biodiversity-related issues. The EU Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’ is incorporated with relevant sections of this national strategy.','','','http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/nationale_strategie/doc/40332.php ','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','B3_1_2','','In the context of agri-environment schemes, thousands of agreements have been concluded with land users (agricultural-environmental contractual nature). In addition to the agricultural environment there are a variety of local and regional projects that contribute to preserving biodiversity. These have been partially implemented but not directly with farmers and foresters (eg landscape projects, the mire, or for Natura 2000, for example with landscape associations). A number of regional projects include federal, state and local funds from the districts / municipalities (eg nature conservation project of the Federation \"Nordvorpommersche forest landscape\"), in which individual contracts with farmers and foresters. As part of the national coordination processes e.g. in connection with the design of the CAP and Forestry are held at the federal level consultative processes. Partnerships are at the local and regional level.','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:Im Rahmen der Agrarumweltförderung wurden mehrere Tausend Vereinbarungen/Verträge mit Landnutzern abgeschlossen (Agrarumweltmaßnahmen, Vertragsnaturschutz). Neben den Agrarumweltmaßnahmen gibt es eine Vielzahl von lokalen und regionalen Projekten, die dem Erhalt der Artenvielfalt dienen. Diese wurden teilweise jedoch nicht direkt mit Landwirten oder Forstwirten durchgeführt (z.B. Projekte der Landschaftspflege, des Moorschutzes oder für Natura 2000 sondern beispielsweise mit Landschaftspflegeverbänden). Eine Reihe von regionalen Projekten wird mit Bundes-, Landes und Eigenmitteln der Landkreise/Kommunen durchgfeführt (z.B. Naturschutzgroßprojekt des Bundes \"Nordvorpommersche Waldlandschaft\"), in denen Einzelverträge mit Land- und Forstwirten geschlossen werden.. Im Rahmen der nationalen Abstimmungsprozesse z.B. im Zusammenhang mit der Gestaltung der GAP und Forstpolitik finden auf Bundesebene Konsultativprozesse statt. Partnerschaften finden naturgemäß auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene statt..','','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B3_1_5','','In Germany, the implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy is not only the role of the federal government, but must involve all actors in society. With this in mind, the BMU started a multi-year, dialogue-orientated process in December 2007. Large national and regional forums on biological diversity and different actor-related dialogues are part of this process. Government and non-state actors are invited to participate in the implementation process.At the regional level (in some states) and at local level, there are forums for stakeholder participation in various processes. These include in the preparation of management plans for Natura 2000 sites (also called \"round tables\") and the development of national development plans or the implementation of regional strategies for biodiversity','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:Die Umsetzung dieser Nationalen Strategie ist keine Aufgabe für den Bund allein, sondern muss alle gesellschaftliche Akteure einbeziehen. Deshalb hat das BMU im Dezember 2007 einen mehrjährigen, dialogorientierten Umsetzungsprozess gestartet. Bausteine dieses Prozesses sind große Nationale und Regionale Foren zur biologischen Vielfalt sowie verschiedene akteursbezogene Dialogforen. Es sind alle staatlichen und nicht-staatlichen Akteure eingeladen, sich am Umsetzungsprozess zu beteiligen. http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/nationale_strategie/doc/40332.phpAuf regionaler Ebene (in einigen Bundesländern) und auf lokaler Ebene gibt es Foren und Beteiligungen, z.B. bei der Erstellung von Managementplänen für Natura 2000-Gebiete (auch \"Runde Tische\"), bei der Erarbeitung von Landesentwicklungsplänen oder zur Umsetzung von regionalen Strategien zur biologischen Vielfalt.  ','Reference or title: Weblink: http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/nationale_strategie/doc/40332.php','','','','na','05/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','B3_1_6','','At COP 9, the international Biodiversity and Business Initiative was launched. The aim is the integration of the private sector in the implementation of the CBD. The key instrument is a leadership declaration which has to be signed which results in membership. So far 42 companies from Japan, Brazil, Germany, South Africa are members of the initiative. There are regular meetings with member companies including the development of a handbook for the integration of biodiversity issues into company management systems. The overall goal is to have a global B & B strategy with national focal points and an international coordination mechanism. ','','','www.business-and-biodiversity.de','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B3_1_7','','There are no specifically designed platforms for partnerships in the financial sector on biodiversity. However, Germany reported that the following initiatives can be considered to encourage these partnerships:- \"B & B\" initiative (see answer to question B.3.1.6), in which banks and insurance companies are active;- A project started in December 2009 by the Ministry, linking the implementation of the National Strategy on Biodiversity to economic questions.- Initiative within the financial sector, the \'Association for Environmental Management in Banks, savings banks and insurance companies \";- \"Business and Biodiversity Conference\" in April 2008 in Germany, where the importance of the financial sector was discussed.','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:Es gibt keine eigens für den Finanzsektor aufgebaute Plattform zum Thema Biodiversität. Allerdings wird auf folgende Maßnahmen in diesem Themenspektrum hingewiesen:- \"B&B-Initiative\" (s. Antwort zu Frage B.3.1.6), in der auch Banken und Versicherungen aktiv sind;- ein im Dezember 2009 gestartetes Projekt des BMU, mit dem die Umsetzung der Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt durch die Wirtschaft  befördert werden soll- Initiative innerhalb des Finanzsektors beim \"Verein für Umweltmanagement in Banken, Sparkassen und Versicherungen\";- \"Business and Biodiversity Conference\" im April 2008 in Deutschland, auf der auch die Bedeutung im Finanzsektor erörtert wurde. ','Reference or title:Weblink:www.vfu.dehttp://www.business-and-biodiversity.de/startseite.htmlhttp://www.globalnature.org/27880/Events/Archive-Events/Conferences/Conference-Business-and-Biodiversity/02_vorlage.asp','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B3_1_8','','The Akwe Kwon guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds. However, the German Development Cooperation has broadly included the Akwe Kwon guidelines to their own criteria and objectives in the concept note \"Development with indigenous people in Latin America and the Caribbean”.  The German government aims to ensure that collaborations in Latin America and the Caribbean are more relevant to the rights, needs and organizational processes of indigenous people. Indigenous people are involved in a cross-sectional approach in all appropriate projects and their concerns are taken into account. In addition, indigenous organizations are promoted directly, both at the national level and across countries (for example, promotion of indigenous federations). There are also plans to create an overarching approach to address the needs of indigenous in development policy.','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:In der deutschen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit finden die Akwe Kon Leitlinien bisher keine Anwendung. Die deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit hat den Akwe Kon Leitlinien weitgehend entsprechende eigene Kriterien und Zielvorstellungen im Konzept „Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit indigenen Völkern in Lateinamerika und der Karibik“ festgeschrieben (http://www.bmz.de/de/service/infothek/fach/konzepte/Konzept139.pdf). Die deutsche staatliche Entwicklungspolitik richtet damit ihre Zusammenarbeit in Lateinamerika und der Karibik stärker auf die Rechte, Bedürfnisse und Organisationsprozesse indigener Völker aus. Einerseits werden in einem Querschnittsansatz indigene Völker in allen Vorhaben angemessen einbezogen und ihre Belange berücksichtigt. Andererseits werden indigene Organisationen direkt gefördert, sowohl auf nationaler Ebene als auch länderübergreifend (zum Beispiel Förderung indigener Dachorganisationen). Es wird darüber hinaus beabsichtigt, ein übergreifendes Konzept zur Berücksichtigung der Belange  Indigener in der Entwicklungspolitik zu erstellen.','http://www.bmz.de/de/service/infothek/fach/konzepte/Konzept139.pdf.','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','B4_1_1','','There is no specific campaign for the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. However, several national campaigns in Germany have/are aimed at increasing public awareness on the issue of biodiversity and its importance in general:A  Communication Campaign for the National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) has included several activities:Since December 2007, the Federal Environment Ministry has organized - and will continue to do so in the future - several national and regional workshops as well as dialogues with different stakeholders (NGOs, agriculture/forest, research, education) in order to push the implementation of the strategy which is considered as a task for of all relevant groups in the society. In addition, a professional advertising campaign is being developed.The National Campaign for the CBD COP 9 (in Germany, Bonn, May 2008) included a variety of awareness raising measures, e.g. -	“Info-bus” tour through Germany,-	support from VIPs (“Naturallianz”)-	publications, material for schools-	competitions, exhibitions-	film clips, cinema days-	COP 9 music concerts','','','Reference or title:Weblink: NBS: http://www.biologischevielfalt.deCOP 9: http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/un_konferenz_2008/kampagne_naturallianz/doc/42541.php','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A1','B4_1_2','','The BMU - Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (15/12/2006), Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (10/01/2005), GTZ – Biodiversity (22/05/2007), Land Berlin, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (22/05/2008) and Niederäechsische Landesforsten (19/04/2008) have all made  declarations supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative.  In total, a sum of 150,000 euros has been contributed between 2006 and 2008 to fund Countdown projects.','','In 2007, Germany funded the European Expert Workshop for Marine Ecosystems with 150.000 euros.   ','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','C1_2','','Germany has established a system of national biodiversity indicators, which reflects 14 of the 26 SEBI indicators and includes several additional indicators. Several of these indicators are new, and the collection of data has only just started, while other indicators make use of long-established systems of monitoring.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the German National Strategy for Biological Diversity. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; German National Strategy for Biological DiversityWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/de/de-nbsap-01-en.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','C1_2_1','','For 14 of the 26 indicators, Germany has developed national indicators, which closely resemble, or are identical to the SEBI indicators. The following additional indicators are used: Conservation status of floodplains - Land use: increase in the amount of land used for human settlements and the transport infrastructure - Sustainable forestry (proportion of certified forest land) - Genetic engineering in agriculture - Flowering season of indicator plants. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the German National Strategy for Biological Diversity.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; German National Strategy for Biological DiversityWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/de/de-nbsap-01-en.pdf ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A1','C1_3_1','','The German national monitoring schemes under the Habitats Directive refer to: Sachteleben, J & M. Behrens (2009): Konzept zum Monitoring des Erhaltungszustandes von Lebensraumtypen und Arten der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland; draft, unpublished; 200 p. According to the obligations under article 11 of the Habitats Directives member states of the European Union shall establish monitoring programmes to assess the conservation status of the species listed in the annexes II, IV and V (as well as habitat types of annex I). These data shall provide a sound basis for the national reports given by the member states every 6 years. The last national report provided by Germany in 2007 covers the timeframe from 2001 until 2006. It was based on heterogeneous data provided by the German federal states nature conservation agencies and additional expert opinion since a nation wide monitoring plan with standardized methods was lacking. For the ongoing reporting period (2007–2012) the German Länder (federal states) and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation developed a harmonized monitoring plan that started in 2008. Taking into account some statistical settings and agreements, in Germany annex species and habitat types with more than 63 occurrences within a given biogeographical region are sampled at 63 randomly chosen localities. For species or habitat types with a lower number of occurrences all known localities are included into the monitoring. For each species or habitat type, always the same localities were covered by the monitoring (constant plots), as long as the species resp. habitat type is present there. Species and habitat type specific assessment schemes define the relevant parameters to be recorded and assessed (using threshold values) during the field work at the sampled localities. Species population monitoring is mainly based on semi-quantitative field methods e. g. egg mass counts, calling surveys, line transect counts rather than more time-consuming capture mark recapture techniques. The Monitoring under the Habitats Directive in Germany is an overview surveillance mainly to provide data for the national report. For more detailed information e. g. for species management or action plans at the level of single federal states or single protected areas additional monitoring activities are required and done by the German Länder.A short overview on population trends and monitoring of Birds in Germany is given in http://www.dda-web.de/downloads/texts/publications/birds_biodiversity_and_the_2010_target_in_germany_ebook.pdf More detailed information are given by Christoph Sudfeldt, Johannes Wahl, Alexander Mitschke, Martin Flade, Johannes Schwarz, Christoph Grüneberg, Martin Boschert und Karsten Berlin (2010): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland – Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 83, S. 96 ff.','','Only nationwide schemes regarding Natura 2000 (Birds and Habitats Directive) were mentioned in this section; So far, species of annex V (Habitats Directive) are not included in the nation wide monitoring programme; there are a lot more ongoing monitoring programmes at local and regional level in the Länder, for details see EUMON-Database: http://eumon.ckff.si/news.php ','Reference or title: 1) Sachteleben, J & M. Behrens (2009): Konzept zum Monitoring des Erhaltungszustandes von Lebensraumtypen und Arten der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland; draft, unpublished; 200 p. 2) Christoph Sudfeldt, Johannes Wahl, Alexander Mitschke, Martin Flade, Johannes Schwarz, Christoph Grüneberg, Martin Boschert und Karsten Berlin (2010): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland – Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 83, S. 96 ff. Weblink: http://www.dda-web.de/downloads/texts/publications/birds_biodiversity_and_the_2010_target_in_germany_ebook.pdf; http://eumon.ckff.si/news.php','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A2','','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter.More detailed information, in German only, is provided below.Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes:Anstelle von Mindestviehbestandsquoten ist in Deutschland festgelegt, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommenen Ackerflächen der Selbstbegrünung zu überlassen oder durch eine gezielte Ansaat zu begrünen sind. Auf Acker- oder Dauergrünlandflächen, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommen sind, ist der Aufwuchs mindestens einmal jährlich zu zerkleinern und ganzflächig zu verteilen bzw. mindestens alle 2 Jahre zu mähen und das Mähgut abzufahren.Protection of permanent pasture:Die Länder tragen dafür Sorge, dass der Anteil des Dauergrünlandes an der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche bezogen auf das Referenzjahr 2003 nicht erheblich abnimmt.Dabei gelten folgende Bestimmungen:Bis zu einer Verringerung von 5 % des jährlich ermittelten Dauergrünlandanteils gegenüber dem Basiswert, ergibt sich keine Verpflichtung für den einzelnen Landwirt. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 5 % verringert, erlässt das jeweilige Land eine Verordnung, nach der der Umbruch von Dauergrünland einer vorherigen Genehmigung bedarf. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 8 % verringert, kann, um mehr als 10 % verringert, muss das Bundesland Zahlungsempfänger, die umgebrochenes Dauergrünland bewirtschaften, verpflichten, dieses wieder einzusäen oder auf anderen Flächen Dauergrünland neu anzulegen.Im Jahr 2010 unterliegt der Umbruch von Dauergrünland nach aktuellem Stand in Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen und Bremen der Genehmigungspflicht. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins Es handelt sich hierbei um folgende Landschaftselemente:1. Hecken oder Knicks: lineare Strukturelemente, die überwiegend mit Gehölzen bewachsen sind und eine Mindestlänge von 20 Metern aufweisen, 2. Baumreihen: mindestens fünf linear angeordnete, nicht landwirtschaftlich genutzte Bäume entlang einer Strecke von mindestens 50 Metern Länge,3. Feldgehölze: überwiegend mit gehölzartigen Pflanzen bewachsene Flächen, die nicht der land-wirtschaftlichen Erzeugung dienen, mit einer Größe von mindestens 100 Quadratmetern bis höchstens 2.000 Quadratmetern; Flächen, für die eine Beihilfe zur Aufforstung oder eine Auffors-tungsprämie gewährt worden ist, gelten nicht als Feldgehölze, 4. Feuchtgebiete: Biotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, 5. Einzelbäume: freistehende Bäume, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften als Naturdenkmale im Sinne des § 28 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt sind. Wenn naturschutzfachliche Gründe nicht entgegenstehen, können die zuständigen Landesbehör-den die Beseitigung eines o.a. Landschaftselementes genehmigen. Das Beseitigungsverbot für die Landschaftselemente beinhaltet keine Pflegeverpflichtung.Establishment and/or retention of habitatsBiotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, dürfen nicht beseitigt werden. Im Übrigen erfolgte keine Umsetzung des seit dem Health Check fakultativen Standards „Festlegung und/oder Aufrechterhaltung von natürlichen Lebensräumen“.OTHER GAEC measures -Schutz des Bodens vor Erosion durch geeignete Maßnahmen:Bislang müssen mindestens 40% der Ackerflächen eines Betriebes in der Zeit vom 1. Dezember bis 15. Februar entweder mit Pflanzen bewachsen sein oder die auf der Oberfläche verbleibenden Pflanzenreste dürfen nicht untergepflügt werden. Ab dem 01.07.2010 richten sich die Erosionsschutzmaßnahmen nach dem Grad der Erosionsgefährung der einzelnen Ackerflächen die je nach Grad der Wasser- oder Winderosionsgefährdung von den Ländern bestimmten Klassen zugeteilt werden. Ackerflächen, die der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser1 zugewiesen und nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen sind, dürfen – soweit die Bewirtschaftung nicht quer zum Hang erfolgt - vom 1. Dezember bis zum Ablauf des 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen nach der Ernte der Vorfrucht ist nur bei einer Aussaaat vor dem 1. Dezember zulässig. Ist eine Ackerfläche der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser2 zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche vom 1. De-zember bis zum 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen zwischen dem 16. Februar und dem Ablauf des 30. November ist nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Vor der Aussaat von Reihenkulturen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr ist das Pflügen verboten.Ist eine Ackerfläche der Windgefährdungsklasse CC Wind zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche nur bei Aussaat vor dem 1. März gepflügt werden. Abweichend hiervon ist das Pflügen – außer bei Reihenkultuen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr – ab dem 1. März nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Das Verbot des Pflügens bei Reihenkulturen gilt nicht, soweit vor dem 1. Dezember Grünstreifen in einer Breite von mindestens 2,5 Metern und in einem Abstand von max. 100 Metern quer zur Hauptwindrichtung eingesät werden oder im Falle des Anbaus von Kartoffeln, soweit die Kartoffeldämme quer zur Hauptwindrichtung angelegt werden.- Erhalt der organischen Substanz im Boden und Schutz der BodenstrukturDie bisherigen Bestimmungen zum Erhalt der organischen Substanz und dem Schutz der Bodenstruktur wurden vereinfacht und übersichtlicher gestaltet. Die geänderten Bestimmungen werden voraussichtlich Ende Januar/Anfang Februar 2010 in Kraft treten. Sie beinhalten im Wesentlichen folgendes:Der Nachweis kann durch Aufstellen einer Humusbilanz oder durch eine den Bodenhumusgehalt bestimmende Untersuchung geführt werden, wobei bestimmte Grenzwerte nicht unterschritten werden dürfen. Durch ein Anbauverhältnis mit mindestens drei Kulturen gilt der Nachweis ebenfalls als erbracht. Bei einer Bewirtschaftung von weniger als drei Kulturen ist der Nachweis unter bestimmten Vorraussetzungen (Flächentausch mit anderen Betrieben) ebenso möglich.Werden in einem Betrieb ausschließlich Kulturen angebaut, die neutrale oder positive Auswirkungen auf den Bodenhumusgehalt haben („Humusmehrer“), gilt die Verpflichtung des Erhalts der organischen Substanz als erfüllt.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','',''),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Germany total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 8751.06 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 14181.87 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 3659.45 million EUR, and 6070.33 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 41.82 and 39.42 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Germany was 2176.64 million EUR (3553.49 with co-financing) and amounted to 24.87 per cent of the EAFRD (25.06 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 98.45 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.13 per cent of EAFRD) and 154.42 million EUR of public expenditure (1.09 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 14 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.16 per cent of EAFRD) and 27.29 million EUR of public expenditure (0.19 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 28.61 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.33 per cent of EAFRD) and 51.34 million EUR of public expenditure (0.36 per cent of public expenditure).According to the Member State, total public expenditure does not include additional national financing (eg, state aid).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided.Note: Sachsen-Anhalt missing Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)11.3551034219.99745824Agri-environment payments (214)575.89847841171.133.252Forest environment payments (225)2.0716854.25865405','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','The conservation of genetic diversity is addressed in a national strategy, action plan and a “Sektorstrategie Agrobiodiversität”. A number of in-situ conservation projects are underway including 15 on crop varieties (totalling €3545855), 12 on livestock breeds (totalling €1615246) and 12 on commercial tree species (totalling €671777). The figures on number and value of projects refer to model and demonstration initiatives in the framework of the conservation and innovative use of biological diversity.According to the Member State it is not possible to estimate the amount spent under the EAFRD on genetic conservation measures, because payments that cover these measures also cover other issues.Maßnahmen speziell zur Förderung der Biologischen Vielfalt in Land-, Forst-, Fischerei- und Ernährungswirtschaft (einschließlich Gartenbau):- Bestandsaufnahmen, Erhebungen und nichtwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen im Bereich Biologische Vielfalt (BV-Erhebungen),- Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben (MuD) im Bereich der Erhaltung und innovativen Nutzung der Biologischen Vielfalt (MuD-Vorhaben).In Deutschland gibt eine Reihe von nationalen Fachprogrammen zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen. Diese nationalen Fachprogramme zu genetischen Ressourcen für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft sehen umfangreiche Maßnahmen für eine effiziente Erhaltung und nachhaltige Nutzung der landwirtschaftlichen biologischen Vielfalt vor:Pflanzengenetische RessourcenNationales Fachprogramm zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen (2002)http://www.genres.de/downloads/publikationen/nationales_fachprogramm_pgr_deu.pdf Tiergenetische RessourcenNationales Fachprogramm zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung tiergenetischer Ressourcen (2003)http://www.genres.de/downloads/publikationen/nationales_fachprogramm_tgr_deu.pdf Forstgenetischer RessourcenKonzept zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung forstgenetischer Ressourcen (2000)http://blag.fgr.genres.de/konzeption/index.htm Konzept zum Genetischen Monitoring bei Forstbaumarten (2006)http://www.genres.de/blag.fgr/genetisches-monitoring/index.htm  Fortschrittsbericht der Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe „Forstliche Genressourcen und Forstsaatgutrecht“, Berichtszeitraum 2005 – 2008http://blag.fgr.genres.de/ber-0508/bericht_0508.pdf Aquatische genetische RessourcenNationales Fachprogramm zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung aquatischer genetischer Ressourcen (2005)http://www.genres.de/downloads/publikationen/nationales_fachprogramm_agr_deu.pdf In Deutschland findet auf Ebene der Bundesländer eine Förderung des landwirtschaftlichen Anbaus gefährdeter heimischer Nutzpflanzen, die an regionale Bedingungen angepasst und vom Aussterben bedroht sind und der Zucht oder Haltung seltener oder gefährdeter heimischer Nutztierrassen im Rahmen von Erhaltungszuchtprogrammen statt. Diese können durch Mittel des Europäischen Landwirtschaftsfonds zur Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raumes (ELER) bzw. der Gemeinschatsaufgabe zur Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes (GAK) kofinanziert werden.  In diesem Rahmen bieten zwei Bundesländer im Bereich der pflanzengenetischen Ressourcen die On-Farm-Bewirtschaftung als Fördermaßnahme an, neun Bundesländer fördern Maßnahmen zur Erhaltung tiergenetischer Ressourcen.Projekte zur Bestandsaufnahme, Erhebung und nichtwissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen im Bereich Biologische Vielfalt (BV-Erhebungen) werden aus Mitteln des BMELV von der BLE als Aufträge nach VOL vergeben. Ziel ist die Erfassung, Inventarisierung und Dokumentation genetischer Ressourcen, das Monitoring der Bestandsentwicklung genetischer Ressourcen und die Erstellung sonstiger Informationsgrundlagen in diesem Bereich. Ebenfalls aus Mitteln des BMELV werden im Rahmen einer Förderrichtlinie Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben im Wege der Zuwendung gefördert, deren Ziel es ist, Defizite und Probleme bei der Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland abzubauen und innovative Konzepte mit Vorbildcharakter zu entwickeln und umzusetzen. Die durchgeführten Vorhaben sollen dabei einen Vorbildcharakter für potenzielle Nachahmer entfalten. Das bedeutet, dass die durch das MuD gewonnen Erkenntnisse auf ähnlich gelagerte Fälle übertragbar sein sollen.Insgesamt wurden im Berichtszeitraum 2006 – 2009 43 Projekte (Erhebungen und Modellvorhaben) aus Mitteln des BMELV mit einem Gesamtvolumen in Höhe von 9.210.371 € bewilligt bzw. vergeben, durchgeführt und/oder abgeschlossen . Die Maßnahmen und Projekte haben dabei pflanzen-, tier-, forst- und aquatische genetische Ressourcen betroffen. Bzgl. der pflanzengenetischen Ressourcen wurden 15 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 3.545.855 €, bzgl. der tiergenetischen Ressourcen wurden 12 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 1.615.246 €, bzgl. der fortgenetischen Ressourcen wurden 12 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 3.377.493 € und bzgl. der aquatischen genetischen Ressourcen wurden 4 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 671.777 € im Berichtszeitraum betreut.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Projects: http://www.ble.de/cln_099/nn_680386/DE/04__Forschungsfoerderung/05__BV-Vorhaben/BV-Vorhaben__node.html?__nnn=true ','','','','',''),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Germany in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','For Germany information on Rheinland Pfalz is missing.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed on the level of the federal states (Länder), which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Permissions are needed for afforestation and deforestation operayions, but details are regulated by the Länder. In addition, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. No details on limits for application were available.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.*for Länder only.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Germany had a total certified forest area of 7.72 million hectares out of a total forest area of 11.08 million hectares. 431,989 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 7.28 million hectares were certified. In total, 69.67 per cent of the forest area in Germany was certified.According to reporting by the Member State, in April 2010 449,310 ha were FSC certified, representing 4.1 per cent of total forest area. An area of 7,345,729 ha was certified according to the PEFC scheme, amounting to 67.1 per cent of total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Germany amounted to 3.16 million ha, representing a share of 14.6 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to reporting by the Member State, Germany has developed a methodology to directly identify HNV farmland by taking samples and feeding into the development of the HNV farmland basis indicator. First maps were produced in 2009 and further results are expected for 2010.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_4','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter.More detailed information, in German only, is provided below.Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes:Anstelle von Mindestviehbestandsquoten ist in Deutschland festgelegt, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommenen Ackerflächen der Selbstbegrünung zu überlassen oder durch eine gezielte Ansaat zu begrünen sind. Auf Acker- oder Dauergrünlandflächen, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommen sind, ist der Aufwuchs mindestens einmal jährlich zu zerkleinern und ganzflächig zu verteilen bzw. mindestens alle 2 Jahre zu mähen und das Mähgut abzufahren.Protection of permanent pasture:Die Länder tragen dafür Sorge, dass der Anteil des Dauergrünlandes an der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche bezogen auf das Referenzjahr 2003 nicht erheblich abnimmt.Dabei gelten folgende Bestimmungen:Bis zu einer Verringerung von 5 % des jährlich ermittelten Dauergrünlandanteils gegenüber dem Basiswert, ergibt sich keine Verpflichtung für den einzelnen Landwirt. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 5 % verringert, erlässt das jeweilige Land eine Verordnung, nach der der Umbruch von Dauergrünland einer vorherigen Genehmigung bedarf. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 8 % verringert, kann, um mehr als 10 % verringert, muss das Bundesland Zahlungsempfänger, die umgebrochenes Dauergrünland bewirtschaften, verpflichten, dieses wieder einzusäen oder auf anderen Flächen Dauergrünland neu anzulegen.Im Jahr 2010 unterliegt der Umbruch von Dauergrünland nach aktuellem Stand in Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen und Bremen der Genehmigungspflicht. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins Es handelt sich hierbei um folgende Landschaftselemente:1. Hecken oder Knicks: lineare Strukturelemente, die überwiegend mit Gehölzen bewachsen sind und eine Mindestlänge von 20 Metern aufweisen, 2. Baumreihen: mindestens fünf linear angeordnete, nicht landwirtschaftlich genutzte Bäume entlang einer Strecke von mindestens 50 Metern Länge,3. Feldgehölze: überwiegend mit gehölzartigen Pflanzen bewachsene Flächen, die nicht der land-wirtschaftlichen Erzeugung dienen, mit einer Größe von mindestens 100 Quadratmetern bis höchstens 2.000 Quadratmetern; Flächen, für die eine Beihilfe zur Aufforstung oder eine Auffors-tungsprämie gewährt worden ist, gelten nicht als Feldgehölze, 4. Feuchtgebiete: Biotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, 5. Einzelbäume: freistehende Bäume, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften als Naturdenkmale im Sinne des § 28 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt sind. Wenn naturschutzfachliche Gründe nicht entgegenstehen, können die zuständigen Landesbehör-den die Beseitigung eines o.a. Landschaftselementes genehmigen. Das Beseitigungsverbot für die Landschaftselemente beinhaltet keine Pflegeverpflichtung.Establishment and/or retention of habitatsBiotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, dürfen nicht beseitigt werden. Im Übrigen erfolgte keine Umsetzung des seit dem Health Check fakultativen Standards „Festlegung und/oder Aufrechterhaltung von natürlichen Lebensräumen“.OTHER GAEC measures -Schutz des Bodens vor Erosion durch geeignete Maßnahmen:Bislang müssen mindestens 40% der Ackerflächen eines Betriebes in der Zeit vom 1. Dezember bis 15. Februar entweder mit Pflanzen bewachsen sein oder die auf der Oberfläche verbleibenden Pflanzenreste dürfen nicht untergepflügt werden. Ab dem 01.07.2010 richten sich die Erosionsschutzmaßnahmen nach dem Grad der Erosionsgefährung der einzelnen Ackerflächen die je nach Grad der Wasser- oder Winderosionsgefährdung von den Ländern bestimmten Klassen zugeteilt werden. Ackerflächen, die der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser1 zugewiesen und nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen sind, dürfen – soweit die Bewirtschaftung nicht quer zum Hang erfolgt - vom 1. Dezember bis zum Ablauf des 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen nach der Ernte der Vorfrucht ist nur bei einer Aussaaat vor dem 1. Dezember zulässig. Ist eine Ackerfläche der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser2 zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche vom 1. De-zember bis zum 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen zwischen dem 16. Februar und dem Ablauf des 30. November ist nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Vor der Aussaat von Reihenkulturen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr ist das Pflügen verboten.Ist eine Ackerfläche der Windgefährdungsklasse CC Wind zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche nur bei Aussaat vor dem 1. März gepflügt werden. Abweichend hiervon ist das Pflügen – außer bei Reihenkultuen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr – ab dem 1. März nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Das Verbot des Pflügens bei Reihenkulturen gilt nicht, soweit vor dem 1. Dezember Grünstreifen in einer Breite von mindestens 2,5 Metern und in einem Abstand von max. 100 Metern quer zur Hauptwindrichtung eingesät werden oder im Falle des Anbaus von Kartoffeln, soweit die Kartoffeldämme quer zur Hauptwindrichtung angelegt werden.- Erhalt der organischen Substanz im Boden und Schutz der BodenstrukturDie bisherigen Bestimmungen zum Erhalt der organischen Substanz und dem Schutz der Bodenstruktur wurden vereinfacht und übersichtlicher gestaltet. Die geänderten Bestimmungen werden voraussichtlich Ende Januar/Anfang Februar 2010 in Kraft treten. Sie beinhalten im Wesentlichen folgendes:Der Nachweis kann durch Aufstellen einer Humusbilanz oder durch eine den Bodenhumusgehalt bestimmende Untersuchung geführt werden, wobei bestimmte Grenzwerte nicht unterschritten werden dürfen. Durch ein Anbauverhältnis mit mindestens drei Kulturen gilt der Nachweis ebenfalls als erbracht. Bei einer Bewirtschaftung von weniger als drei Kulturen ist der Nachweis unter bestimmten Vorraussetzungen (Flächentausch mit anderen Betrieben) ebenso möglich.Werden in einem Betrieb ausschließlich Kulturen angebaut, die neutrale oder positive Auswirkungen auf den Bodenhumusgehalt haben („Humusmehrer“), gilt die Verpflichtung des Erhalts der organischen Substanz als erfüllt.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Federal Ministry for Agriculture there is no biodiversity specific training but biodiversity issues are often part of comprehensive training measures. Responsibility lies with the federal states (Länder). ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds (regional and national level).•	HNV farming (regional and national level).•	HNV forestry (regional level).Additionally, programme-specific biodiversity indicators have been implemented are being put in place, such as the Länder initiative on bird monitoring (LIKI,  Länder Initiative Kern Indikator des bundesweiten Vogelmonitorings) and monitoring of the conservation status of habitats and species under the Habitats and Birds Directives. According to reporting by the Member State, the German Common Breeding Bird Survey (GCBBS) is the main scheme for monitoring German common and widespread breeding bird species. It covers the main habitat and landscape types all over Germany including farmland and forests. The species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly values and standard errors using Poisson regression. The data from GCBS and other bird monitoring programmes feed into the German Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity (SISD), which reflects the conservation status of the landscape as well as the sustainability of land use. SISD summarizes the trends in abundance of 59 selected, representative breeding bird species. 10 bird species were chosen to represent farmland, 11 bird species to represent forests. The issue of the conservation status of the habitat types and the issue of sustainability become part of the indicator construction by defining target values: an expert panel has determined a target value for every single bird species, which should be attained by 2015, provided that the guidelines for sustainable development and nature conservation are completely implemented. After standardisation of the population sizes at 100% for the 2015 goal for all selected species, the deviation in percentage from those values can be computed for any individual year. Sub-indicators of the habitat types of farmland and forests are calculated. The SISD starts in 1990 and is updated annually. For 1970 and 1975, historical reference values were reconstructed. SISD is used in Germany on a national scale for assessment of sustainability and biodiversity issues in the context of the German National Sustainability Strategy, the German National Strategy on Biological Diversity and the programme of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).Between the years 1990 and 2007, Germany’s national farmland bird indicator and Germany’s national forest bird indicator have shown no clearly positive or negative trend. In 2007, the farmland bird indicator was at 68 per cent and the forest bird indicator at 76 per cent of the target value determined for the year 2015. For the two indicators, 10 farmland bird species and 11 forest bird species were monitored.A new monitoring program has been set up nationwide to implement the HNV Farmland Indicator in Germany.  The HNV Farmland area will be calculated by mapping stratified random sample areas of low intensity agricultural land and landscape features. Using the 2009 mapping sample an initial estimate of the HNV Farmland 2009 area will be available early in 2010. Following this a quarter of the intended total sample will be mapped each year by the Federal States. A running mean of the indicator value will then be available every 2 years at the national level and for each Federal State.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN 2009)Weblink: http://www.bfn.de/0315_nachhaltigkeit.html References concerning population of farmland birds:1) Achtziger, R., Stickroth, H. & Zieschank, R. (2004) Nachhaltigkeitsindikator für die Artenvielfalt – ein Indikator für den Zustand von Natur und Landschaft in Deutschland. – Angew. Landschaftsökol. 63: 1-137.2) Droeschmeister, R. & Sukopp, U. (in prep.): Indicators and Conservation Policy: the German Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity as an Example. – Avocetta Suppl. (manuscript accepted).Weblink: http://www.bfn.de/0315_nachhaltigkeit.html Reference for HNV farming: Benzler 2009: The implementation of the HNV farmland indicator in Germany. Rural Evaluation News Number 2.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/network/newsletter/02_en.pdf ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 942 million € has been added to the German national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Germany attributed € 264 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 28 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, there are long-term soil monitoring programmes in several Federal States with regard to the status and trends of soil including soil faunistic and microbiological aspects. Soil biological parameters have not been mandatory yet on the national level, but some parameters are mandatory in the Federal States. These programmes are based on an agreement of a respective working group of the Federal States in Germany. Projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity, but not details were available.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.The German federal government rejects the obligatory identification of geographical risk areas for e.g. soil sealing, loss of organic matter and soil erosion. For example, the implementation of the obligatory cross compliance rules of the Common Agricultural Policy on soil erosion, loss of organic matter and compaction has proven that the identification of such areas is not a suitable approach in Germany.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/boden-und-altlasten/boden/bodenschutz/dauerbeobachtung.htmhttp://www.umweltbundesamt.de/boden-und-altlasten/boden/downloads/der_boden_lebt.pdf http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/boden-und-altlasten/boden/gefaehrdungen/index.htm','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the majority of the Atlantic and continental fresh water habitats in Germany have an unfavourable conservation status (88 and 92 per cent respectively); the remainder in both cases has a favourable status. 44 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats have a favourable conservation status, a further 44 per cent have an unfavourable status and the remaining 11 per cent have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences2261076%21%3%0%29            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U11  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1110092%8%0%0%U15   U26       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9441044%44%11%0%U13  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) was available for Germany. Ammonium data did not demonstrate a clear downward trend, falling from 0.13 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.12 mg N/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 3.59 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.25 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were below the weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 17.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 26.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 27.7 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a slight upward trend from 2002 to 2005, with values amounting to 0.070 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.072 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly below weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a clear upward trend between 2002 and 2004, increasing from 0.022 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.028 mg P/l in 2004, but  in 2005 values fell to 2002 values again. Figures in 2005 were below the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.','.','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Germany had a total number of 1547 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 81.9 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to 2007, the percentage had increased, whereas in previous years it had been decreasing.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Germany, all biological assessment methods for rivers, lakes and coastal waters were either completely developed or undeveloped depending on the districts. For transitional waters methods on macro-algae and angiosperms, and benthic invertebrate methods have been partially developed, depending again on the districts.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 2184 in Germany.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives.','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress and reporting by the Member State, in 2008 Germany had a total number of 7460 existing IPPC installations (plus 986 new installations) and issued 10135 permits. 78 permits were still outstanding. 4487 was the number of permits that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. According to the German IPPC implementation report according to article 17 (1) and (3) of the IPPC Directive for the reporting period 2006 -2008 (state of play end of summer 2009) the following applies:* Total number of all installation: 8516* Total number of new installations: 1095 with 1092 granted permits* Total number of existing installations: 7421 with 10303 granted permits issued for thess existing installations. At that time, all 9468 permits were in compliance the IPPC Directive considering also environmental conditions. Only 16 permits were outstanding at that time. According to the Member State, on 31 December 2009 only 2 permits were outstanding in Germany.','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Germany’s emissions of sulphur oxides were already lower than the relevant ceilings. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds were still well above the targets set. According to the newest projections for 2010, Germany does not envisage being able to meet the ceilings set out in Annex I of the Directive for nitrogen oxides and ammonia, taking into accounts all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures. However, a slight decrease of nitrogen oxides emissions was achieved compared to previous years. According to the Member State, reported data up until 2008 include emissions from sectors that were not taken into account when the NEC Directive became effective. As documented in the National NEC Report 2007, they should not be taken into account when comparing with the national emission ceilings. This applies to NOx and NMVOC emissions from agriculture (84 kt/a NOx and 245 kt/a NMVOC in 2010) and NMVOC emissions from some food industry subsectors (amounting to 10 kt/a in 2010). The NEC Directive Report 2007 and an update (communication to the Commission in January 2009) defined additional emission reduction measures to ensure attainment of emission ceilings for NOx und NH3 in 2010 and thereafter. These include•	technical and non-technical measures in traffic•	control options for measures on stationary sources•	additional implementation of the ammonia emission abatement programme.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive Reporting, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Germany the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 58 and 84 per cent respectively, considering an area of 102,891 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 32 and 24 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 5 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 67 per cent in 2010 and 58 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 36 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Germany’s gross nitrogen balance was 113 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 22 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','According to data provided by the European Bird Census Council, between 1991 and 2006, farmland birds indicator has shown a general decrease for Germany. In 2006 the indicator was at 74.5 per cent, a 25.5 per cent decrease from the 1991 baseline. 18 species were assessed. No data were provided for the year 1990.For information on Germany’s national Farmland Birds indicator, please consult A2.1.8','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, a large percentage of Germany’s terrestrial habitats of Community interest have an unfavourable conservation status. Of the grassland habitats in Germany, 90 per cent of the Atlantic, 83 per cent of the continental and 75 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats have an unfavourable conservation status; the remainder in each case has a favourable conservation status. 100 per cent of the alpine forest habitats in Germany have a favourable conservation status while 31 per cent of the continental forest habitats have a favourable status (the remaining 69 per cent is unfavourable). 91 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining nine per cent has an unknown status. Half of both the Atlantic and alpine heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 50 per cent in both cases have a favourable status. 60 per cent of the continental heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable status; the remaining 40 per cent have a favourable status. Of the peat land habitats in Germany, 86 per cent of both the Atlantic and continental habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 14 per cent of the Atlantic peat land habitats have a favourable status, while the remaining 14 per cent of continental peat land habitats have an unknown status. 63 per cent of the alpine peat land habitats have a favourable status, 25 per cent have an unfavourable status and the remaining 13 per cent have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage302541083%13%3%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10910090%10%0%0%U14  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121020083%17%0%0%U18   U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8611075%13%13%0%U15  U21       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage21141058%39%3%0%36            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage111001091%0%9%0%U15  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage161150069%31%0%0%U18   U23       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage909000%100%0%0%U10  U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9540056%44%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U10  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%U12   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences1462064%27%9%0%22            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U11  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U15   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8251025%63%13%0%U12  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','09/12/2009','na'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_1','','Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Germany demonstrated the status of marine and coastal habitats in different biogeographic regions in Germany. There were three marine habitats in the Marine Atlantic region—of which one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%) and two had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%). There were also three marine habitats in the Marine Baltic region—of which one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%) and two had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%).There were ten coastal habitats in the ‘Atlantic’ biogeographic region—of which six had a ‘Favourable’ status, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (10%), and three had a ‘Bad’ status (30%). There were nine coastal habitats in the ‘Continental’ biogeographic region—of which one had a ‘Favourable’ status (11%), six had an ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (22%).A total of three marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, all mammals. Two of these had an ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%). Three marine species were also assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all mammals, and all three had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%133.3%00%266.7%00%3Marine BalticMarine habitats00%133.3%00%266.7%00%3AtlanticCoastal habitats660%110%330%00%00%10ContinentalCoastal habitats111.1%666.7%222.2%00%00%9Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals133%267%00%00%00%3Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL133%267%00%00%00%3Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%00%3100%00%00%3Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%00%3100%00%00%3The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusGermany provided some comments on the figures listed above:The figures suggest that category “coastal habitats” comprises habitat type 1340 (inland salt meadows). Since habitat type 1340 is a non-coastal type by definition, it should not be considered as coastal.In this regard figures for coastal habitats have to be corrected as follows:Atlantic biographic region:FV = 6U1 = 1U2 = 2XX = 0NA = 0Total =9Continental biogeographic region:FV = 1U1 = 5U2 = 2XX= 0NA = 0Total = 8Moreover, the marine habitat types and species should be attributed to the Atlantic biogeographic region and the Continental biogeographic region respectively, since there are no specific “marine” biogeographic regions under the provisions of the Habitats Directive (as confirmed by the Commission at the last Habitats Committee meeting). Accordingly, the narrative summary has to be corrected as well.The Contractor has not amended the tables as suggested by the Member State in order to retain consistency between all MS profiles so that an cross-EU analysis can be made.','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_1_4','','Germany reported that, in 2009, it had 34 surveillance stations and 70 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Germany has 74 coastal water bodies. Approximately 45% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has some assessment methods developed for 3 out of 7 river basin districts for monitoring coastal waters for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and macroalgae and angiosperm. Germany reported that a programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD has been adopted. ','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','05/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_1_5','','Institutionalised regular meetings have improved the coordination of efforts and knowledge exchange. These meetings include different federal ministries, state governments and municipal summit organisations in an advisory council and occur every 3 months. In the future, coordination and communication among stakeholders and with local constituencies will be supported by a new central point of contact, the “Küsten-Kontor”. ICZM based planning and development processes have been tested in four case studies and will provide guidelines. In the run-up to formal planning and approval processes for development proposals, potential conflicts and possible solutions should be expressed in order to achieve sustainable use of resources (on land) and sustainable economic growth. In light of predicted climate change impacts, a vision for the development of the Wadden Sea Region was developed in the context of a research project and is due to be discussed with the involved parties. A competition for the best ICZM projects in the Schleswig Holstein region started in 2010 and will contribute to awareness raising and the exchange of experiences. Furthermore, state governments and the local authorities have worked on goals and good practice for ICZM through regional cooperation, participation in international forums and projects as well as activities within the framework of local Agenda 21 projects.','','','','20.1.2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A3','A3_2','','Germany currently has 373 coastal bathing waters. The majority of these have consistently reached the mandatory guidelines for water quality: 98.7% in 2008; 93.7% in 2007 and 97.7% in 2006. The percentage of coastal bathing waters reaching the stricter guidelines standards is good but has slightly decreased over the past three years: 88.6% in 2006; 80.3% in 2007 and 75.6% in 2008. Slightly lower conformance in 2007 was due to the parameter ‘total coliform bacteria’ and in 2008 due to the new parameter ‘Intestinal enterococci’. Four bathing areas were closed in 2006 and one in 2007, but none in 2008.There has been no increase in nitrogen or phosphate concentrations in German coastal waters either in the Baltic or the North Sea, and a few sampling stations have shown decreases. In particular, almost half of the sampling stations in the Baltic have recorded a decrease in orthophosphate concentrations.  ','','','','','','','09/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_4','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Germany','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'09/12/2009','na'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Germany had 2017 vessels and 5% were involved in a serious infringement (101 vessels). A total of 100 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €436 and maximum fine of €6,400.','','2007 data is not currently available','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_5_2','','Germany has restoration plans for Salmon, Trout, Sturgeon, Eel and Alosa sp., and the responsibility for implementing these plans is at the regional level (i.e. the Länder). Germany’s Eel management plan (which forms part of the implementation of the COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 on measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel) has been approved by the Commission. No further information on the details of the Eel or Salmon, Trout and Sturgeon plans was provided by Germany. ','','','http://www.portal-fischerei.de/index.php?id=1240 ','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Germany','A3','A3_5_3','','The number of fishing vessels in Germany has consistently reduced from 1999 to 2008 falling from 2313 to 1825 vessels (21% reduction). Tonnage and power also decreased from 1999 to 2006, although there was a slight increase in 2007 due to the entry of a big trawler into the long-distant fleet before both dropped slightly to 68,593 tons and 159,971 kW in 2008 respectively (0.5% reduction in power from 2007). However, small capacity reductions took place during 2007 in passive gear segments, North Sea trawlers and beam trawlers without public aid. The 2007-2013 fisheries operational programme reports that there is no further capacity reductions planned since Germany is currently one of the ten smallest fleets in the EU.','','2008 data: 1825 vessels; 68593 tons; 159971 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Germany had 2017 active vessels. There were 23 type D breaches in this year, with 22 penalties imposed with an average fine of €1428. No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch or damage to the benthos was provided by Germany. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_6_2','','Seabird monitoring In Germany seabird monitoring has been ongoing since 1964. The implementation of the seabird monitoring program is the responsibility of the Länder. A coordinated marine monitoring programme is currently under revision (BLMP - Bund-Länder Messprogramm). No further details on seabird monitoring were provided by Germany. Shark monitoring In Germany, monitoring of sharks is conducted in the framework of comprehensive monitoring programmes in the Northeast Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea as part of CFP implementation under the umbrella of the Institutes for Sea Fisheries and the Baltic Sea Fisheries Federal of the Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (vTI). The focus of these monitoring programmes is on fish stock assessment and Chondrichthyans are covered as well. Particularly relevant are the international bottom trawl surveys: IBTS and BITS (since 1966 and 1986 resp); surveys of Greenland (since 1982); and surveys of Spitzbergen (from 2010). Germany will also be implementing the new Commission Decision adopting the multiannual Community programme for the collection of data for the period 2011-2013 covering - among others - all shark species included in the EU Action Plan for sharks.','','There is no clear definition in the EU on the criteria for a systematic shark monitoring. Therefore the answer is Y/N  taking into account that a comprehensive monitoring programme for sharks in Germany is not yet in place but data on sharks are available in the framework of fish stock monitoring programmes.','Reference or title:Weblink:(1) Monotoring North Sea, i.a. IBT Survey; http://www.ices.dk(2) Monitoring Baltic Sea, i.a. BIT Survey; http://www.ices.dk(3) Monitoring Greenland, i.a. NWWG through ICES and vTI/Institute of Sea Fisheries; http://www.vti.bund.de(4) Monitoring Spitzbergen, cooperation MRI and vTI; http://www.sf.npolar.no/pages/database.htm','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Germany','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.bfn.de/habitatmarehttp://www.wattenmeer-nationalpark.de','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Germany','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Germany has 183 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below).  However there are different ways of identifying marine sites, and Germany points out that the method used below if flawed as it uses the presence of migratory species as part of the criteria (and therefore identifies rivers as well as marine areas).Germany has not made any requests to the EU for fisheries measures within marine Natura2000 sites that fall outside territorial waters, but has made changes to fisheries measures for 3 sites within territorial waters. The responsibility for making these changes lies with the five federal states that lie on the coast. In Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein fisheries management measures for marine Natura 2000 sites have been defined. Examples from Schleswig-Holstein are provided below: In Schleswig-Holstein: FFH area situated DE-0916-391 ‘National Park Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent coastal areas and bird sanctuary DE-0916-491 Ramsar site Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent coastal areas’In a use-area of 12,500ha any use of fishing resources is prohibited (national law).The conch fishery is regulated (National Law, State Law on Fisheries, Program for management of shellfish resources). Mussel fishing may be operated with a maximum of 8 boats. Mussels may only be taken from outside a protection zone and just outside the water transition zone. They may be used only for the culture of mussel patches. The cultivated areas are limited to 2,000 hectares. It may only be an oyster aquaculture on 150ha. Surf clams may be fished with a maximum of 6 boats just seaward of the three nautical-mile line. Fishing for other molluscs (clams, cockles) is inadmissible.In the Whale Sanctuary (part of the area DE-0916-391 ‘National Park Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent coastal areas’, located west of Sylt) It is not permissible to set nets that exceed 1.3m in stretched mesh and no mesh size greater than 150mm can be used (coastal fishing regulations, National Park Act).With fishermen it was agreed not to fish at low tide within an area during July and August where almost the entire European stock of the Shelduck moult can be found at the time (Voluntary Agreement).','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 51Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 8 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A3','A3_7_1','','Germany has implemented the provisions of the Data Collection Framework (DCF; Council Reg. 199/2008, Commission Reg. 665/2008 and Commission Decision 2008/949/EC) with regard to the Module on the \'Evaluation of the effects of the fisheries sector on the marine ecosystem\'. In terms of temporal coverage, the data for the estimation of ecosystem indicators  in Appendix XIII will be collected yearly, apart from those surveys at sea that are carried out every two or three years (for indicators 1, 2, 3 and 4). On most surveys, indicators 1-4 will be collected, apart from those where no or few fish greater than 40cm in length are expected (leading to exclusion of indicator 2). Access to the raw VMS data is given in the temporal and spatial resolution given by the currently employed recording system and legal requirements. Validation and aggregation methods have been developed for scientific analyses of VMS data. With regard to indicator 9 (fuel efficiency), information will be collected of the value of landings and fuel consumption. ','','Details on sampling/monitoring programmes related to this module are given in the respective multi-annual National Programmes, see http://www.dcr-germany.de. Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of (2008/949EC) 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Framework (DCF; Council Reg. 199/2008, Commission Reg. 665/2008 and Commission Decisions 2008/949/EC and 2010/93/EU)For German National Programmes, see http://www.dcr-germany.de Commission Decision 2008/949/EC adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The trophic index for German EEZ waters in 2004, using the average of the mean trophic index of the Baltic Sea (MTI=2.92) and the North Sea (=3.27), is 3.10. This represents an average decrease of 0.11 since 1999 and an average decrease of 0.22 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','Within the EEZ of the North Sea and of the Baltic Sea in 2004 the German Government nominated ten protected areas in line with the Habitat and Birds Directives and for which Germany will have to establish management plans until 2013. Since 2007, these ten protected areas are part of the European Natura 2000 network and provide for one third of the German EEZ. The MTI includes all the German EEZ and thus includes these N2000 protected areas. Germany marine trophic level index split between two seas:North Sea: MTI 2004=2.92. Change 1999-2004=-0.11, Change 1984-2004=-0.12Baltic Sea: MTI=3.27. Change 1999-2004=-0.11, Change 1984-2004=-0.32The numbers in the table above are the averages from the marine trophic index of the two seas. The situation is similar for both seas separately, showing a decreasing trend in marine trophic index. From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot be guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.In the case of Germany, it would have to be further investigated whether the Index also allows for conclusions regarding the origin of landings so as to provide for the possibility to specifically assess the German EEZ.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A4','A4_3','','The most important steering instruments in spatial planning in Germany are \"spatial plans\" which include a range of technical provisions. Some of these are binding for further project approval procedures, some must be considered when balancing interests. Provisions included in these spatial plans may refer to all uses and protective functions of a given space, including environmental protection. Environmental issues must also be taken into account when taking decisions on other aspects, e.g. economic uses. This results from the general logic of spatial planning law and is laid down in particular in section 2(2) no. 6 of the Federal Regional Planning Act. The fourth sentence expressly calls for decisions to be made in such a way as to pay attention to the requirements of the ecological network.Moreover, with regard to the establishment and protection of the European Natura 2000 network pursuant to section 7 (6) of the Regional Planning Act, impact assessments in accordance with the European Habitats and Birds Directives (92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC) must be carried out when making spatial plans.Pursuant to section 9 (1), first sentence, no. 1 of the Regional Planning Act, a strategic environmental assessment must be carried out when developing spatial plans, identifying expected significant effects of the spatial plan on biological diversity (among other aspects) and describing and evaluating them in a detailed environmental report. This provision transposes Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (Official Journal EC No. L 197 p.30).The environmental effects of the implementation of the plan must be monitored in accordance with section 9 (4) of the Regional Planning Act. Monitoring measures must be promulgated at the same time as the spatial plan. This provision also serves the transposition of the above-mentioned Directive 2001/42/EC.The Regional Planning Act entered into force on 30 December 2008 at federal level and on 30 June 2009 for the Länder. However, the previous Regional Planning Act which had been in force since summer 2004 contained comparable provisions.With regard to the question on \"interministerial coordination which addresses inclusion of ecological network considerations in spatial planning\" it should be noted that, although there is no such special coordination, there is a \"ministerial conference for spatial planning\". The conference has various subcommittees and working groups in which the competent ministries for regional planning at Federal and Land level discuss general spatial planning issues, see section 26 (1) of the Regional Planning Act. These bodies can also deal with ecological network considerations in spatial planning, if appropriate. Since spatial plans at Länder and regional level - and thus also any decisions relating to the ecological network - are the responsibility of the Länder, interministerial coordination on this issue must also be dealt with by the Länder.The current status of implementation of the ecological network is described under Action 1.2.3.','','','','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','A4','A4_4_1','','As the CBD Guidelines are a voluntary instrument and do not foresee any mandatory implementation into legal national frameworks, no legal provisions for considering CBD Guidelines in tourism development have been established in Germany.However, legal provisions in the Federal Nature Conservation Act as well as provisions related to the implementation of Art. 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive (impact assessment) also relate to any tourism development project and have to be acknowledged as implementation tools. As the CBD-Guidelines are focusing on the most vulnerable ecosystems, protected areas play an important role for implementation of the guidelines. In this regard, the European Charta for Sustainable Tourism in Protected areas is an adequate instrument to implement the CBD Guidelines in protected areas. Various German parks have established the European Charta already. The reports on these projects can be regarded as a valuable source of reporting on the implementation of the Guidelines (see brochure “Joining Forces”). The mentioned brochure has been widely used as a promotion tool for the CBD Guidelines. In addition, various meeting with tourism stakeholders (for example during main tourism fairs) have been used to promote the use of the CBD Guidelines.','','','http://www.bfn.de/0323_richtlinie.htmlwww.european-charter.orgBrochure “Joining Forces”: www.european-charter.org/about-the-charter/','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, German direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 193.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56). Furthermore its biodiversity-related spending under the Structural Funds is mainly targeted on the promotion of eco-tourism.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Germany','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Germany has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). The Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (BNatSchG)) applies to regions (Länder) who must implement measures within it for reducing the impacts of IAS on native fauna and flora. Under Article 41(2) of the BNatSchG, release of alien species is subject to approval. However, current exemptions under this regulation are species used in agriculture and forestry or for hunting and fishing purposes as well as species being used for biological plant protection and species already present. There is specific legislation that addresses the issues of possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Article 52 of the BNatSchG prohibited the possession and trade of four invasive species throughout Germany. On the 1 March 2010, with the commencement of the amended Federal Nature Conservation Act, the Article 41(2) was replaced by Article 40(4) and Article 52 is replaced by Article 54. Hereby the bans under Article 54 are only count in conjunction with Article 3.  With Article 40 (2) and (3) legal obligations to monitor and combat newly established IAS have been introduced to the Act.The Plant Protection Act (Articles 3 and 4) is currently primarily concerned with the unintentional introduction of alien species but the inclusion of deliberate introduction is under discussion. However, Germany’s specific legislation does not address the import and export of IAS. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 44 are present in Germany. This equates to between 0.10 – 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A5','A5_1_2','','Germany’s National Biodiversity Strategy (2007) contains specific targets for invasive alien species (IAS), included in which is the preparation of a National Strategy for IAS. The National Strategy for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Seas’, currently under development is also likely to address IAS introductions. There is currently no action plan specifically developed for IAS and they are not addressed in the biodiversity action plan.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A5','A5_1_3','','Germany has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation but has been involved in the development of the Convention and the preparation of the guidelines.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Germany is in the process of developing a national information and early warning system for IAS. Furthermore, the development of a national expert panel is being considered to create a basis for the early warning system.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A5','A5_2_2','','Germany has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The title and reference of the legislation is as follows: Verordnung über die gute fachliche Praxis bei der Erzeugung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen (Gentechnik-Pflanzenerzeugungsverordnung (Gentechnik- Pflanzenerzeugungsverordnung vom 7. April 2008 (BGBl. I S. 655)). There are no specific procedures in Germany for the different regions with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops.    According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, at the end of July 2009, 189 gmo-free-regions, 197 gmo-free-municipalities and 29.434 gmo-free-farms were declared in Germany, amounting to 1,052,813 ha. The commercial cultivation of Mon 810 has been stopped since April 14th 2009. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A6','A6_1_1','','Germany submitted their 4th national report to the CBD in April 2010. The “National Strategy on Biological Diversity” was adopted by the Cabinet on 7 Nov 2007.Germany has paid her contributions to the secretariats of CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention, with no contributions in arrears. In addition to the General Trust Fund of the CBD, Germany contributed 706.290 € to the Voluntary Trust Funds of the CBD in 2009.     ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/document/102009 ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Germany spent EUR3.3m in 2006 and EUR1.8m in 2007 for biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which is 0.02% and 0.01%, respectively, of the total multilateral biodiversity-related aid. However, according to information provided by Germany, since 2006 the volume of German commitments for the conservation of biodiversity and forest protection has risen continuously, reaching 223 million Euros in 2009. In the run-up to the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) succeeded in raising its commitments by 36 per cent within a single year. From 2008 to 2009 there was a further increase of around 30 per cent. At the Conference of the Parties Federal Chancellor Merkel indicated that the German government would make an additional 500 million Euros available to protect forests and other ecosystems over the period from 2009 to 2012. From 2013 onwards an annual 500 million Euros will be made available. This is why further significant increases of Financial Cooperation for biodiversity and forests are planned for the coming years.These are the commitments for biodiversity and forests in the previous years: 2006 - 115 million Euros; 2007 - 125 million Euros; 2008 - 170 million Euros; 2009 - 223 million Euros. Out of these commitments there are an average of 10 million Euro yearly committed as a contribution to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has been spending an additional 40 million Euro annually since 2008 for biodiversity and forests in international cooperation.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD marker, Germany spent EUR19.6m in 2006 and EUR82.8m in 2007 for biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which is 0.003% and 0.012%, respectively, of the total bilateral biodiversity-related aid. However, according to information provided by Germany, since 2006 the volume of German commitments for the conservation of biodiversity and forest protection has risen continuously, reaching 223 million Euros in 2009. In the run-up to the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) succeeded in raising its commitments by 36 per cent within a single year. From 2008 to 2009 there was a further increase of around 30 per cent. At the Conference of the Parties Federal Chancellor Merkel indicated that the German government would make an additional 500 million Euros available to protect forests and other ecosystems over the period from 2009 to 2012. From 2013 onwards an annual 500 million Euros will be made available. This is why further significant increases of Financial Cooperation for biodiversity and forests are planned for the coming years. These are the commitments for biodiversity and forests in the previous years: 2006 - 115 million Euros; 2007 - 125 million Euros; 2008 - 170 million Euros; 2009 - 223 million Euros. Out of these commitments there are an average of 10 million Euro yearly committed as a contribution to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has been spending an additional 40 million Euro annually since 2008 for biodiversity and forests in international cooperation.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009, 09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A7','A7_1_4','','Germany contributed EUR293.67 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 11.00% of the total replenishment. Germany contributed EUR277.46 million to the 4th replenishment which is 12.89% of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF website and information provided by GermanyWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory. Nach der „Verfahrensregelung zur Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVP) in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit“ wird die UVP bei allen Projekten angewandt. Sie versteht sich als integraler Bestandteil der üblichen Verfahren bei Planung, Entscheidung und Steuerung von entwicklungspolitischen Vorhaben und damit als projektbegleitender Prozess. In einer Vorprüfung werden die Vorhaben daraufhin geprüft, ob Handlungsbedarf aufgrund möglicher Umweltrisiken besteht. Wird dies bestätigt, sind während der Durchführung weitergehende Untersuchungen zur Umweltverträglichkeit zu erstellen. Das Umweltprüfungsverfahren in der deutschen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit wird derzeit überarbeitet und um eine strategische Umweltprüfung (SUP) erweitert. Diese Reform zielt darauf, das Potenzial für die Verbesserung der Umweltqualität und für die ökologische Nachhaltigkeit zu erschließen und damit den Anforderungen der Strategischen Umweltprüfung und der Klimaschutzpolitik besser gerecht zu werden. Außerdem soll das neue Verfahren bereits bei der Strategieentwicklung mit dem Partnerland angewandt werden.','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A8','A8_1','','Germany has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. While there is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, Germany has raised awareness of the guidelines, through a national ABS Internet portal, an information brochure on ABS in Germany, periodic round table meetings with user sectors on access and benefit-sharing, and guidelines for researchers and research institutions on compliance with domestic ABS regulations of provider countries when applying for national public research funding. While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, awareness has been raised through discussions, Internet pages and German translation of the ITPGR and the SMTA. Wood produced in Germany comes from sustainable forestry. According to the last available estimate, in 2006 of 112.5 mio m³ imported wood, some 1.9 mio m³ came from illegal sources. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008 and a high number of items were seized. There is no information on import, export and re-export applications denied. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','While there is no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, the following activities raising awareness of the Guidelines have taken place:- National ABS Internet portal- Information brochure on ABS in Germany- Periodic round table meetings with user sectors on access and benefit-sharing- Guidelines for researchers and research institutions on compliance with domestic ABS regulations of provider countries when applying for national public research funding','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Germany has provided the following amounts for the ABS Working Group: EUR28,000 in 2007, EUR51,100 in 2008 and EUR150,000 in 2009. ','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (note that national legislation is not manadatory), awareness has been raised through discussions, Internet pages and German translation of the ITPGR and the SMTA:Staatliche Rechtsvorschriften sind nicht erforderlich; Nutzung des SMTA wurde aber in den betroffenen Institutionen eingeführt (Genbanksatzungen). Raising awareness of the SMTA: Mehrere Gespräche; Internetangebote (FAQs) des BMELV und der BLE; deutsche Übersetzung des ITPGR und SMTA.','','','','','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A8','A8_1_4','','Wood produced in Germany comes from sustainable forestry. According to the last available estimate, in 2006 of 112.5 mio m³ imported wood, some 1.9 mio m³ came from illegal sources. 2007: Nationaler Holzverbrauch von 108,5 Mio. m³2008: Nationaler Holzverbrauch von 94,5 Mio m³','','Um eine Aussage über die nachhaltige Produktion des verbrauchten Holzes zu treffen, ist zunächst darauf hinzuweisen, dass in Deutschland produziertes Holz aus nachhaltiger Forstwirtschaft stammt.Bei einer  Betrachtung des nationalen  Holzverbrauchs aus nachhaltiger Produktionsweise sind indirekte Importe von Holz aus potentiell illegalen Holzeinschlägen zu berücksichtigen, die über andere EU-Mitgliedstaaten,- oft als verarbeitete Produkte - ihren Weg nach D finden. Nach Berechnungen des vTI stammten im jüngsten vorliegenden Untersuchungszeitraum, im Jahr 2006, ca. 1,9 Mio. m³  ( in Rohholzäquivalenten = r)  der direkten Einfuhren von Produkten auf der Basis Holz (nicht nur Tropenholz) sowie ca. 4,1 Mio m³ ( r ) der indirekten Einfuhren geschätzt aus illegalen Quellen.  Die Einfuhr belief sich 2006 auf 112,5 Mio m³, 2007 auf 131,6 Mio. m³ und 2008 auf 118.,1 Mio. m³.','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 13,653, 2328 and 19.796, respectively. No information is available about the number of denied import, export or re-export applications. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 132,188 for 2007 and 115,772 for 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to staff and stakeholders involved with CITES implementation. Support has been provided to Tajikistan and Kazakhstan for sustainable natural resources utilisation and biodiversity conservation (GTZ project), which is aimed specifically at CITES-protected ungulates. Germany paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres); they also exclude the (much lower figures) from the Laender. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. Only the number of seized specimens is reported. The number of confiscated specimens cannot be added on top of the seized specimens as the former ones are those where the legal procedure has been settled whereas the latter ones are those where the legal procedure has still been open during the reporting period.','','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','A9','','','Biodiversity forms one of 13 fields of action in the German Adaptation Strategy which was adopted by the federal government in December 2008. An Adaptation action plan is currently developed and will be set up by spring 2011.','','','','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A9','A9_3_2','','In Germany, the legislative implementation of sustainability criteria in Biomass electricity sustainability ordinance and Biofuels sustainability ordinance is in force. The Action Plan on Biomass was adopted in April 2009, whereas the NREAP is still in development since June 2009.The Federal Agency for Food and Agriculture recognizes certification systems and certification bodies, and the recognition has begun with 1 certification system that has been awarded preliminary recognition (ISCC).','','','www.ble.de, www.bmu.de, http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/44655/4593/http://www.ble.de/nn_465996/DE/02__Kontrolle__Zulassung/05__NachhaltigeBiomasseherstellung/NachhaltigeBiomasseherstellung__node.html?__nnn=truehttp://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Standardartikel/Landwirtschaft/Bioenergie-NachwachsendeRohstoffe/NachwachsendeRohstoffe/Biomasseaktionsplan.html?nn=453788','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','A9','A9_4_1','','Biodiversity forms one of 13 fields of action in the German Adaptation Strategy which was adopted by the federal government in December 2008. An Adaptation action plan is currently developed and will be set up by spring 2011.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Germany','A9','A9_4_3','','In Germany, assessments of habitats and species most at risk from climate change has been undertaken through various studies:Habitats: A first index-based analysis of the sensitivity to climate change of habitat types of annex I Habitats Directive was made by Petermann et al. (2007). Preliminary 23 of 91 habitat types, which occur in Germany, were classified as “highly sensitive”. Impacts of climate change on habitats were also analysed in the project “Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009) Habitats like lakes, running waters or forests were analysed by Holsten, A., Vetter, T., Vohland, K., Krysanova, V. (2009) in consideration of changing abiotic or biotic conditions like water level, flood dynamics or temperature or other climatic variables. Further research for habitat types will be made also in the project Project “impacts of climate change on fauna, flora and habitat types” (2008-2011).Species: The BfN is funding several research and developing projects with a focus on species at risk:Terminated projects:1. Modeling the impact of climate change on plant distribution in Germany Ongoing projects:2. Project “Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009) 3. Project “impacts of climate change on fauna, flora and habitat types” (2008-2011)4. Project „Changes in the distribution of avian species and analysis of the influence of climate change“ (2008-2010)5. Project \"Impacts of recent climate change on the fauna in Germany“ (2008-2009)The projects include modelling of climatic envelopes of species distribution (higher plants - project 1; birds - project 2; several species of the annexes of the Habitats Directive - project 3), index-based approaches to assess species’ vulnerability to climate change (birds and Ground Beetles - project 2; species of the annexes of the Habitats Directive - project 3; species of special concern of the protection of species - project 5), but also an analysis of the influence of climate change on the densities of common bird species. Habitats and species most at risk from climate change have been partly identified, but are also subject of ongoing scientific studies. It is not possible to make an analysis for all of the species occurring in Germany. Therefore the studies were focused on the habitat types and species of the Habitats Directive and species of special species protection concern. In the next year(s) a summarized assessment of species and habitats at risk with the results of all the projects mentioned above should be made. ','','','Petermann, J., Balzer, S., Ellwanger, G., Schröder, E. & Ssymank, A. (2007): Klimawandel - Herausforderung für das europaweite Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000. - Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 46: 127-148“Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009) http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/earth-system-analysis/backups/biodiversity_old/copy_of_schutzgebieteHolsten, A., Vetter, T., Vohland, K., Krysanova, V. (2009) Impact of climate change on soil moisture dynamics in Brandenburg and consequences for nature conservation areas. Ecological Modelling 220: 2076-2087Modeling the impact of climate change on plant distribution in Germany http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=6370 Project “Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009)http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/earth-system-analysis/backups/biodiversity_old/copy_of_schutzgebietev National reports in the framework of UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Greece.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Greece has plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','A10_1_8','','No information was provided on whether Greece has created a national biodiversity platform to ensure that biodiversity research and outcomes are reflected in policy development and implementation. ','','No link to a Greek national biodiversity platform was available on the EPBRS website.','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info European Platform for Biodiversityhttp://www.bioplatform.info/index.htm ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','A10_1_9','','Greece is not currently a Participant or Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Department of Natural Products is the lead contractor on the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) Work Package 3: Dissemination. This Work Package promotes the transfer for expertise concerning all aspects of biodiversity information. Products include: ENBI brochures, training workshops and accompanying literature.Other Greek organisations that participate in ENBI as ‘members’ include: the Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (WP11-Multilingual Access); National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Biology(WP2-ENBI Forums); The Goulandris Natural History Museum - Greek Biotope / Wetland Centre (WP12-Info services on European data); and the University of Patras, Dept. of Biology - Laboratory of Zoology (WP12- Info services on European data).','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 3 of the 4 (75%) coastal habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of the remaining coastal habitats is unknown.In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the condition of all heath and scrub and rocky habitats is favourable. 6 of the 7 (86%), 21 of the 27 (78%) and 6 of the 9 (67%) sclerophyllous scrub, forests, and freshwater habitats are reported to be in favourable condition respectively. Half of all bog, mire and fens habitats are also in favourable condition. 7 of the 10 (70%) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 2 of the 4 (50%) bog, mire and fen habitats is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','10/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of May 2010, Greece has designated 241 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 28076 km², totalling 16.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 134 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 6604 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 202 with a total area of 29534 km², totalling 20.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 120, with a marine area of 1947 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Five Natura 2000 sites have a management plan completed (0.2 %), 40.4% of Natura 2000 sites have a management plan in preparation and 59.4% of Natura 2000 sites have no management plan completed or in preparation. 85% of sites have a management body or other territorial planning instruments.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','07/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','A1_3','','Of the 346 regularly occurring bird species in Greece, 17 are globally Near-threatened and 11 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Greece, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the 6 (17%) invertebrates and 3 of the 12 (25%) mammals were reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 12 (33%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 4 of the 6 (67%) invertebrates and 2 of the 12 (17%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the conservation status of 12 of the 56 (21%) amphibians and reptiles and 13 of the 35 (37% ) fish13 of the 56 ( 23%) amphibians and reptiles and 19 of the 60 (32%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 28 of the 56 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 32 of the 60 (53%) plants, 41 of the 48 (85%) mammals and 41 of the 41 (100%) invertebrates were reported unknown. The conservation status of 14 of the 35 (40%) fish was not reported.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. Note that all species listed below as ‘not reported” are species that are occasional, vagrant or with marginal distribution.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','07/05/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','B1_1_1','','A variety of funding sources for biodiversity exists in Greece. Regional channels include EU co funding and mainly LIFE, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, the European Fund for Fisheries, the European Development Cooperation funding instruments, and the 6th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development. The petrol tax that is generated by charges to petrol; is collected by the Ministry of Environment and used for activities, among others, dedicated to biodiversity. Within the Operational Program for the Environment, measure 8.1. is dedicated to ensuring the establishment and operation of Management Bodies for protected areas in Greece.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Greece spent up to EUR1,253,173 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites and up to EUR850,385 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Greece’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Greece’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','B1_1_4','','Greece’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR179.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR21.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR31.8m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Greece created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Greece','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B3_1_5','','No information was available on whether any biodiversity and planning partnerships have been facilitated by the Member State at local, regional and national levels.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Greece has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Greece between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A1','C1_2','','Greece has adopted 15 of the SEBI indicators, with three of them being adapted to the national circumstances. It should be noted that the process of systematic data collection for the indicators has not started yet and some of the indicators are yet to be finalised.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','C1_2_1','','Greece has adopted 15 of the SEBI indicators, with three of them being adapted to the national circumstances. It should be noted that the process of systematic data collection for the indicators has not started yet and some of the indicators are yet to be finalised. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A1','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Greece total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 3707.3 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 4420.45 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1296.52 million EUR, and 1484.47 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 87.34 and to 100 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Greece was 674.34 million EUR (772.1 with co-financing) and amounted to 18.19 per cent of the EAFRD (17.47 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 6.05 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.16 per cent of EAFRD) and 6.92 million EUR of public expenditure (0.16 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 7.56 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.2 per cent of EAFRD) and 8.66 million EUR of public expenditure (0.2 per cent of public expenditure). There are no forest-environment payments (measure 225) for Greece.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)183.296239.206Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Greece in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Greece had a total certified forest area of 36,626 hectares out of a total forest area of 3.75 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Greece was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 0.98 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Greece amounted to 5.35 million ha, representing a share of 58.6 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 176 million € has been added to Greece’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Greece attributed no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 67 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats in Greece have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 33 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Greece.Status of fresh water habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9360033%67%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9360033%67%0%0%U13  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate in rivers and phosphorus concentrations was available for Greece. Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater amounted to 15.6 mg NO3 /l in 2004.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Greece had a total number of 6 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 100 per cent of all inland bathing waters. There is no clear trend compared to previous years. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','Greece provided no reporting on the development of biological assessments methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','In 2009, no reporting of the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was provided by Greece under the Water Framework Directive.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Greece had a total number of 293 IPPC installations and issued 104 permits. 189 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Greece’s emissions of nitrogen oxides were above the ceiling set by the NEC Directive. As regards ammonia, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), 2008 data already complied with the ceilings. However, a further increase of NMVOCs is expected by 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of 2007 emissions, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Greece the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 3 and 98 per cent respectively, considering an area of 53,671 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 1 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 97 per cent in 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 60 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Greece’s gross nitrogen balance was 15 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 52 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council  Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the occurrences (two) of Mediterranean heath and scrub habitats in Greece have a favourable conservation status. 78 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats have a favourable status; the remaining 22 per cent have an unfavourable status. 63 per cent of the Mediterranean grassland habitats in Greece have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining 38 per cent have a favourable status. Half of the Mediterranean peat land habitats in Greece have a favourable conservation status; the status of the remaining 50 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Mediterranean is the only bio geographical region in Greece.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U15  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage276210022%78%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage276210022%78%0%0%U16  U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage402200%50%50%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage402200%50%50%0%U10  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Greece showed that of the five marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region, four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (80%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (20%). There were ten coastal habitats assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (20%), one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (10%) and seven had a ‘Bad’ status (70%).There were 21 marine species assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region, including reptiles, invertebrates and mammals. Of the 21, four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (19%), seven had a ‘Bad’ status (33%), six had an ‘Unknown’ status (29%) and the remaining four were ‘Not reported’ (19%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_1_4','','No evidence was found showing that any monitoring programmes have been established in coastal areas.No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/','','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A3','A3_2','','Greece currently has 2,088 coastal bathing waters and over 99% of these have reached mandatory standards for water quality between 1996 and 1998. A high proportion has also reached the stricter guidelines standards for water quality: 97.7% in 2008 which is an improvement from 96.9% in 2006. In terms of nutrient concentrations none of the sampling stations in Mediterranean coastal waters have seen an increase in nitrogen or phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005.   ','','-','','','','','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_4','','Greece’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €97,767,605 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity. Axis 2 (€80,661,538) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€43,676,000) does not include any specifically environmentally friendly measures but has a general objective for sustainable development and Axis 4 (€45,000,000) promotes the sustainable development of fisheries areas and improved quality of the coastal environment.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/18&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Greece had 17878 vessels and 2% were involved in a serious infringement (351 vessels). A total of 351 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €750 and maximum fine of €20,000.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_5_2','','No information has been provided by Green on restoration plans for diadromous species. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Greece','A3','A3_5_3','','Greece’s fishing capacity has consistently reduced from 1999 to 2008. During this period the total number of vessels was reduced from 19,853 to 17,347 (13% reduction), tonnage from 107,450 to 88,750 (17% reduction) and power from 692,436 to 510,636 (19% reduction). Most of the Greek fishing fleet is made up of small-scale coastal fishing boats using a variety of passive fishing gear. Capacity reduction has been achieved by removing small and out of date vessels and modernising some of these to fit with health and safety standards.','','2008 data: 17347 vessels; 88750 tons; 510636 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Greece had 17,878 active vessels. There were 243 type D breaches in this year, with 243 penalties imposed with an average fine of €815. No information was provided by Green on enforcement actions to reduce by-catch and damage to benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_6_2','','No information has been provided by Green on shark or seabird monitoring plans. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Greece','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','No information has been provided by Greece on specific fisheries measures for any of these marine Natura 2000 sites.','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Greece','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Greece has 118 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarifications below). No information has been provided by Greece on specific fisheries measures for any of these marine Natura 2000 sites. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusAnother way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A3','A3_7_1','','Greece has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Greece indicates that it will use MEDITs data to calculate ecosystem indicators 1-4 from Appendix XIII. Indicator 4 on the size at maturation of exploited species will also be calculated based on fisheries-dependent sources (concurrent on-board sampling for biological variables of landings and discards).  VMS data will be used to calculate indicators 5-7. Indicator 8 on discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated based on the analysis of marketable and discarded fractions of the catch on-board commercial vessels in the main metiers. Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency of fish captures will be based on two sources of data—the total value of landings derived from the product between amount of landings and average prices per metier and total value of fuel costs by metier.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' ','','na','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean trophic index for Greek EEZ waters in 2004 was 3.38. This represents an increase of 0.22 since 1999, but a decrease of 0.04 since 1984.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Greek direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 233.3 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Greece has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade and control and eradication of IAS. There is no specific legislation addressing the introduction of IAS into the wild in Greece. Article 20 of Law 1650/1986 on the Protection of the Environment contains provisions for the protection of indigenous flora and fauna. Under Decision n  I 1B/2000/19 on quarantine, the Sanitary Committee can decide to implement control of introduced animal species. Greece is a party to CITES and the trade of some alien pet species is controlled by CITES requirements that are enforced by customs offices. Although no national legislation is in place that deals specifically with the introduction of alien species, Greece is involved in the work of the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean of the Barcelona Convention. The Protocol contains an Action Plan for addressing the introduction of IAS in the Mediterranean Sea.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 30 are present in Greece. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10, EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A5','A5_1_2','','Greece has not provided a national plan or strategy for invasive alien species (IAS) in any detail, nor is any information available whether a national biodiversity strategy or biodiversity action plan addresses the issue.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A5','A5_1_3','','Greece has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, the whole of Greece is now covered by regional, formal or informal, GMO-free zones. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report nor a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan had been submitted to the CBD.Greece has paid her contributions to CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. The country has signed AEWA, but the Agreement is not yet in force so no contribution was paid to AEWA. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid for Greece for 2006 and 2007.','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Greece spent EUR0.47m in 2006 and EUR0.15m in 2007 for bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.003% and nearly 0.00%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','','','','09/12/2009, 13/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Greece','A7','A7_1_4','','Greece contributed EUR5.80 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.24% of the total replenishment. Greece contributed EUR5.73 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.27 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A8','A8_1','','Greece has issued many import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and a low number of items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed, while no support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. Greece is in arrears for the contributions to the CITES Trust Fund.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Greece did not provide funds to the CBD ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A8','A8_1_4','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 11123, 4 and 32, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications denied is not available. An aggregate number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 23 for 2007 and 2008. The disaggregated number for seizures is not available in the 2007-2008 biennial report. As to capacity-building at the national level, capacity was built through hiring of more staff, purchase of technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement and computerisation. In addition, microchip reading devices were purchased and disseminated to all the regional management authorities for facilitating controls. Advice/guidance and training was provided to the Management Authority, training was provided to the public as well as oral and written advice/guidance to the enforcement authorities and traders. Greece has not provided technical and financial support to another country in relation to CITES. Greece had not paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008 as of 31 December 2008. There are also unpaid contributions for 1992-2007.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). ','','','','','06/01/2010','23/05/2010'),
	('Greece','A9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','A9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/05/2010',NULL),
	('Greece','A9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','','','The Ministry of Environment and Water and the Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society signed an “Accessible sky” agreement with the major electricity companies in 2008 in order to protect birds against electrocution. The electricity companies committed to a ‘bird-friendly’ transformation of all dangerous power lines in Hungary by 2020, and agreed to only use ‘bird-friendly’ methods when constructing new power lines. Best available technologies have been elaborated and distributed in a joint effort and data on bird casualties have been collected in a common database. The bird-friendly conversion of the national network of power lines has been carried out and accepted by all participants. This work has been financed by European, Hungarian funds and co-financed by the electric companies.  In 2009, the Natura 2000 Advisory Committee, initially set up by the Ministry of Environment and Water with the role of supporting the Natura 2000 network, was reformed to include business sectors including representatives of the agricultural and forestry sectors, in addition to the original government representatives, civil conservation bodies and scientific institutions. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: ”Accessible Sky” agreement: http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2008/03/Hungary_powerlines.html ','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','A1','A10_1','','Hungary does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research; however, biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. The Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) was established in 1986 with the objective of supporting high-quality fundamental research in disciplines of life sciences—including botany, zoology, conservation biology, evolutionary biology, hydrobiology, ecology and anthropology. Additionally, the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System is a national programme aiming at the long-term surveillance of the status and trends of biological diversity. A Research and Technology Innovation fund supports Research and Development programmes related to national strategic aims, such as biodiversity, and enhances the international cooperation and facilitates Hungarian participation in EU Research and Development programmes. There are several further application/support possibilities that could include biodiversity research, but their proportion is not significant.','','',' http://www.otka.hu/?akt_menu=991&set_lang=991  http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/hbms; http://www.nkth.gov.hu/english','15/02/2010','','','02/03/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','A10_1_2','','Biodiversity research has been undertaken for four decades in Hungary and is conducted at local and regional scales. By using the ecosystem services (ESs) concept of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a joint research programme conducted by economists, sociologists, and ecologists has been undertaken in order to understand what local people in the Kiskunság region consider the most important ESs for the well-being of their community. In four villages in central Kiskunság, 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2007, and two focus group and one stakeholder workshops were organised in 2008. Interviews resulted in a detailed inventory of local ESs, and a list of conflicts over land use was compiled. Crucial actors and driving forces affecting the flows of ESs were identified in the focus group discussions. The research program is linked to the International Long-Term Research Network (ILTER) through a joint project on ecosystem services and is now also considered as a national MA follow-up activity.','','','ILTER (International LTER) ecosystem service project: http://www.ilternet.edu/research/ecosystem-services-assessment ','15/02/2010','','','02/03/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','A10_1_8','','The Hungarian Biodiversity Platform was established in 2004. It is a national forum of scientists and policy-makers to ensure that research contributes to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. As a national platform of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), the main objective of the Hungarian Biodiversity Platform (HBP) is to promote important research and decision-making that contribute to the conservation, restoration, sustainable use of components of biological diversity, and to reduce biodiversity loss. HBP is bridging the gap between science and policy. The website has not been updated in the past year.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ; http://www.biodiverzitas.hu/english/index.shtml ','15/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','A10_1_9','','Hungary is not a Participant or Associate member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Department of Zoology at the Hungarian Natural History Museum is the main institute researching zoology in Hungary, and they participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. The ENBI Forums Work Package brings other Work Packages and the ENBI Community at large with a communication space and consolidates the outcomes of discussions as an open access information resource.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','15/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','02/03/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of 5 of 6 (83%) Pannonian rocky habitats is reported to be favourable. All sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of 5 (60%) of both freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The only coastal and halophytic habitat (pannonic salt steppes and salt marshes), the only dune habitat, and both heath and scrub habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. There is a slight uncertainty with 1 of 12 (8%) of Pannonian grasslands reported as of unknown condition.','15/02/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%360%240%00%00%5Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%18%1083%18%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%360%240%00%00%5Rocky habitats583%117%00%00%00%6Forests00%00%13100%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Hungary has designated 467 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 13,973 km², totalling 15.0% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 55, with a total area of 13,512 km², totalling 14.5% of the country’s area. The total area of the overall Natura 2000 network (excluding overlaps) is 19,682 km².','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Hungary.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_2_3','','The main legal background of the National Ecological Network is ensured by the Act on Nature Conservation No. LIII of 1996. Prescriptions for the areas of the network have been built into the Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003. The Act and the database of the National Ecological Network were amended in 2008, when – as a major improvement - most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured on planning level. By the Act, the areas of the network must be supervised every 5 years.National Ecological Network (following the guidelines of the Pan-European Ecological Network)Area: 3 350000 haCore area: 1 782 000 ha (53%)Ecological corridor: 845 000 ha (25%)Buffer area: 720 000 ha (22%)Legally protected: 835 000 ha (23%)     (The network includes protected and non protected areas)Natura 2000 area (overlapping): 1 883 000 ha (56%)More than 95% of the protected nature conservation areas, and about 95% of the Natura 2000 areas belong to the National Ecological Network.The protection and maintenance of the values of the ecological network take place in the framework of one of the main strategic documents of the Hungarian nature conservation, in the National Environmental Programme, and in the National Nature Conservation Master Plan (appendix of the Programme).The latest National Environmental Programme covers the period 2009-2014 (NKP III.) and emphasizes coherence and ensurance of harmonised protection between the elements of the Natura 2000 network and other parts of the National Ecological Network, in line with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive.  Using EU Funds, such as LIFE and LIFE+ programmes as well as the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (since 2006) special attention has been paid to the protection, maintenance and development of nationally protected areas as well as Natura 2000 sites (including ecological corridors, landscape features as well), : -	Habitat restoration projects: aiming to restore damaged habitats and to create new habitats and ecological corridors, -	Technical adjustment of linear infrastructure to remove ecological barriers for migrating birds. See short description of “Accessible Sky programme, partly funded from the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (see under additional clarifications). Other tools to strengthen coherence, connectivity and support of biodiversity in the wider environment: -	Programme for establishing the transboundary Fertő-Hanság/Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel Ramsar Site between Hungary and Austria (2009)-	Establishing of the Croatian-Hungarian Transboundary Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve (nomination with UNESCO MAB Programme, 2009)-	Transboundary eco-tourism development programmes, and establishment of study trails and promotional campaigns in the border region-	Joint transboundary monitoring (e.g. Natura 2000 monitoring) and habitat restauration programmes-	Common Geopark project (Nógrád Geopark)-	Programme to improve the co-operation activities along the River Drava in order to amend the protection of biodiversity-	Common water management development project (Hungary-Ukraine) -	Establishment of a common network for protected nature conservation areas in the West-Pannonian region (PANANAET program)','','Act on Nature Conservation no. LIII of 1996: The most important provisions for the ecological network (article 53, paragraph (2) sections a-b):„By the act the establishing, developing and supporting of the National Ecological Network must be an important task in the National Environmental Action Plan.” The Act  contains the definition of the ecological network and the ecological corridor.By the Act, the National Environmental Programme shall contain the long term and medium term aspects of the establishment and maintenance of the ecological network and ecological corridors.National Nature Conservation Master Plan II (2003-2008)  (Part of the National Environmental Programme, Parliament Resolution, No. 132/2003 (XII.11.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2003-2008):“The various natural and landscape assets of the country, outstanding in international comparison too, can be safeguarded by designating protected areas in all planning-statistical regions, as well as by way of ecological networks that include the protected areas, too”.The National Environmental Programme includes as an appendix the National Nature Conservation Master Plan, which is one of the most important tools for protecting biodiversity in Hungary.National Nature Conservation Master Plan III (2009-2014)(Part of the National Environmental Programme III, Parliament Resolution, No. 96/2009. (XII. 9.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2009-2014).Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003:By the Act the National Ecological Network must be one of the national spatial zones in the spatial plans, and the network must be a highlighted zone in regional spatial plans. Ecological networks included in 14 regional plans have been approved.The amended Act on the National Spatial Plan came into force in July 2008. The National Ecological Network (core area, ecological corridors, buffer zones) are determined by this plan. Most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured at planning level.Accessible Sky agreement for  bird-friendly transformation of high, medium and low voltage power lines on a national scale:Timescale: 2008-2020. Aerial power lines pose a serious threat to wild bird populations due to electrocution and collision. For several endangered species, power lines are among the most important causes of mortality. An agreement was prepared and signed in February 2008 on collaboration among all distribution companies as well as the Ministry of Environment and Water and BirdLife Hungary to minimise bird mortality along power lines. Funding is provided mainly through the Structural Funds (Environment and Energy Operational Programme), LIFE Nature and LIFE+, but thanks to the improving co-operation, distribution companies also co-finance the projects. Most prominent recent examples are the burial of 80 km of medium-voltage power lines in the Hortobágy National Park (Structural Funds), the burial of 11 km of medium voltage power lines in the Borsodi Mezőség Landscape Protection Area (LIFE Nature) and the fitting of bird diverters on 45 km of medium and high voltage power lines in some of the most important Great Bustard sites in Hungary to avoid collision (LIFE Nature). Presently running projects include two LIFE Nature projects (focussing on Saker Falcon and Red-footed Falcon) aiming at the insulation of a total of 910 km of medium voltage power lines. There is an important, self-financed initiative by the Hungarian high-voltage electricity distribution company to fit high-voltage power lines with markers where there are conflicts with the most important bird habitats. Under the agreement, BirdLife Hungary, commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Water, produced a conflict map in late 2008 to prioritise all power lines in Hungary as to the urgency of bird-friendly conversion. The total length of top priority power lines is 21,700 km. Based on this figure, the funding needed to convert all top priority power lines is in the order of 60 million euros. The plan is to eliminate most of this threat by 2020. Under the agreement, and based on regular consultations with all partners concerned, distribution companies have also prepared and constantly update BAT (best available technology) for the creation of bird-friendly power lines where new power lines are set up. The BAT documentation is available in Hungarian. BirdLife Hungary has set up a national database of all observed bird casualties and runs yearly surveys to monitor certain power lines. The Act on Nature Conservation No. 53 of 1996 was also amended in December 2008 to only allow bird-friendly technologies at new or fully renewed power lines. Locations of particular importance to birds are carefully considered in the planning phase, especially since Hungary’s accession to the European Union, as the requirement of an appropriate assessment is compulsory also in Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive. ',':www.kvvm.hu, www.termeszetvedelem.hu , www.tuzok.hu, http://www.falcoproject.hu/hu/content/show, http://www.sakerlife.mme.hu/en/content/show','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_3','','Of the 284 regularly occurring bird species in Hungary, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 9 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Hungary, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 9 of 21 (43%) fish, 18 of the 74 (24%) invertebrates and 14 of the 43 (33%) mammals and 10 of the 44 (23%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 17 of the 26 (65%) amphibians and reptiles, 33 of 74 (45%) of invertebrates, 20 of the 43 (47%) mammals and 22 of the 44 (50%) plants was reported unfavourable-inadequate. 9 of the 74 (12%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 44 (25%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 6 of the 26 (23%) amphibians and reptiles, 6 of the 21 (29%) fish, 14 of the 74 (19%) invertebrates and 7 of the 43 (16%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported PannonianAmphibians and reptiles14%1765%28%623%00%26Fish943%629%00%629%00%21Invertebrates1824%3345%912%1419%00%74Mammals1433%2047%25%716%00%43Plants1023%2250%1125%12%00%44','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','15/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Hungary 2008.  ','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','B1_1_1','','After Hungary’s accession to the European Union, compared to domestic funds, financial resources from the European Union became dominant. In the period 2007-2013, a larger amount of project-based funds is available for activities aiming at biodiversity conservation. Financial sources for biodiversity related activities include the Life+ financial instrument and the Environment and Energy Operative Programme of the ‘New Hungary’ Development Plan. The following activities can be financed from these financial instruments: best practice or demonstration projects that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s nature conservation directives (Birds and Habitats Directives), projects that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s Biodiversity Action Plan, habitat reconstruction; ecotourism activities; conservation of threatened species; investments for nature conservation etc. The domestic budget for nature conservation is a very small percentage of the national budget.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Hungary spent up to EUR3,084,645 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Hungary spent up to EUR401,744 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. Note that the tables and comments above do not take into account the financial sources of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development Fund (EAFRD) allocated to managing Natura 2000 sites. Based on the EARDF regulation Natura 2000 payment has been launched in 2007 in order to maintain the favourable conservational status of Natura 2000 grasslands. Regarding to the obligatory management prescriptions of the Natura 2000 network this payment (38 euro/hectare) compensates the income foregone and the extra costs of the farmers managing Natura 2000 grassland areas. In 2008 the Payment Agency received 2634 applications with the territory of 73,000 ha in this measure that increased to106,000 ha in 2009.See A2.1.1 under Objective 2 for more information on the EAFRD. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Hungary’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the Hungarian contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: Regarding LIFE and LIFE+: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','B1_1_4','','Hungary’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR125.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR163.2m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR113.9m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. There is no data available on the actual amount contracted.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','B1_1_8','','Hungary allocated EUR13.6m in 2008 and 14.7m in 2009 for biodiversity research activities and programmes. There is no information for 2006 and 2007 about the amount of national funding for biodiversity research.','','','','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B2_4','','Hungary has updated its National Environment Programme, a framework for all national environmental goals and tasks renewed every six years, in light of the EC Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The Third National Environmental Programme defines the main lines of the environmental policy in Hungary until 2014. The document was finalised and approved by Parliament in 2009 and aims to ameliorate the quality of environment, the sustainable use of the natural resources, the protection of the natural heritage and the enhancement of environmental security, as the most important elements for the improvement of the quality of life and the enforcement of the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Programme uses a complex approach to realise these objectives by the horizontal integration of environmental aspects, and by the implementation of the goals and measures of the thematic action plans, considering the priorities of the EU 6th Environmental Action Programme and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. The thematic action plans include the description of the actual situation, the targets and the measures to reach these goals, as well as the indicators helping the monitoring of the implementation. These nine thematic action plans are as follows: 1.enforcement of the environmental thinking and approach; 2.climate change; 3.health and environment; 4.environmental quality of settlements; 5.biodiversity preservation, nature and landscape protection; 6.	sustainable field and land use; 7.protection and sustainable use of our waters; 8.waste management; 9.environmental security. In an appendix it includes the Strategy of the implementation of the international convention on biodiversity; as well as the new National Nature Conservation Master Plan.','','Hungary has provided the following additional details: The Second National Environmental Programme for 2003-2008 was prepared in the frame of a wide-scale dialogue, in which NGOs, local governments and representatives of science and business were participating. Priorities of the Second National Environmental Programme are in harmony with those of EU’s 6th Environmental Action Programme (environmental consciousness, climate change, human health and food safety, improvement of the state of urban areas, biodiversity, and sustainable use of waters, waste management and environmental safety). The Third National Environmental Programme was elaborated through a large consultation process taking place in 2009: it defines the main lines of the environmental policy in Hungary until 2014. The document has been finalised and approved by the Parliament in 2009 (Parliament Resolution, No. 96/2009. (XII. 9.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2009-2014 ).  ','www.kvvm.hu; www.termeszetvedelem.hu ','15/02/2010','','','02/03/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','B3_1_2','','On a national level, partnerships are facilitated through a Natura 2000 council, which provides a central conciliatory forum for members of representative organizations for forestry, agriculture and the scientific sphere with the coordination by the Ministry of Environment and Water. The planning procedure is carried out with the widespread involvement of local stakeholders and farmers.On regional and local levels, the interests of nature conservation are mainly represented by national park directorates. Management plans (Natura 2000 areas, protected areas) or feasibility studies of high nature-value farmland areas cannot be completed without consultation of forums for stakeholders of the agricultural sector. Consequently, several local forums have been held over the last few years. (The number of forums held in connection with management plans is 77). Further cooperation is achieved through national park councils in which local farmers can participate as members. There are 10 national park councils which facilitate partnerships at regional level.','','','','15/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B3_1_5','','The principle nature conservation and planning legislation is the Act on Regional Development and Physical Planning.The Act on National Spatial Plan was revised in 2008 and has led to the greater integration of biodiversity considerations into spatial planning. The NSP defines land use restrictions of different zones and is implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW).Spatial plans at regional level are prepared in accordance with the official position of both the MoEW and national park directorates. Local level spatial plans are expected to be established in accordance with the position of national park directorates and following the regional plan which takes into consideration biodiversity interests on a higher level.  The National Spatial Plan and regional plans of certain regions (Balaton and Agglomeration of Budapest) are communicated and implemented throuh different ways, as an act, a regional plan, county regulations, and local plans with municipal regulations. However, Hungary does not have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report HungaryWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','15/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','B3_1_6','','The Ministry of Environment and Water and the Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society signed an “Accessible sky” agreement with the major electricity companies in 2008 in order to protect birds against electrocution. The electricity companies committed to a ‘bird-friendly’ transformation of all dangerous power lines in Hungary by 2020, and agreed to only use ‘bird-friendly’ methods when constructing new power lines. Best available technologies have been elaborated and distributed in a joint effort and data on bird casualties have been collected in a common database. The bird-friendly conversion of the national network of power lines has been carried out and accepted by all participants. This work has been financed by European, Hungarian funds and co-financed by the electric companies.  In 2009, the Natura 2000 Advisory Committee, initially set up by the Ministry of Environment and Water with the role of supporting the Natura 2000 network, was reformed to include business sectors including representatives of the agricultural and forestry sectors, in addition to the original government representatives, civil conservation bodies and scientific institutions. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: ”Accessible Sky” agreement: http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2008/03/Hungary_powerlines.html ','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B3_1_7','','A pilot project was set up in 2005-2006 with the aim  of developing an instrument (preferential loan with favourable conditions)  for financing biodiversity related projects in the fields of extensive/organic agriculture; sustainable forestry; environmentally friendly fishpond management and aquaculture; processing of products in the above sectors and ecotourism. The project was initiated by the European Centre for Nature Conservation, the European Investment Bank, the Hungarian Development Bank and the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. A survey was conducted among SMEs operating in national parks or Natura 2000 sites outlining the basic conditions for the instrument and some eligibility criteria for potential applicants. Although the project ended without the establishment of the instrument, it formed the basis for the following the BTAU project in Hungary.  The BTAU project was carried out between 2007-2010 by RSPB in three pilot countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland). It was founded by DG Environment, and EBRD and EIB which were included in the steering committee. In Hungary, BirdLife-Hungary delivered the project. Several pilot SMEs were selected and based on these, an innovative financial instrument was elaborated. However, due to the recent economic crisis; financial institutions have withdrawn from this project. Nevertheless, agreement with the Savings Cooperative Bank provides the opportunity for this work to continue. The project found synergies with Natura 2000 maintenance planning project, where the latter provides the scientific framework evaluating pro-biodiversity businesses, while the BTAU project provides the methodology and the financial opportunities for businesses.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: Pilot project for biodiversity investments in Hungary (2006-2006) (In Hungarian): http://www.ceeweb.org/hun/bb/Kovacs_Eszter.pdf  BTAU project website: http://www.smeforbiodiversity.eu/ ; http://www.georgicon.hu/ ','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds. ','','','','15/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. However, many activities have been implemented for building awareness, education and participation for biodiversity. World Wetlands Day (2 February), Earth Day (22 April), Day of Birds and Trees (10 May), Day of National Parks (23 May) and the Wild Goose Festival (last weekend of November) are celebrated annually. Since 2004, on the International Biodiversity Day the Ministry of Environment and Water has been raising awareness on the importance of biodiversity through press conferences, exhibitions and celebrations. Linked to the official theme of IBD, nation-wide competitions have been launched each year. In 2009, in preparation for the International Year of Biodiversity, the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water launched a postcard designing competition titled “Send a message to the world to conserve biodiversity”. Primary and secondary school children designed postcards for the celebration of 2010 showing the importance of diversity of life on earth. The three best postcards were published and used as the official Hungarian International Year of Biodiversity postcards throughout 2010.For 2010 (International Year of Biodiversity), Hungary has joined the global initiative of organising a national Biodiversity Action Day on the 22nd of May. The Ministry of Environment and Water together with GEO Magazine Hungary will organize an event at the Danube-Ipoly National Park with the participation of local schools, non-governmental organisations and scientists. This year, World Wetlands Day was celebrated on 2 February and focused on the interconnection between wetlands, climate change and biodiversity.','','In 2007, the Ministry of Environment and Water launched a student competition called “Let’s Look Around In Our Neighbourhood!“ in collaboration with Hungary’s largest agricultural gene bank, where the task of students was to record all traditional crop, fruit and vegetable varieties still found locally. On International Biodiversity Day, the State Secretary for Nature and Environment Protection at the Ministry of Environment and Water, held a press conference. Student journalists, trained by professional journalists at previous IBD celebrations, were invited to participate. In 2008, an initiative which was part of on-going awareness-raising activities was dedicated to agro-biodiversity and included a nation-wide fairy-tale writing competition and a 3-day biodiversity weekend. This was the main event of the biodiversity weekend, entitled ‘Are there still any sky-high bean stalks in your village?’. Another successful event organised as part of the biodiversity weekend was a Parliamentary Open Day at the Parliament of the Republic of Hungary focusing on agro-biodiversity, and specifically on the conservation of local varieties and the diversity of national crop and livestock genetic resources. Around 500 participants – including representatives from the state administration as well as Members of Parliament, scientific and research institutions as well as NGOs – attended the event and had fruitful discussions and exchanges on this issue of particular importance. Another successful event  was the election of the “Seven Natural Wonders of Hungary”, whereby a series of television programmes featured 30 famous natural phenomena of the country, which the public could vote for by sending an SMS. The most popular “Seven Natural Wonders” were officially announced by the Minister of Environment on Earth Day (22 April) and diplomas were awarded to the representatives of the winning natural phenomena (mayors as well as NGOs).','','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','A1','B4_1_2','','The Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Watermade a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown Initative 29th September 2006. The Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Water communicated that the focus would be on increasing the total area of protected sites and, within them, increasing the proportion of state-owned land managed by conservation bodies. It also stated that it would implement the relevant EU directives and the international conventions it had signed. The Ministry proposed the implementation of several action plans for the conservation of local species and establishment of a monitoring system for the analysing conservation status. It also proposed contributing financially by allocating resources for biodiversity protection measures and projects. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Hungary between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','15/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','C1_2','','Hungary applies 18 of the SEBI indicators, while of the 23 indicators applicable to Hungary, 5 are not applied.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','C1_2_1','','Hungary applies 18 of the SEBI indicators, while 5 are not applied and a further 3 are not applicable to Hungary).','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A1','C1_3_1','','The Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System (HBMS) is a national programme governed by the State Secretariat for Nature and Environment Protection, Ministry of Environment and Water, and its mission is the long-term surveillance of the status and trends of biological diversity in Hungary. HBMS has been operated for 12 years. In addition to the ten projects defined in the first stage, an eleventh project has also been elaborated in order to implement the monitoring requirements of Habitats Directive. The habitats of community interest occuring in Hungary were categorized into three groups, for each (water or water-related habitats, grassland and forest) a monitoring protocol was elaborated. The monitoring scheme for grassland habitats was started last year. Habitat mapping of 124 5x5 km quadrats, has been operating since 1998, serving adequate data about the distribution and range of habitats of community interest and its changes.','','','www.termeszetvedelem.hu; www.nbmr.hu','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.In addition a GAEC standard for the “Retention of landscape features” is currently being developed. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The above Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Hungary total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 3805.84 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 4535 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1250.22 million EUR, and 1437.22 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 32.85 and 31.69 per cent total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Hungary was 873.9 million EUR (1004.62 with co-financing) and amounted to 22.96 per cent of the EAFRD (22.15 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 38.38 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.01 per cent of EAFRD) and 44.12 million EUR of public expenditure (0.97 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 68.64 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.8 per cent of EAFRD) and 78.9 million EUR of public expenditure (1.74 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Hungary for Axis 2 measure 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)91.6835117.5956Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to reporting by the Member State, a national strategy and action plan have not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the National Strategy on Biodiversity Conservation includes a chapter on the integration of biodiversity conservation into agriculture. This chapter refers in general to the importance of the conservation of genetic diversity and resources. The National Environmental Programme also includes a chapter on the conservation of genetic resources. An obligation of the state National Park directorates is to ensure the conservation of several native breeds of livestock breeds. Further activities are also undertaken to ensure the conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species. These are based mainly on RDP measures for preservation of native and endangered farm animals’ genetic resources through breeding, forest-environment payments, or agri-environmental schemes.No information is provided on the number and budget for projects on the in-situ conservation of, livestock breeds ','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. No information on payments for genetic conservation measures was available for Hungary.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) is used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are not applied. According to the Government Degree No 314/2005 (XII. 25.) the limits for the Environmental Impact Assessment are:EIA is obligatory in the following cases:		Deforestation: 	30 ha in case the area will not be used for agricultural activity				50 ha in case the area will be used for agricultural activity		Afforestation:	EIA is not requiredThe Environmental Authorities have the power to choose to apply EIA in the following cases:		Deforestation:	10 ha in case the area will not be used for agricultural activity				30 ha in case the area will be used for agricultural activity		Afforestation: 	30 ha Afforestation Implementation Plans must include an assessment of quality of seedling/plant used, refer to methods of site preparation, methods of nursing (including the. use of pesticides) and methods of cleaning.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Hungary had a total certified forest area of 251,906 hectares out of a total forest area of 1.98 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Hungary was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 12.75 per cent of the total forest area.According to the Member State, total area of the Natura 2000 forests amounts to 789,515 ha, consisting of on 163,944 sites. Of those, 420,376 ha are not protected and 308,495 ha are protected by national laws. 60,644 ha are highly protected.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC).  ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Hungary amounted to 1.91 million ha, representing a share of 27.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. For MS additional detail on HNV area in Hungary see A2.1.8. and A1.1.2','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.In addition a GAEC standard for the “Retention of landscape features” is currently being developed. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The above Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','15/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_6','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_8','','National monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.Additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators are also being developed.According to reporting by the Member State, during the preparation of the New Hungary Rural Development Programme the Ministry of Environment and Water, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development designated extensively cultivated area that helps to conserve the nature friendly cultivation methods and thereby to protect the natural habitats and to conserve biodiversity, landscape assets, cultural and historical assets. The designation of these so called High Nature Value Areas was based on the earlier designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Natura 2000 network, and monitoring data collected mainly by the experts of the National Park directorates. The total area of the 25 HNV sites amounts to 1.2 million ha, which contains 900,000 ha grassland and arable land.  In the framework of the agri-environmental measure of the New Hungary Rural Develpoment Programme farmers have the opportunity to apply for 7 different special agri-environmental schemes aimed at nature conservation in the above mentioned designated areas. Programmes developed for grasslands and arable lands are specified for the protection of some species or for improvement of habitats, but thanks to the complexity of the commitments the programme also improves natural conditions and biological diversity.Although the objectives are the same, this designation is reasonably not equal to the HNV area designation of the JRC (see A2.1.3), which was developed mainly in order to analyse the changes in extensive farming systems on EU level. The HNV areas in Hungary are first of all the target areas of the special agri-environmental programmess for nature conservation.According to the Member State, the national Farmland Bird Indicator was basically stable between 1999 and 2008, with a slight decrease since 2005. The information is based on a report on the monitoring of the country’s Common Birds Scheme by BirdLife Hungary','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 54.2 million € has been added to the Hungarian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Hungary provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.  ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are herby mandatory. Projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. A complex monitoring system for analytical detection and biological evaluation of soil micropollutants for a sustainable environment has been implemented, for the period January 2008 to December 2010. The objective of this research and development project is to develop a soil contamination monitoring system capable of complex survey of typical soil contaminants in Hungary using up-to-date sampling and measurement techniques, and therefore, eliminating environmental protection and environmental analytical limitations due to the agricultural focus of the presently functioning Soil Protection and Monitoring Information System (TIM). Besides the representativeness/optimisation of the sampling technique to reveal the contamination source, additional important objectives of the projects include: (1) the development of in situ sensoric methods to identify volatile contaminants (e.g. chlorinated and petroleum hydrocarbons), and validation of the reliability of these methods by instrumental analysis; (2) the expansion of the range of investigation beyond analytical deteminations to biological tests (soil biology, ecotoxicity and mutagenicity) in order to provide risk based soil and ground-water contaminant identification; and(3) to interpret results obtained in a selected sampling region in a Geographic Information System in order to obtain a measurement protocol flexibly adaptable to ecological indications.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ilzer.rissac.hu/montabio/index.html ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all five occurrences of the Pannonian freshwater habitats in Hungary have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Pannonian is the only biogeographical region in Hungary.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U13  U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ ','02/15/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Hungary oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.72 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.38 mg O3/l in 2005, with a peak of 3.80 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated no clear trend, falling only slightly from 0.42 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.41 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values corresponded to the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 2.25 mg N/l in 2002 to 2.44 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 2.54 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were well above the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear tendency from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 1.5 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 1.3 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 2.2 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.271 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.219 mg P/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.291 mg P/l in 2003.  2005 values were well above the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a clear a downward trend, decreasing from 0.087 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.058 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values above the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','05/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Hungary had a total number of 131 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 51.2 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to 2007, the percentage decreased, whereas in previous years it had been increasing.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Hungary developed two out of four biological assessment methods for lakes and rivers, phytoplankton, and macrophytes and phytobenthos assessment. All other methods were under development or the information was incomplete. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 115 in Hungary.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Hungary had a total number of 979 IPPC installations and issued 967 permits. 12 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, 2008 data on Hungary’s NECD emissions indicate that emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides were below NEC Directive ceilings, non-methane volatile organic compounds slightly above. According to the country’s projections, existing legislation and measures are sufficient in meeting national emission ceiling limits in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','02/15/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Hungary the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 5 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 20,805 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 3 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and a reduction to 99 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 81 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Hungary’s gross nitrogen balance was 37 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 74 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.According to reporting by the Member State, in the period of 1989 to 1990 a drastic decrease happened in agricultural nitrogen use. In consequence, the nitrogen balance at that time did not even reach the level necessary for efficient production. The increase in the balance has to be correlated to this low level.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1999 and 2006, Hungary’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general slight decrease, though including some periods of improvement.  By 2006 the indicator was at 98.6 per cent, a 1.4 per cent decrease from the 1999 baseline. 22 species were assessed. Data were not available for the years 1990 to 1998.For further information on a national farmland bird indicator please consult A2.1.8','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council, MS questionnaire http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','Pannonian is the only biogeographical region in Hungary.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121101092%0%8%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121101092%0%8%0%U11  U210       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1313000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1313000100%0%0%0%U10  U213       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U13  U22       ','http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A3','A3_4','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A3','A3_5_2','','In Hungary Salmon and Trout species have no relevance as diadromous species.Hungary has no management plan for Sturgeon at the Member State level. The reason for this is, first of all, that the Iron Gate barrage in Romania is an obstacle to fish migration, and Sturgeons are unable to get through to the Hungarian river reaches (Danube and Tisa). The last registered Sturgeon was caught at Paks in 1987. On the other hand there is an NGO initiative (http://www.hallepcso-fishpass.eu/node/5 ) which has the objective to provide suitable living, reproduction and migration conditions for Sturgeons (and other Acipenseridae species as well).Although Eel is considered a native species in the Carpathian basin by competent ichthyologists, almost the entire stock originates from artificial stocking. The Hungarian stock does not influence the species reproduction in the Sargasso Sea, since the individuals are probably unable to get through to the Atlantic from Hungary. Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 on, ‘Establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel’ the EC referred a decision to the ScientificTechnical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) as to whether these waters constitute natural habitats for the European eel. ','','','http://www.hallepcso-fishpass.eu/node/5','15/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A4','A4_3','','In Hungary, the National Ecological Network has been integrated into the Act on National Spatial Plan (NSP) No. XXVI. of 2003. By this Act, the National Ecological Network must be one of the national spatial zones in the spatial plans, and the network must be a highlighted zone in regional spatial plans. Ecological networks included in 14 regional plans have been approved.The amended Act on the NSP came into force in July 2008. The National Ecological Network (core area, ecological corridors, buffer zones) are determined by this plan. Most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured on planning level.The revision of the Act on NSP in 2008 has led to the greater integration of biodiversity considerations into spatial planning. The revised NSP contains framework regulations regarding the land use of the zones of the updated and revised National Ecological Network. There are some mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of the efforts for the ecological network: The Ministry of Environment and Water contributes to the preparation of plans for the county planning (at county level) by providing data about the areas of the National Ecological Network. Beside this Ministry also takes part in supervising that legal regulations for the ecological network are duly incorporated in the County Land Development Plans. The National Park Directorates, as regional bodies of state nature conservation have the right to comment and to consult in the process of spatial planning at the local governments (at local level).There is an interministerial coordination in spatial planning (inclusion of the ecological network), mainly taking place at the amendment of the Act, at the 5-year review of the National Ecological Network’s areas, and in the preparation work of legal regulations.  ','','Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003. The restrictions of the National Spatial Plan (NSP) include the following:- Within the national ecological network, only special regional or county land use categories and zones may be established which do not damage the natural and seminatural habitats of the ecological network and their relationships;- Within the zone, mining activities may be pursued in line with the provisions applicable to mining areas;- In the Special Regional Land Development Plan and County Land Development Plan, the zones of the national ecological network should be classified as core area, ecological corridor and buffer zone.The NSP defines further land use restrictions regarding the zones of the core area, ecological corridor and buffer zone as classified in the Special Regional Land Development Plan and County Land Development Plan.','www.kvvm.huwww.termeszetvedelem.hu','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines on Tourism were implemented between 2005 and 2008 in the Aggtelek Biosphere Reserve of Hungary through an international project called \"Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe”. In the context of implementing the guidelines the project aimed among other things to:- Give support to the development and implementation of tourism management plans in relation to biodiversity objectives.- Create and strengthen an enabling environment for combining sustainable tourism development and biodiversity conservation.- Support international cooperation among the participating countries, especially with regard to trans-boundary cooperation, to enhance knowledge on tourism and biodiversity.- Facilitate a consultative process with key stakeholders (in the public and private sectors) to ensure their active participation and influence in the development of public policies for sustainable tourism development and management in vulnerable mountain and forest areas.The National Ecotourism Development Strategy (NEDS) sets out ecological, socio-cultural, economic and touristic objectives. The ecological objectives are to maintain ecological diversity and to maintain and improve the environmental status of the certain destinations. The NEDS promotes compliance with the CBD Guidelines.  ','','','Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe : http://www.oete.de/en/41b_gef.htmlNational Ecotourism Development Strategy (in Hungarian):http://www.mth.gov.hu/download.php?ctag=download&docID=422National Tourism Development Strategy (2005-2013):http://www.mth.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=888&articleID=3956&ctag=articlelist&iid=2','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Hungarian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 402.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).  Furthermore, Hungary did submit many successful applications under Cohesion and Structural Funds contributing to conserve and restore biodiversity at large. Those projects include the following activities: implementation of investments serving the conservation of endangered and rare species and habitats, restoration of degraded habitats, supporting favourable succession processes, elimination of invasive species, restoration of forests with indigenous species, establishment of ecological corridors, transformation of roads and railways in a nature-friendly manner, substitution or transformation of electric power lines, reconstruction of aquatic and non-aquatic habitats, or conservation of genetic resources and ex situ conservation.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','15/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','30/04/2010'),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Hungary has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation containing provisions for IAS. The specific legislation addresses the issues of possession and trade, introduction to the wild and control and eradication of IAS. Import and export of IAS is not addressed. Act No. LIII of 1996 on Nature Conservation contains several Articles that cover the introduction, control and eradication of IAS (Articles 9(4), 13(2), 13(3), 13(4) and 14). Act No. LIV of 1996 on Forests and the Protection of Forests contains provisions for the control of IAS. In 2008 it was revised to contain lists and regulations pertaining to invasive trees and herbaceous plant species. Act No. LV of 1996 on the Protection of Game, Game Management and Hunting specifies in Article 33(2) that the introduction of non-indigenous game species for hunting purposes must be authorised by the Hunting authority. Act No. XLI of 1997 on Fisheries and Angling requires a permit to be obtained for all fish originating from abroad that are to be used for stocking natural waters and fishponds. Act No. XXXV of 2000 on Plant Protection contains provisions addressing the introduction of plant pests and the control of these pests. There are Acts that concern the protection of biodiversity (Act No. LIII of 1995 on the General Regulations Concerning environmental Protection) and public health (Act No. CLIV of 1997 on public Health) that also contain some provisions applicable to IAS. In 2007, a series of Government Decrees of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development were adopted specifically to address the impact of IAS on Hungarian biodiversity. The decrees mainly concern plantations and grasslands present on Natura 2000 sites. Finally, in 2008, the development of a new Government Decree on the keeping and ownership transfer of pet species will contain a list of 15 species that are a threat to the native wildlife and habitats of Hungary. It will be prohibited to keep, trade, breed or offer for sale specimens of these species.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species (IAS) identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 43 are present in Hungary. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10  EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_1_2','','A National Strategy for invasive alien species (IAS) is under development in Hungary. Currently no action plan has been developed on IAS. The control of IAS is incorporated into the National Nature Conservation Master Plan, the national biodiversity strategy and action plan, and into some sectoral programmes such as common health, plant protection and animal husbandry.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_1_3','','Hungary has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Hungary plans to start the development of an early warning system for invasive species in 2010. This systems is foreseen to include rapid response mechanisms, incident lists and establishment of national coordination mechanisms. The existing lists of invasive animal and plant species will be reviewed in 2010, from a nature conservation point of view. The European Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO) publications also include the most recent information on plan IAS in Hungary. In addition, an inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects is under development. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A5','A5_2_2','','Hungary has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The co-existence legislation in force in Hungary is: Act Nr. CVII. of 2006 on the amendment of the Act Nr. XXVII. of 1998 on gene technological activity. Official Journal of Hungary Nr. 2006/150 (XII. 7.); and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Nr. 86/2006. (XII. 23.) on the coexistence of GM, conventional and ecological crops. Official Journal of Hungary Nr. 2006/161(XII. 23.)   Applications to grow genetically modified crops in Hungary are assessed according to regional criteria. The authorisation process aims to enable competent authorities to define cultivation conditions taking into account local circumstances as well as special characteristics of the plant species. The nature conservation authority may suggest isolation distances from areas under environmental protection, environmentally sensitive areas or Natura 2000 areas. These isolation distances can be greater than the distances from non-genetically modified crop fields but can not exceed double of those. According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, since September 2006 Hungary has banned the cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.  As regards formal or informal regional bans, since 2005, there have been two GMO-free regions in Hungary: Southern Transdanubia and Western Transdanubia. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in June 2009. The “Conservation of Biodiversity National Strategy and Action Plan” was published in 2004.Hungary had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while as of 31 Dec 2008 the payment for 2008 for the World Heritage Convention had not been made.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A7','A7_1','','The OECD markers do not show any aid budget for Hungary.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD markers do not show any aid budget for Hungary.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','15/02/2010','','','07/01/201007/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A7','A7_1_4','','Hungary has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A7','A7_2_2','','- Governmental Decree No. 20/2001. (II. 14) together with Act LIII. Of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection served as harmonisation tool to the EIA Directive (85/337/ECC) and its first amendment (97/11/EC Directive);- Governmental Decree No. 314/2005. (XII. 25) together with Act LIII. Of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection serves as harmonisation tool to the EIA Directive (85/337/ECC) and its first (97/11/EC Directive) and second (2003/35/EC Directive) amendments;- Governmental Decree No. 2/2005. (I. 11) together with Act LIII. of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection serves as harmonisation tool to the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC)','','','','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A8','A8_1','','While Hungary has not provided funds for the CBD Working Group on Access & Benefit-sharing and does not have national legislation implementation the Bonn Guidelines, she has undertaken awareness-raising activities on access & benefit-sharing, including a widely distributed questionnaire. National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development and the Agreement has been translated into Hungarian and officially published. Data on national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not being collected. Hungary has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and many items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. Training in CITES enforcement was provided to Romania. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','There is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. In January 2009 the Ministry of Environment and Water distributed a questionnaire on ABS among research institutions, universities, botanic gardens, museums, companies and NGOs that may be somehow involved in access to and supply of genetic resources. They were also informed about the website on the national CBD Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM), which contains background information on ABS. The questionnaire was sent out to 56 institutions, 1/3 of which responded to it.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Hungarian questionnaire on ABS (In Hungarian): http://biodiv.kvvm.hu/convention/other_conv/fol638350/ABS_felmeres_2009.docInformation about ABS on the Hungarian CHM (In Hungarian): http://biodiv.kvvm.hu/convention/other_conv/fol638350','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Hungary did not provide funds to the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','National legislation implementing the SMTA is under development. The SMTA has been translated into Hungarian and published in the official Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Földművelésügyi és Vidékfejlesztési Értesítő).','','','','15/02/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A8','A8_1_4','','The required data are not available, data relating to wood products deriving from sustainable sources are not collected.','','','','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 441, 40 and 22, respectively. No import, export or re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens was 9071 for 2007 and 9556 for 2008 representing a net decrease of 8155. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training have been provided to inspectorates, customs, police, veterinary and phytosanitary authorities, and universities. Hungary has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Hungary paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. ','','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','A9','','','The Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), adopted in 2008 for the period 2008-2025, has two main parts: on the mitigation of and also on the adaptation to climate change. The adaptation part of the NCCS describes and accepts the importance of ecosystem services. The main objective of the actions proposed in relation to natural flora and fauna and nature conservation in the adaptation part of the NCCS is to maintain or possibly enhance the inherent adaptation capacity of biodiversity.','','','','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_3_2','','','','','','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_4_1','','The Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), adopted in 2008 for the period 2008-2025, has two main parts: on the mitigation of and also on the adaptation to climate change. The adaptation part of the NCCS describes and accepts the importance of ecosystem services. The main objective of the actions proposed in relation to natural flora and fauna and nature conservation in the adaptation part of the NCCS is to maintain or possibly enhance the inherent adaptation capacity of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'15/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'30/04/2010',NULL),
	('Hungary','A9','A9_4_3','','In 2007 a national scale vulnerability assessment for ecosystems was performed as a background study for the Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy. This assessment used data from the MÉTA database (a detailed national vegetation map and database), and identified the level of climatic risk for all important habitat types in Hungary (which includes all Pannonian habitats). On the other hand, no detailed or systematic risk assessments have been made so far at the species level (nevertheless, there were a few sporadic efforts, e.g. for vascular plants). ','','','Czúcz B, Torda G, Molnár Zs, Horváth F, Botta-Dukát Z & Kröel-Dulay Gy (2009): A spatially explicit, indicator-based methodology for quantifying the vulnerability and adaptability of natural ecosystems. In: Filho WL, Mannke F (eds): Interdisciplinary Aspects of Climate Change. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt, pp. 209-227No systematic assessments, but there are some ad hoc studies for a few taxonomic groups (e.g. Rédei T, Csecserits A & Czúcz B, (2007): Edényes növények. [Vascular plants]. In: Czúcz, B., Kröel-Dulay, G, Rédei, T, Botta-Dukát, Z, Molnár, Z (eds.), 2007: Climate change and biological diversity – explorative analysis for a more effective adaptation strategy in Hungary. Research report, manuscript (in Hungarian). Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Vácrátót, Hungary, pp. 10–29.','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between business and biodiversity. However, there is a business representative on the Biodiversity Forum (see B 3.1.2). ','','','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','A10_1','','Biodiversity research in Ireland is incorporated into a variety of national programmes. Specific programmes include: the NPWS Research programme for research on species and habitats listed under the Habitats and Birds Directives, including monitoring and conservation management, impacts of site designation, red listing and ecoinformatics; AG-BIOTA for monitoring and research on functional significance and management for the maintenance and economic utilisation of biodiversity in the intensively farmed landscape; Simbiosys for the quantification of impacts of key sectoral activities on biodiversity; Biochange for  research to support biodiversity policy; BIOFOREST for research into biodiversity in Irish plantation forests; PLANFORBIO for research on forest biodiversity; and Sea Change for the marine biodiversity research agenda.’','','','http://www.npws.ie/en/CurrentResearchProjects/; http://www.epa.ie/researchandeducation/research/projects/biodiversity/','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','A10_1_2','','Ireland does not have any plans to follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). An assessment of the economic and social value of biodiversity was undertaken in 2008 (http://www.npws.ie/en/Biodiversity/EconomicValueofBiodiversity/).  Based on a monetary evaluation of biodiversity services in the areas of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Water, Human welfare and Health, the current marginal value of ecosystems services in Ireland, in terms of their contribution to productive output and human utility, was estimated at over €2.6 billion per annum.','','','Bullock, C., Kretch, C. & Candon, E. (2008) The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland. Report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service. http://www.npws.ie/en/Biodiversity/EconomicValueofBiodiversity/','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','A10_1_8','','Ireland has a national platform for biodiversity research. The platform is a forum for scientists, policy makers and other interested stakeholders involved in the field of biodiversity research. The platform is run under the auspices of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency and administered by a secretariat (BEC Consultants Ltd). The aims of the platform include:Facilitating biodiversity research in Ireland, taking into account the needs of the research community, stakeholders, policy makers and the publicDefining national biodiversity research needsImproving the exchange of information between the research community and policy makersLinking with the EPBRS and other European and international biodiversity network','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','A10_1_9','','Ireland became a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in January 2008. Ireland’s ‘Participant node’ is the National Biodiversity Data Centre, which manages national datasets such as invasive species, freshwater fish, water beetles, macro-moths, vegetation, the joint Irish cetacean database and others—many in collaboration with other national organisations. The main role of the National Biodiversity Data Centre with regards to GBIF is to promote, coordinate and facilitate the sharing, publication and use of biodiversity data amongst relevant people and organisations within Ireland.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. Three organisations in Ireland participate in ENBI: Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (private company)’ the Department of Botany at Trinity College, Dublin and the AlgaeBase Centre, Martin Ryan Institute at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Ecological Consultancy Services and the AlgaeBase Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, NUI are both ‘members’ of Work Package 5: Co-operation of pan-European checklist and \'Species bank\' database projects. The objectives of this Work Package are to establish the feasibility of providing an integrated gateway to the European Taxonomic Databases and European \'Species Banks\' systems; identify the gaps in taxonomic coverage, associated core data, and associated descriptive data, and identify ways of filling them; and establish the feasibility of introducing cultivated plant taxonomy to the databases dealing with European and Mediterranean plants. The Department of Botany at Trinity College Dublin is a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the condition of all rocky habitats and coastal habitats are reported to be favourable and unfavourable-inadequate respectively. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, all sclerophyllous habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 5 of the 6 (83%) rocky habitats, 9 of the 11 (82%) coastal habitats and 2 of the 3 (67%) heath and scrub habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 75% dune habitats, freshwater habitats, forest habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats is reported to be bad. 4 of the 6 (67%) grasslands are also in an unfavourable-bad condition. ','23/04/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Ireland has designated 423 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 13,553 km², totalling 10.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 96 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 6010 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 131, with a total area of 2815 km², totalling 2.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 66, with a marine area of 810 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','23/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','45 SACs and 4 SPAs have Conservation Plans that have gone through a full public consultation process; 51 SACs have published Conservation Statements which are broadly equivalent to management plans.','','Current work is focussed on conservation objectives for sites. Note the percentage figures above are approximate.','Reference or title:Weblink:  http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_2_3','','Ireland does not have tools in place or developed to support ecological connectivity','','',':','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_3','','Of the 211 regularly occurring bird species in Ireland, 2 are globally Near-threatened and 2 are Red-listed (one of those, the Great Auk, is extinct). Note this refers to all bird species of Ireland, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 8 of the 26 (31%) mammals is favourable. All (1 of 1 or 100%) amphibians and reptiles as well as all (2 of 2 or 100%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.  The conservation status of 4 of the 4 (100%) fish and 18 of the 26 (69%) mammals is unknown.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 3 of the 8 (38%) fish, 11 of the 13 (85%) mammals and 4 of the 9 (44%) plants was reported to be in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 1 of the 8 (13%) fish, 4 of the 8 (50%) invertebrates, 2 of the 13 (15%) mammals and 5 of the 9 (56%) plants were reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 8 (38%) fish and 3 of the 8 (38%) invertebrates were reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. The condition of 1 of the 8 (13%) fish is reported to be unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable -inadequateU2= Unfavourable -badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians and reptiles 00%1100%00%00%00%1Fish 00%00%00%4100%00%4Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals831%00%00%1869%00%26Plants 00%2100%00%00%00%2Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%150%150%00%00%2Fish 338%113%338%113%00%8Invertebrates113%450%338%00%00%8Mammals1185%215%00%00%00%13Plants 444%556%00%00%00%9','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International data Weblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html ','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Ireland has the following completed species action plans: 13 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 1 for fish and 2 for plants. . In addition one species action plan for invertebrates is in preparation invertebrates. The Countryside Bird Survey (CBS) is undertaken between April and June each year and provides scientific data on the abundance and distribution of Ireland’s breeding bird populations. Red data lists have been published for plants, mammals and a number of invertebrate groups. Further Red Data Lists, for bryophtes, fish, amphibians and reptiles, are in preparation.  The Birds of Conservation Concern list is a National Red List equivalent for bird species.','','The Species Action Plans and Red Data Lists have been prepared on an all-Ireland basis where appropriate. See weblinks provided for details and downloadable documents. ','http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','B1_1_1','','Budgetary allocations for biodiversity come from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but also from other Departments such as Agriculture and Food, Communication Marine and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs and the Environment Protection Agency. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Ireland spent up to EUR1,666,496 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Ireland spent up to EUR625,000 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Ireland’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Ireland’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','B1_1_4','','Ireland’s allocation for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) for 2007-2013 is EUR3.5m; there are no allocations for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) and category 55 (protection of natural assets). Ireland has had no cohesion funds since 2003.  Figures relating to structural funds are not available.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','07/05/2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','B1_1_8','','This information is not available.','','','','07/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B2_4','','‘A new plan for biodiversity is in development and the Draft National Biodiversity Plan is due in June 2010. This is being developed in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.’','','','','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','B3_1_2','','An Interdepartmental Steering group for Biodiversity meets annually, or more frequently as necessary, for the purposes of developing the National Biodiversity Action Plan and reviewing its implementation. The Biodiversity Forum, which was set up to advise on the implementation of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, has representatives of State agencies, farmers, landowners, industry, environmental NGOs and representatives from Northern Ireland Government and Northern Ireland Biodiversity Forum.','','There is a working group of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for staff and farming organisations which meets twice annually to discuss, in particular, issues concerning the Natura 2000 network.  There are a large number of informal meetings between forestry and biodiversity interests.','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage biodiversity and planning partnerships at local, regional, national levels.','','','','23/04/2010','','','na','27/04/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between business and biodiversity. However, there is a business representative on the Biodiversity Forum (see B 3.1.2). ','','','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity. ','','Business plans, statements of strategy and annual output statements are discussed annually by relevant government departments and the Department of Finance.','http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/StatisticsandRegularPublications/StrategyStatements/','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds. However, Ireland reported that in providing finance through Irish Aid, Ireland is always sensitive to considerations covered by the guidelines.','','','','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','B4_1_1','','A national public awareness campaign on biodiversity has been implemented called “Notice Nature”. The aim of the campaign is to raise awareness of the importance of biodiversity and to encourage everyone to play their part in its protection.','','This campaign was focussed on delivering CBD objectives on public awareness and as such supported the EU BAP.',' http://www.noticenature.ie  ','23/04/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A1','B4_1_2','','The Irish department of the environment, heritage and local government made a declaration in support of the IUCN Countdown Initative on the 10th January 2005. Between 2006 and 2008, Ireland contributed a total sum of 50,000 euros in funding for Countdown Initative projects.','',' In 2006, Ireland funded a Countdown 2010 Communication Strategy by contributing 50,000 euros.','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','23/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/04/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','C1_2','','Ireland applies the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality and has nationally adapted the SEBI indicators on Abundance and distribution of selected species, Red List Index for European species, Species of European interest, Ecosystem coverage, and Habitats of European interest. There is no information on additional nationally-applied biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','C1_2_1','','Ireland applies the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality and has nationally adapted the SEBI indicators on Abundance and distribution of selected species, Red List Index for European species, Species of European interest, Ecosystem coverage, and Habitats of European interest. There is no information on additional nationally-applied biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','23/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A1','C1_3_1','','Ireland has a wide range of habitat and species monitoring schemes, covering almost all major habitat types as well as vertebrates (all groups), invertebrates and plants. In many cases the extent of a protected habitat or species within Ireland is not well known, therefore national surveys are undertaken to gain an understanding of the distribution and/or ecology of the species or habitat in question.  When the full range of variation is realised, indicators of condition are derived and targets are set to assess conservation status.  These surveys are considered baseline monitoring surveys.  In the case where the drivers which influence conservation status are poorly understood more detailed research is undertaken.  The data derived from these research programmes are also used as a monitoring baseline.The frequency of monitoring will depend on the ecology of the species or habitat in question, with long-lived or less vulnerable species and habitats requiring less frequent monitoring (unless volunteer networks have been established).There is a cross over of monitoring programmes between some of the habitat categories listed above, e.g. heath and rocky habitats are covered in the bogs, mires and fen programmes.   The frequency of bird surveys is variable, often dependent on international co-ordination, national volunteer networks and vulnerability of the species.  ','','','','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins (since 2009).•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats (in Natura 2000 sites).Other additional GAEC standards relate to soil protection (maintenance of soil structure and function) and the control of noxious weeds.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* since 2009** in Natura 2000 sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Ireland total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2339.91 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 4298.75 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1861.91 million EUR, and 3385.3 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 75.97 and 78.75 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Ireland was 1149.11 million EUR (2089.3 with co-financing) and amounted to 49.11 per cent of the EAFRD (48.6 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 220.55 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (9.43 per cent of EAFRD) and 401 million EUR of public expenditure (9.33 per cent of public expenditure). There are no payments in Ireland for Axis 2 measures 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.According to the Member State, Ireland’s National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) launched a farm plan in 2006 that pays farmers for actions favouring biodiversity in designated areas and commonage.  The current annual budget is €5.1 million and this is entirely funded from the national exchequer. Additional grants are available under the Native Woodland Scheme (NWS) and Forest Environment Protection Scheme (FEPS).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00.10927Agri-environment payments (214)342.29236622.34975Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State, a national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of commercial tree species is promoted in  the national biodiversity strategy, and crop varieties and livestock breeds are addressed in the biodiversity action plan. There is also National Strategy for Plant Conservation which promote the in-situ conservation of crop varieties and commercial tree species. An Advisory Committee on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has operated since 1996. Ireland is a member of the European Forest Genetic Resources Network programme (EUFORGEN).In situ genetic conservation projects have addressed apples (covering 77 varieties), livestock (Kerry Cattle Scheme, and rare breed option in REPS/AEOS for Irish Draught Horse, Connemara Pony, Kerry Bob Pony, Irish Moiled, Dexter and Kerry Cattle and Galway Sheep) and Oak, Ash, Birch and Alder trees. There is a traditional Irish Orchards option in REPS; to support a threatened plant genetic resource by encouraging the planting of orchards containing traditional varieties of native Irish apple.The Kerry Cattle scheme is a specific national scheme, approved under State Aid Rules, to increase numbers of the Kerry Cattle breed. The REPS scheme has supported the breeds mentioned above with payments on a per livestock unit basis. The number of Kerry Cattle Animals paid for under the scheme from 2006-2009 was 1098.  This will continue in the new Agri Environment Options Scheme (AEOS) launched on 30 March 2010.Grants are available under the Native Woodland Scheme (NWS) for the planting of native tree species for conservation purposes.  Under forest reproductive material regulations a national register of tree seed stands incorporates seed stands specifically chosen for gene conservation purposes.A National Genetic Resources Grant Aid Scheme has been in place since 1996 and is available to support smaller scale projects, support activities to promote in situ conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and has supported a number of in situ conservation initiatives since its inception. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Ireland approved 595 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.55 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.88 million of total expenditure, representing respectively 0.16 and 0.14 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_15','','AfforestationAccording to the Member State, all forestry applications for afforestation grant aid or approval (both native and non-native tree species) are assessed as to their potential impact on biodiversity and this assessment influences whether or not they are approved or grant aided. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines, published in 2000 and currently under review, focus on how best to conserve and enhance biodiversity in Irish forests, through appropriate planning, conservation and management. Forest Service Guidelines are mandatory for all grant aided and licensed activities. In 2008 the Forest Service published the Forestry and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Requirements which apply to all potentially impacting forest operations within the catchments of FPM populations in rivers designated cSACs for the species. In 2009 the Forest Service published guidelines for two Habitats Directive Annex IV species namely the Forestry and Otter Guidelines and the Forestry and Kerry Slug Guidelines. The Forest Service refers all afforestation applications within designated areas or within the referral zones for designated areas to NPWS and is currently improving and formalising its appropriate assessment procedures.DeforestationAll forestry applications for limited felling licenses for both native and non-native tree species (deforestation) are assessed as to their potential impact on biodiversity and this assessment influences whether or not a license is granted. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines, published in 2000 and currently under review, focus on how best to conserve and enhance biodiversity in Irish forests, through appropriate planning, conservation and management (see above)ToolsBiodiversity Surveys and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to deforestation and afforestation operations. The current threshold for EIAs in Ireland is as follows:(i) initial afforestation of 50ha or more(ii) replacement of broadleaf high forest by conifer species, where the area involved would be greater than 10ha(iii)deforestation for the purpose of conversion to another type of land use, where the area to be deforested would be greater than 10ha of natural woodlands or 70ha of conifer forests.A sub-threshold EIA assessment is also undertaken for all afforestation and deforestation applications, which ensures that applications which are below the limits identified above are assessed for potential impacts. If a specific issue in relation to biodiversity is raised (through site visit by Forest Service inspector, referrals or consultations) then an ecological survey maybe requested (may be for a specific habitat or species). In addition, an appropriate assessment screening procedures is currently being improved (to date there has been a strong reliance on NPWS to identify sites that may impact biodiversity).     ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestservice/environmentalinformation/ ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official data, in 2009 Ireland had a total certified forest area of 446,124 hectares out of a total forest area of 669,000 hectares. All of the certified forest area in Ireland is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 66.69 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Ireland amounted to 1.16 million ha, representing a share of 20.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. For further information on national Initiatives please consult A2.1.8.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins (since 2009).•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats (in Natura 2000 sites).Other additional GAEC standards relate to soil protection (maintenance of soil structure and function) and the control of noxious weeds.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* since 2009** in Natura 2000 sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','23/04/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. NPWS has contributed to the training of DAFF AES inspectors and REPS planners, has provided training for NPWS farm planners and through the support of the Burren LIFE scheme has facilitated training and education of farmers and administrators.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_8','','Regional and national monitoring schemes have been put in place for one of the mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators, namely population trends of farmland birds. The Countryside Bird Survey (CBS) is undertaken between April and June each year and provides scientific data on the abundance and distribution of Ireland’s breeding bird populations. It is conducted by BWI, NPWS and the Heritage Council.No monitoring is carried out of the other mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators, namely HNV farming, HNV forestry and tree species composition. According to the Member State, HNV land is not yet accurately defined in an Irish context.  Further work will be required to adequately map and describe the range and type of HNV farmland in Ireland.  In addition, work will be necessary to define the appropriate management regimes necessary for the maintenance of these HNV types.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of million 146 € has been added to the Irish national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Ireland attributed 89 million € in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 61 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, no national monitoring programmes have been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 88 per cent of the 8 occurrences of Atlantic freshwater habitats in Ireland have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 13 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Atlantic is the only biogeographical region in Ireland.Status of freshwater habitats:AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U11  U26       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Ireland oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, though falling from 1.03 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.00 mg O3/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a decrease from 0.04 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.03 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.06 mg N/l in 2003. Values were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 13.2 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 13 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 13.6 mg NO3/l in 2004. Phosphorus concentration figures in lakes present a slight downward trend, decreasing from 0.02 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.018 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values well below the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.No information on concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations in rivers was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.. ','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Ireland had a total number of 4 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 44.4 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, for transitional waters in Ireland, three out of four biological assessments were available, with fish fauna probably under development. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were developed. Benthic invertebrate assessment was implemented for rivers, all other methods for rivers and lakes under development, with the exception of phytoplankton for rivers.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Ireland had a total number of 461 IPPC installations and issued 360 permits. 101 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_4_2','','According to Ireland’s national reporting under the NEC Directive, projections indicate that emissions for all four pollutants will continue to fall in the period to 2010. For three of the four pollutants, ammonia, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), Ireland is on target to comply, or significantly over-comply, with the ceilings set out in Annex I of the directive. However, in 2008 nitrogen oxides emissions were still well above the relevant ceiling and according to projections it will not met by 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Ireland the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 23 and 88 per cent respectively, considering an area of 8,935 km2 and 2,449 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 8 and 6 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 2 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 81 per cent in 2010 and 77 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 73 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Ireland’s gross nitrogen balance was 83 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 9 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1998 and 2006, Ireland’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general increase. By 2006 the indicator was 6.3 per cent above the 1998 baseline. 9 species were assessed. No data were available for the period 1990 to 1997.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition',' According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic grassland, forest and heath and scrub habitats in Ireland have an unfavourable conservation status. 88 per cent of the Atlantic peat land habitats also have an unfavourable status, while the remaining 13 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data. ','','Atlantic is the only bio geographical region in Ireland.Status of grassland habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U12  U24       Status of forest habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%U11  U23       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage33000100%0%0%0%U12  U21       Status of peat land habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U11  U26       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','23/04/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below .Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Ireland showed that of the four marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (25%), and the other three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (75%). Eleven coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—nine had an ‘Inadequate’ status (82%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (18%).A total of 33 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region—including reptiles, fish, mammals and plants. Of the 33, eight had a ‘Favourable’ status (24%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (9%) and 22 had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats125%375%00%00%00%4AtlanticCoastal habitats00%982%218%00%00%11Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%1100%00%00%00%1Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals831%00%00%1869%00%26Marine AtlanticPlants00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine AtlanticTOTAL824%39%00%2267%00%33The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusIreland indicated in their response to the Country Profile that they consider there to be 19 coastal habitats and 4 marine habitats in Ireland and that habitats 1120 and 8330 do not occur in Ireland. The 11 coastal habitats used by the contractor, are habitats: 1130, 1140, 1150, 1210, 1220, 1230, 1310, 1320, 1330, 1410 and 1420.  The four marine habitats used by the contractor are 1110, 1160, 1170, and 8330. These numbers are taken from ETC-BD data, which was based on the reports submitted by Member States for the 2001-2006 reporting period and quality control checked by the ETC-BD to create a consistent dataset comparable across all MS. The report for Ireland contained information on habitat 8330, sea caves, see: http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,6442,en.pdf   The entire dataset is publicly-available at http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ . Further details on the QA and QC Report on Final Delivery from Ireland at: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/habitats-art17report/library?l=/qualityassurancereports/art17_reportpdf_19/_EN_1.0_&a=d  The Contractor has not amended the tables as suggested by the Member State in order to retain consistency between all MS profiles so that a cross-EU analysis can be made.','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=TitleQA/QC Report on Final Delivery from Ireland: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/habitats-art17report/library?l=/qualityassurancereports/art17_reportpdf_19/_EN_1.0_&a=d The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland: http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,6442,en.pdf','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_1_4','','Ireland reported that, in 2009, it had 12 surveillance stations and 21 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Ireland has 113 coastal water bodies. Approximately 10% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates. A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is being developed.Surveys have been carried out on sand dunes and salt marshes. Part of these surveys was to identify threats and suggest management measures for the various habitats. The survey results will feed directly into the Water Framework Directive programme of work. The salt marsh survey in particular (which involved the survey of 131 sites) will help towards the development of River Basin Management Plans.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfRyle, T., Murray, A., Connolly, C., & Swann, M. (2009) Coastal Monitoring Project 2004-2006. Unpublished Report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service.McCorry, M. (2007). Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2006. Unpublished report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.McCorry, M. & Ryle, T. (2010). Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2007-2008. Unpublished report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','27/04/10'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_1_5','','Ireland reported the status of the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) as follows:  - The responsibility for Integrated Coastal Zone Management was transferred from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November 2009.  - Other functions in relation to the foreshore were also transferred to Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government following the enactment of the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009 (Number 39 of 2009)  - The transfer of the foreshore functions under this Bill is part of an overall strategy to modernise the foreshore consent system as on a phased basis.  - At present legislation and policy regarding the coastal zone depends on if the activity or development is above or below the high water mark of ordinary or medium tides. The Foreshore Act, 1933 (as amended) governs the regulation and granting of consents regarding activities or developments below the line of high water of ordinary or medium tides with 12 nautical miles being the outer limit.  With regard to development above the high water mark, since the Local Government Act of 2001, the maritime boundaries of cities, counties and towns are deemed to coincide with the ordinary high water mark (except where such boundaries already extend beyond that high water mark). - It is envisaged that the measures outlined will ensure greater cohesion between the consent systems for below and above the high water mark leading to a more integrated management of the coastal zone and coastal marine environment.The status of the development of a Marine Spatial Strategy / Coastal Zone Management Policy was reported and summarised as follows:  - The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government as part of the foreshore modernisation process, in collaboration with the Marine Institute and other key stakeholders intend to bring forward proposals to develop a marine spatial planning framework (including integrated Coastal Zone Management). This will clarify allowable location/type of development on the foreshore (and beyond the foreshore limits) to guide/direct decision-makers and users towards appropriate spatial uses of the foreshore and the efficient, sustainable use of marine resources. This process will ensure a more integrated approach between the existing planning system and the marine environment.  - Integrated coastal zone management is currently supported by the planning system. Since its inception, the planning system has had a broad remit, not only in the proper planning of our land resources but also in environmental protection and will continue to play a major part in relation to coastal zone management.  - The Planning and Development Act, 2000 was introduced to ensure that the Irish planning system can face the challenges meeting the country as it continues to grow and prosper. New requirements for forward and strategic planning have been introduced. A sustainable development ethos has been explicitly incorporated into the planning system. Under the provisions of the Act, each local planning authority must prepare a development plan setting out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.  - The 2000 Planning and Development Act provides that a planning authority’s development plan may include objectives for, inter alia: Regulating, restricting or controlling development in areas at risk of flooding (whether inland or coastal), erosion and other natural hazards;  regulating, restricting and controlling the development of coastal areas and development in the vicinity of inland waterways;  regulating, restricting and controlling development on the foreshore, or any part of the foreshore.','','','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_2','','Ireland currently has 122 coastal bathing areas. A relatively high proportion of these reached mandatory standards on water quality in 2008 (95.1%), although this was down from 96.7% in 2006 and 2007. The proportion reaching the stricter guidelines standards on water quality has also declined from 91.0% in 1996 to 80.3% in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations, out of 71 sampling stations in the Atlantic off the Irish coast the majority have seen no change in nitrogen concentrations between 1985 and 2005, with one station recording a decrease.  However 6 of these stations have recorded an increase in phosphate concentrations. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_4','','Ireland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €46,355,000and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity of fisheries targeting over-exploited stocks. Axis 3 (€12,800,000) supports an environmentally friendly and responsible approach specifically in the shellfish industry and includes adoption of fishing practices with lower benthic impacts, and Axis 4 (€7,200,603) promotes sustainable development and the improvement of coastal environments. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_63_en.htm','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','23/04/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Ireland had 1,843 vessels and 12% were involved in a serious infringement (223 vessels). A total of 1 penalty was imposed but no fine. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_5_2','','Ireland has a specific Salmon restoration plan which includes activities to restore habitats and remove migratory barriers. No further information was provided on restoration plans for other diadromous species. ','','','http://www.cfb.ie/fisheries_protection/salmonmanagement.htm','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_5_3','','Although there has been an overall decrease in Ireland’s fishing capacity between 1999 and 2008 it has not been a consistent trend with some small increases in 2006. Fishing power is now 7% lower than that in 1999, but the number of vessels and tonnage has increased due to efforts to modernise the fleet. The operational programme 2007-2013 reports that it is now clear that fishing capacity exceeds the available resource, and this is particularly the case for monkfish and mackerel. There is a national decommissioning scheme in operation to reduce capacity from the whitefish sector by 47 vessels (8,904 tons). This will mainly target the polyvalent and beam trawl vessels over 18m in length. Priorities for decommissioning include vessels catching quantities of cod, haddock, whiting, monkfish, hake, plaice, sole, Nephrops, and in the case of certain vessels mackerel and herring. As part of the Strategy for a Restructured, Sustainable and Profitable Seafood Industry 2007-2013, Ireland is also investigating the need for a targeted decommissioning scheme for vessels less than 18m in length.','','2008 data: 2023 vessels: 69866 tons; 193,409 KW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Ireland had 1,843 active vessels. There were 39 type D breaches in this year and 1 penalty imposed but no fine. Ireland is undertaking a number of activities to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos including modification of fishing gear and implementation of by-catch limits. For example in the Irish sea cod fishery vessels are required to use a range of gear modifications that reduces by catch particularly of juveniles. Sea Fisheries Protection Officers engage in active inspection of fishing vessels to ensure that they comply with bycatch regulations and also engage fishermen to educate them on bycatch limits and data logging. The Naval Services also supports enforcement especially of protected areas where trawling is prohibited. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','23/4/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_6_2','','Shark MonitoringThe Central Fisheries Board, which has responsibility for developing and promoting recreational sea angling, commenced an elasmobranch tag and recapture programme in 1970, which continues to the present day (2010). The programme was initiated in response to declines in angling catches of these important recreational species and the paucity of knowledge about these species in Irish waters. Approximately 40,000 elasmobranchs have been tagged to date. Up to 2006, a total of16,804 blue shark (Prionace glauca) were tagged, with 813 recaptured (Green et al, 2008). The pattern of recaptures reinforces the decision to consider the North Atlantic separate to the Mediterranean and South Atlantic for assessment purposes. An analysis of CPUE data from 1978 to 2006 for the entire Irish blue shark sport fishery shows a decline especially since the late 1990s. Data from a subset of 10 skippers/boats representing vessels that have been under the same skippers and have used uniform fishing methods since 1989 confirms this trend. In the past decade effort in the Irish sport fishery has declined as a response to reduced catch rates, which provides further strong evidence that abundance of blue sharks in Irish coastal waters has declined.The longterm tagging and angling catch datasets for the remaining key elasmobranch species (thornback ray (Raja clavata), undulate ray (Raja  undulata), tope (Galeorhinus galeus), porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and angel shark (Squatina squatina) are currently being analysed. Unpublished data (Green, pers. comm) shows a consistent decline in angel shark abundance in the recreational angling fishery.       Seabird monitoring In total 24 seabird species regularly breed along the Irish coastline. During the breeding season Ireland holds internationally important populations of over 10 of these seabird species.  Selected seabird colonies were investigated (2006-2008) with the principle aim to establish sample plots for monitoring the productivity of seabirds breeding at selected (SPA) colonies in Ireland. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Ireland has 66 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). In December 2007 temporary protection measures were adopted for four candidate Natura 2000 sites in Irish waters. This required amendments to the 2008 ((EC) 40/2008) and 2009 ((EC43/2009) TAC & Quota Regulations. Work is underway to enable assessment of fisheries impacts in marine Natura2000 sites within territorial waters. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 100Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 4 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on formal requests for CFP measures in N2000 sites.','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A3','A3_7_1','','Ireland has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2010. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Ireland outlines how data for the ecosystem indicators in Appendix XIII will be collected. For indicators 1-4, data will be collected in the Western IBTS Fourth Quarter Groundfish Survey, the Spawning Herring Acoustic Survey, the Pre-spawning Herring Acoustic Survey and the Blue Whiting Acoustic Survey. In addition, underwater TV surveys will collect information for Indicator 1 on the conservation status of fish species in ICES zones VIIb, VIIa and VIIg. For indicators 5-7, the Marine Institute will be granted access to VMS data by SFPA for the purposes of the Data Collection Regulation (DCR). Currently, vessel position data at collected hourly or every two hours for all Irish vessels over 15 m. This frequency can be increased to half hourly for the purposes of the DCR. It has already proven possible to link daily VMS positional data with logbook information for the Irish fleet thus allowing all positional data to be classified to level 6. The distribution of fishing activities, aggregation of fishing activities and areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears can be mapped and provided as required.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','07/05/2010','na','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean trophic index for the Irish EEZ in 2004 was 3.73. This represents an increase of 0.02 since 1999 and an increase of 0.17 since 1984.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A4','A4_3','','','','','','23/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A4','A4_4_1','','Ireland has published guidance for the tourism industry on the protection of biodiversity.  While the CBD guidelines have not been formally implemented, most aspects are in use in practice.','','','http://www.noticenature.ie/files/Tourism-and-the-Environment.pdf','23/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Irish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 3.5 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56). However, only spendings under category 56 are foreseen by the Irish Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','23/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Ireland has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction to the wild and control and eradication of IAS. The primary pieces of legislation relating to IAS in Ireland are the Wildlife Act 1976 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act of 2000. This legislation prohibits the introduction into the wild of any wild species without a license. The legislation also contains provisions for the control of IAS in Ireland. Under this legislation, the Minister can regulate to prohibit the possession or introduction of wild species which pose a threat to native species. The Regulation on the Control of Importation of Wild Animals and Wild Birds (1989) provides that the importation of live wild birds or animals is subject to licence by the Minister.A review of legislative provisions relating to invasive species and their enforcement in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland was undertaken by the \"Invasive Species in Ireland Project\" (see under Policy below) and completed in May 2008. This makes recommendations for improvements and may result in the development of dedicated invasive species legislation.. As a result, improved legislation to include a list of IAS for regulation is currently being prepared.  ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink:http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/ ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species (IAS) identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 34 are present in Ireland. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.According to the updated information from the Member States, 48 of the 163 EEA/SEBI listed species are currently found in Ireland.  Distribution maps are available for 44 of these species. ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','23/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_1_2','','A review of the legislative provisions relating to invasive alien species (IAS) in Ireland was completed in May 2008. Although no decisions have been made to date, the results of the review may lead to the development of dedicated IAS legislation. Under the National Biodiversity Plan for Ireland (2002-2006), proposals for addressing the effects of IAS on native biodiversity were published (in particular Articles 28, 29 and 30). The National Biodiversity Plan (2002) is under review and IAS will be a key theme focused on. A new Biodiversity Plan is due for publication in 2010. Invasive plant species are also covered by Target 10 of Ireland’s National Plant Conservation Strategy.The Birds and Habitats Regulations 2010, the drafting of which are being finalised, will provide for:prohibitions on the importation, sale, dispersal, planting or release into the wild of listed invasive/high risk speciespower for the minister to take and co-ordinate measures (Threat Response Plans) to address threats such as those posed by invasive species. power for the Minister to issue best practice guidelines for dealing with established IAS.There will also be provisions in place to allow the Minister to grant derogations for purposes of scientific research etc. where what is proposed does not constitute a threat to biodiversity and habitats.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaire, Invasive species in Ireland report and National Biodiversity PlanWeblink: http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_1_3','','Ireland has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, Ireland has a national database on IAS and the country is also currently developing a national system for information and early warning. The National Invasive Species Database, hosted by the National Biodiversity Data Centre prioritises collection and display of distributional data for species on the priority established and potential invaders species lists. There are currently 20,691 records publically available for 88 priority species.  The Data Centre is developing an early warning system and 6 species alerts have already been issued. Workshops to further develop awareness and support via a focal point network will be delivered to many State Bodies in 2010. The Data Centre also liaises and provides information to European and international IAS information networks such as GISIP, DAISIE and NOBANIS.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://invasivespecies.biodiversityireland.ie/  http://www.invasivespeciesireland.com/  ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A5','A5_2_2','','According to the Member State, no legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming has been adopted. While there is no legal instrument banning GMO cultivation, Ireland remains free of GMO crops. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/  ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A6','A6_1_1','','Ireland has prepared the 4th National Report to the CBD and will submit the report early in May 2010. The National Biodiversity Plan was published in 2002 and a 2nd National Biodiversity Plan will be published in 2010.Ireland had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while the annual contribution to the World Heritage Convention for 2008, as of 31 Dec 2008, had not been made.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid for Ireland.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid for Ireland.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','23/04/2010','','','07/01/2010, 09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A7','A7_1_4','','Ireland contributed EUR5.80 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.24% of the total replenishment. Ireland contributed EUR5.73 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.27 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante SEA have been applied to a number of regional operational programmes in Ireland.','','','','07/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A8','A8_1','','Ireland has provided funds for the CBD Working Group on Access & Benefit-sharing. No national legislation implementing the CBD Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing exists, and no public awareness on the Guidelines has been raised. There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and no awareness has been raised on the sMTA, however, the sMTA is being used for the transfer of crop germplasm. No information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is available. Ireland has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. A low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. Ireland has fully paid up its contributions to CITES, to date.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','23/04/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists, and no public awareness activities have taken place yet.','','','','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Ireland provided funds to the 5th and 6th meetings of the ABS Working Group in 2007 and 2008, respectively.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and no awareness has been raised on the sMTA, however, the sMTA is being used for the transfer of crop germplasm.','','','','07/05/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A8','A8_1_4','','This information is not available.','','','','07/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 23, 7 and 0, respectively. No import, export or re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The aggregate number for seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008 is 89. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and training was provided to the Management and Scientific Authorities and to the enforcement authorities. Ireland contributed funding to a review of Appendix I species and to the Elephant Dialogue meeting prior to CoP 14. Ireland has fully paid up its contributions to CITES, to date.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The exchange rate used for the contribution to the CITES Trust Fund is of 1 January 2010. ','','23/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','A9','','','','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Ireland','A9','A9_4_3','','Scientific studies on climate change impacts on biodiversity are undertaken in Ireland:- Wyse Jackson, P.S. (2007). The potential impact of climate change on native plant diversity in Ireland. BG journal, 4(2): 26-29.- COCOADAPT project: Impacts of climate change on protected species and habitats.- MONARCH project: Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate change.','','','COCOADAPT project: Impacts of climate change on protected species and habitats:http://icarus.nuim.ie/news-events/features/climate-change-and-biodiversity MONARCH project: Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate change:  http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=330&option=com_content&task=view ','23/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','','','No information was available concerning any forums or similar platforms/frameworks to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','14/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','A1','A10_1','','Italy does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to biodiversity; however, biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. The Ministry of Education, University and Research is carrying out two programmes that include biodiversity research: the National Research Programme (PNR) 2010/2013 and the Strategy for the Internationalization of Italian Research (SIRit). In the PNR, the section \"R&D Interventions of main priority for the Country\", sub-section \"Environment: terrestrial and marine systems and climate\", points out biodiversity as one of the issues on which it is fundamental to concentrate social-economical research, in order to achieve sustainable development. Among the research objectives is the development of techniques for determination of the economic value of biodiversity through a careful analysis of ecosystemic services and their subsequent quantification. Within SIRit, all of the international policies of Italian research for biodiversity are going to be stressed from the viewpoint of achieving sustainable development.','','The NBS in development pays attention to research aspects regarding biodiversity conservation and refers to the above-mentioned activities of the Ministry for Education, University and Research','','14/04/2010','','','30/03/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Italy is planning a follow up the the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as part of either a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the EEA European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA). Italy indicates that the assessment of ecosystem services plays a relevant role for future activities since the National Biodiversity Strategy in development stresses biodiversity conservation and restoration in order to assure maintenance of ecosystem services which are fundamental for Earth life and human wellbeing. The framework, experiences and findings of the original MA (2001-2005) are utilized in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation in Italy.','','','','14/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','A10_1_8','','Italy does not currently have a national biodiversity platform, but an initiative is under way to create a National Network on Biodiversity (NNB) to explore, describe and understand patterns in biodiversity and the processes that maintain biodiversity in space and time at the gene, species and ecosystem levels. It will offer integrated access to large scale data resources, advanced algorithms and computational capability to support knowledge and research on biodiversity. The NNB is going to be a research platform to support public administrations in biodiversity conservation and to share information. The platform is under construction, with a timeline adhering to the commencement of the LIFEWATCH project. ','','An Italian Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform was created within the European Forest Based Sector Technology Platform-European Partnership for Research and Development, aimed at preservation of the forest ecosystem.Italy is taking part to the Preparatory Phase of:- AURORA BOREALIS;- MSO - European Multidisciplinary Seafloor Observatory;- EURO_ARGO - Global Ocean Observing Infrastructure;- LIFEWATCH - Science and Technology Infrastructure For Biodiversity Data and Observatories;- EMBRC - European Marine Biologic Resource Centre.within the realization process of infrastructures of strategic priority for Europe that were identified by the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info European Platform for BIodiversity, http://www.bioplatform.info/ http://piattaformaforestale.org/documenti/it-SRA-forestale.pdfftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/docs/esfri_roadmap_update_2008.pdf   ','14/04/2010','','','na','30/03/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','A10_1_9','','Italy is not currently a Participant or Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. Several organisations participate in ENBI in Italy. The Department of Environmental Sciences at the Universita degli Studi della Tuscia and Finsiel Territorio e Ambiente, part of Finsiel Consulenza, a private company, are both members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. The Biotechnology Department at the National Institute for Cancer Research and the Council for Research and Experimentation in Agriculture both are members of Work Package 5: Checklists and species banks. The International Plant Genetic Research Institute is a member of Work Package 6: Collections. The Institute of Research on Maritime Fish at the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche participates as a member of Work Package 11: Multilingual access. Finally, the biotechnology department at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development is a member of Work Package 12: Information services on European data.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','14/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','30/03/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 50% or more of each habitat type are reported to be in favourable condition. 2 of the 5 (40%) heath and scrub habitats, 33% both freshwater habitats (4 of the 12) and forests (8 of the 24), and 4 of the 13 (31%) grasslands are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 1 of the 3 (33%) of sclerophyllous scrub habitats is reported as unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 3 of 3 (100%) of heath and scrub habitats are in favourable condition. 8 of the 9 (89%) and 5 of the 6 (83%) of rocky habitats and bogs, mires and fens are also reported to be in favourable condition respectively. Just over half (58%) of grasslands and freshwater habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. 4 of the 6 (67%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 5 of the 11 (45%) coastal habitats and 2 of the 12 (17%) grasslands is reported as unknown.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 1 of 4 (25%) of coastal habitats are in favourable condition. The remaining 3 of the 4 (75%) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. In the Mediterranean biogeographical region 5 of 5 (100%) rocky habitats are in favourable condition. Half or more of sclerophyllous scrub habitats (7 of the 11 or 64%), freshwater habitats (8 of the 12 or 67%), heath and scrub (2 of the 3 or 67%), forests (21 of the 28 or 75%), fens, bogs and mires (4 of the 5 or 80%), and grasslands (9 of the 11 or 82%,) are also reported to be in favourable condition. 4 of the 9 (44%) and 2 of the 9 (22%) dune habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate and an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. 4 of the 9 (44%) of coastal habitats are reported as of unknown condition as are 2 of the 9 (22%) of dunes habitats.','26/03/2010','The high percentage of habitat types in a favourable conservation status results from collected data which refer exclusively to habitats inside the Sites of Community Importance and not across the whole national territory. So in many cases data source addressed expert judgement to more positive evaluations than those ones that should originate from conservation status assessments across the whole national territory: it is a matter of fact that the inclusion in Natura 2000 sites guarantees a better conservation status and better management conditions for all habitats and species. Paradoxically data source affected in a more evident way evaluations about critically endangered habitat types like peat bogs. Sometimes positive evaluations on the conservation status are due to the fact that some seminatural habitat types of community interest, still common across the whole national territory (e.g. habitat type 6210 and 6220), maintain a good conservation status owing to an ancient coexistence between sheep farming and natural environment.Furthermore the almost complete impossibility of evaluating quantitatively the favourable reference values (FRVs) could have induced to more positive evaluations of the conservation status. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionsHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported  AlpineFreshwater habitats650%433%18%18%00%12Heath & scrub360%240%00%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub267%00%00%133%00%3Grasslands862%431%00%18%00%13Bogs, mires & fens675%225%00%00%00%8Rocky habitats990%00%110%00%00%10Forests1563%833%00%14%00%24ContinentalCoastal habitats218%436%00%545%00%11Dunes habitats19%545%436%19%00%11Freshwater habitats758%542%00%00%00%12Heath & scrub3100%00%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub233%467%00%00%00%6Grasslands758%325%00%217%00%12Bogs, mires & fens583%117%00%00%00%6Rocky habitats889%111%00%00%00%9Forests943%1257%00%00%00%21Marine Mediterranean Coastal habitats125%375%00%00%00%4Rocky habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats222%333%00%444%00%9Dunes habitats111%444%222%222%00%9Freshwater habitats867%433%00%00%00%12Heath & scrub267%133%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub764%327%00%19%00%11Grasslands982%19%00%19%00%11Bogs, mires & fens480%120%00%00%00%5Rocky habitats5100%00%00%00%00%5Forests2175%414%14%27%00%28','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Italy has designated 2284 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 45,236 km², totalling 14.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 287 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 2300 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 591, with a total area of 43,670 km², totalling 13.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 55, with a marine area of 2870km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: Ministry for the Environment; NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update); Natura 2000 databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','According to the Article 6.1 of the Habitat Directive that states that management plans are not mandatory, (\"For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.\") the Italian Regions drew up conservation measures for most of the SPAs; they are also establishing conservation measures and if needed management plans for the SCIs of the Alpine, Continental and Mediterranean biogeographical regions.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','A1_2_3','','Ecological connectivity is mainly implemented through Regional Ecological Networks which are strictly connected to vast area planning and to landscape planning. Most Regions have developed their own instruments and are going to give them a legal basis (e.g. RERU Rete Ecologica della Regione Umbria weblink: http://www.agriforeste.regione.umbria.it/canale.asp?id=511).','','Reinforcing compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity conservation is mainly implemented through Regional Ecological Networks. Ecological network policies are strictly connected to vast area planning and, general speaking, with landscape planning. ',':','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','A1_3','','Of the 352 regularly occurring bird species in Italy, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 8 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Italy, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 9 of the 31 (29%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of the 34 (24%) invertebrates, 10 of the 40 (25%) mammals and 36 of the 52 (69%) plants was reported to be favourable. 14 of the 31 (45%) of amphibians and reptile, 11 of the 16 (69%) of fish and 16 of the 40 (40%) of mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 16 of the 34 (47%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 40 (28%) of mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 31 (23%) of amphibians and reptiles and 13% apiece, 2 of the 16 for fish and 7 of the 52 for plants was reported to be unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 13 of the 32 (41%) amphibians and reptiles and 22 of the 40 (55%) of plants are in a favourable condition. 11 of the 32 (34%) amphibians and reptiles, 12 of the 26 (46%) fish, 15 of the 35 (43%) mammals and 13 of the 40 (33%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 19 of the 35 (54%) invertebrates, 8 of the 26 (31%) fish and 11 of the 35 (31%) mammals is reported to be unfavourable-bad. The condition of 7 of the 32 (22%) amphibians and reptiles and 12% of fish  ( 3 of the 26) and plants ( 3 of the 8 ) was reported to be unknown. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, I of the 6 (17%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 6 (17%) invertebrates and 2 of the 14 (14%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 5 (60%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of 8 (100%) fish, 4 of the 6 (67%) invertebrates and 7 of the 14 (50%) mammals was reported unknown. In addition, 2 of the 5 (40%) amphibians and reptiles and 5 of the 14 (36%) of mammals was not reported. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 20 of the 48 (42%) amphibians and reptiles and 40 of the 68 (59%) of mammals are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 17 (41%) fish and 19 of the 44 (43%) plants was reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 13 of the 29 (45%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 11 of the 48 (23%) amphibians and reptiles and 3 of the 17 (18%) fish was reported to be unknown. In addition, the conservation status of 5 of the 68 (7%) mammals was not reported','26/03/2010','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.     In the framework of a research project carried out by LIPU Birdlife Italy for the Italian Ministry for Environment the conservation status of 100 bird species, which are listed in Annexes to the Directive 79/409/CEE and are present in Italy, was assessed through the determination of favourable reference values (FRVs). Out of 75 \"non Passeriformes\" species included in Annex I and nesting in Italy, 7 result in a good conservation status (green), 35 in an inadequate conservation status (amber) while 33 are in a bad conservation status (red). Among non Passeriformes species that are in worse conditions are Galliformes (5 species out of 7 are in a bad conservation status, 2 inadequate) and Puffinus puffinus that seems to be in a great trouble in all the Mediterranean countries. As regards to Passeriformes even 11 species out of 13 considered result in a bad conservation status, the remaining 2 are respectively in an inadequate and in an unknown conservation status.    With regards to flora it is necessary to point out how the lack of detailed information about the current distribution of a lot of species could have affected evaluations to more positive ones; for flora in fact often there is no certainty if a species is still present at some of the sites recorded in bibliography. Furthermore the almost complete impossibility of evaluating quantitatively the favourable reference values (FRVs) could have induced to more positive evaluations regarding the conservation status.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html;ftp://ftp.scn.minambiente.it/docs/Relazione_Finale_Progetto_FSC_21_Aprile_2009.pdf ','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','There are 5 action plans for birds, 3 for mammals and 1 for fish completed, with further action plans in preparation. All these Action Plans are National Action Plans; for the Amphibians and Reptiles there are some Regional Action/Management Plans; for the Invertebrates the guidelines for monitoring and conservation of saproxilic coleoptera included in the Annex of the Habitat Directive are in preparation; for the Chiroptera there are guidelines for their conservation in buildings. The Common farmland bird index is mainly developed from the common bird monitoring scheme Monitoraggio ITaliano Ornitologico (MITO).All existing red lists (for the vertebrate groups and for plants) are produced by independent organisations and, up to now, they have no official endorsement by the Italian Ministry for Environment.A Checklist of the species of the Italian fauna is available on line, in which the degree of threat of the species is indicated. Weblink: http://www.faunaitalia.it/checklist/index.htmlMoreover a repertoire of Italian fauna and flora, in which the status of the species, threats and measures of conservation are reported, is available on line. Weblink: http://www.iucn.it/documenti/flora.fauna.htm     ','','','www.minambiente.it (under section \"biblioteca\"); http://www.iucn.it/documenti/flora.fauna.htm','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','B1_1_1','','In Italy, there are various sources of funding for biodiversity. Besides national funding, decentralized cooperation promoted and funded by Regional Councils and local authorities has become more important over the last years. The 4th National Report to the CBD provides many examples of funding from national budgets (although there are no specific funding resources for Natura 2000 in ordinary national resources), including cofinancing of EU funds and funding from regional and local government sources.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Italy spent up to EUR13,090,791 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on programmes is taken from the 4th National Report of Italy to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 sites refers to Italy’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.At European level there are no clear indications how to report on expenditures for Natura 2000 activities. Consequently it is impossible to globally assess Natura 2000 expenditures.The data reported for Life projects in 2008 refer only to EU contributions for \"Natura and Biodiversity\"; other 10 million Euros come from the national contribution (including regional funds). About 40% (9,200,000 Euros) of the total sum (23,000,000 Euros) was spent for management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites.As reported in the Questionnaire \"Preparatory Actions for Natura 2000: The Economic and Social Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network\" (2009), 18,000 Euros are the expenditure in 2008 (European and national funds) for management and restauration of Natura 2000 sites. This datum is partial, coming from 14 Regions out of 21 (source: questionnaire prepared by IEEP, GHK and Ecologic for the European Commission, DG Environment). As already stated at the beginning, the expenditure is based on approximate and incomplete data, referring for each region to different data sources and funds, even because regions often have a general budget for all protected areas without distinction for Natura 2000 sites.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','B1_1_4','','Italy’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR57.1m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR97.6m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR238.1m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','26/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','B1_1_8','','No information available.','','','','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','B2_4','','Italy’s National Biodiversity Strategy is under development and foreseen for approval for the end of 2010. The Strategy will focus on the new challenges from 2010 onwards, and builds on results achieved in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','www.minambiente.it','14/04/2010','','','30/032010',''),
	('Italy','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','B3_1_2','','The Ministry for Agriculture set up the \"National Table for a Concerted Action to lay down the 2007-2013 planning phase for Rural Development\" by means of the Decree 960/05. The main aim of the Table was to assure contributions from institutional, economical and social partnerships in working out the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (PSN). Within the revision process of the PSN and of the Rural Development Programmes promoted by the Health Check, the Ministry for Agriculture assured the coordination and participation of all the Administrations and of all the subjects of the institutional, socio-economic and environmental partnerships in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of Rural Development planning and its integration with sectorial policies.At the regional level, a surveillance committee ensures the participation process of all the institutional and socio-economic partnerships on the analogy of the National Table for a Concerted Action for RD for every regional rural development programme.','','Institutions and bodies who took part in the \"National Table for a Concerted Action to lay down the 2007-2013 planning phase for Rural Development\" were following:- Ministry for Economy;- Ministry for Environment;- Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Department for Gender Equality;- Ministry for Fine Arts and Cultural Activities;- Italian Regions and Autonomous Provinces Trento and Bolzano;- AGEA (Agency for Agricultural Allocations);- ISTAT (National Institute of Statistics);- INEA (National Institute for Agricultural Economy);- ISMEA.(Institute for Agricultural and Food Marketing Services);- professional and cooperative organizations of agricultural and forest sectors;- main environmental associations;- National Observatory for juvenile contracting class in agriculture (Osservatorio nazionale per l\'imprenditoria giovanile in agricoltura - OIGA);- National Observatory for female contracting class in agriculture (Osservatorio nazionale per l\'imprenditoria femminile in agricoltura -ONILFA);- ANCI (National Association Italian Municipalities;- UNCEM (National Union Municipalities, Communities and Mountain Bodies);- UPI (Union Italian Provinces);- main trade unions;- main consumers associations;- stakeholders from industrial, agri-industrial, trade and bank sectors.','','15/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','A1','B3_1_5','','In Italy, the Ministry for Food and Agricultural and Forestry Policies prepares a National Strategic Plan(NSP) which is the principal policy at the national level. The Regions draw up regional planning documents, called Rural Development Plans (RDP). Italy does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for ItalyWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','15/04/10','','','11/12/2009','15/04/10'),
	('Italy','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any forums or similar platforms/frameworks to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','14/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any forums or similar platform/frameworks set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','15/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','15/04/10','','','24/04/10',''),
	('Italy','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','B4_1_1','','Communication activities on the BAP have been carried out with the support of WWF Italy. The main outcomes are available on the web and include a translation of the BAP, a video, slide presentation poster, three brochures and 12 posters for a travelling exhibition.The campaign started in 2009 and the focus was on the NBS and on the results achieved within the BAP. The main outcomes of the campaign will be taken over by an outreach campaign for the IYB.','','','http://www.minambiente.it/opencms/opencms/menu/menu_attivita/Progetto__Verso_la_Strategia_Nazionale_p.html http://www.minambiente.it/opencms/opencms/home_it/menu.html?mp=/menu/menu_attivita/&m=argomenti.html|biodiversita_fa.html|Anno_iternazionale_della_Biodiversita.html&lang=it','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','A1','B4_1_2','','The Ministry for Environment \"Ministero dell\'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare\" (13/06/2005), Agenzia Regionale per i Parchi - Regione Lazio (28/12/2006), Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale della Sicilia (01/10/2005), Centro Flora Autoctona (Native Flora Centre of Lombardy) (23/05/2007), Ente Foreste della Sardegna (08/10/2007), Parco Nazionale dell\' Arcipelago di la Maddalena (01/07/2006) have all made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initiative. Some of the activities Italy has been involved in include:The Ministero dell\'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare organized a side event dedicated to Countdown 2010 at the first Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group on Protected Areas held in Montecatini Terme in 2005. Commitments of Agenzia Regionale l Parchi have included active support towards the Lazio regional government in developing a comprehensive biodiversity strategy identifying the main policy approaches and actions to be adopted to prevent the loss of biological diversity. The agency also highlighted biodiversity conservation as one of the core goals for the establishment of new protected areas and for the management of already existing ones.Centro Flora Autoctona (Native Flora Centre of Lombardy) communicated that it would contribute to the halt of biodiversity loss through several actions including the following: storing plant germplasm in the Lombardy Seed Bank, (including seeds of rare and threatened species, species endemic to Lombardy and species useful for environmental engineering), analysing the population status of plant species within and outside protected areas, ex situ propagation of native species to investigate their germination characteristics and reproductive biology, restock small populations (using potted plants), aid environmental engineering (using potted plants and seed mixtures).Ente Foreste della Sardegna communicated that it was committed to halting biodiversity decline, by promoting the topics of biodiversity, sustainable development and Countdown 2010 in environmental education and communication activities. It also assists local institutions in implementing energy policies based on sustainable use. Another priority is the conservation of species and Natura 2000 network habitats, managed by Ente Foreste della SardegnaParco Nazionale dell\' Arcipelago di la Maddalena contributes to Countdown 2010 with the European Lobster Realization Project in the waters of the park\'s re-population areas. The focus has been placed on controlling and eradicating hybrid boars. Monitoring the Marangone dal ciuffo and the fishing impact performed by the fishermen in the parks waters was also identified as a priority.Between 2006-2008, the Italian government cntributed 910,000 euros to fund IUCN Countdown projects. ','','In 2006, Italy contributed 100,000 euros to Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Forum-Curitiba Italy and 250,000 euros as the Italian contribution towards halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. In 2007, Italy contributed 335,000 euros for the Strategic partnership Agreement with the Ministry of Environment 2007-2008. In 2008, Italy contributed 25,500 euros to support the Pan-European Members Meeting, 9 Oct 2008, Barcelona. Also in 2008, Italy contributed 200,000 euros as the Post 2010 - Italian Contribution','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','24/04/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','C1_2','','Italy applies 4 of the SEBI indicators directly, with a further five indicators where Italy applies similar ones. There are also nine further indicators for biodiversity, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress. ',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','C1_2_1','','Italy applies 4 of the SEBI indicators directly, with a further five indicators where Italy applies similar ones. There are also the following nine further indicators for biodiversity, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators:Hunting densityOrganization of fishingEcological value distribution according to the Map of NatureWetlands of International importanceAnthropogenic pressure on wetlands of International importanceSpread of forest firesDefoliation of forest species canopyState of carrying out of planning in National ParksInclusion of Ecological Network in ordinary planning','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. ',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://annuario.apat.it/annuarioDoc.php?lang=EN','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A1','C1_3_1','','There are few monitoring activities carried out at national level, mostly by the Istituto Nazionale Protezione Ricerca Biodiversità (ISPRA), with a focus on mammals, birds and marine habitats and species. Basically monitoring activity is organised at regional level and in most cases monitoring schemes are not strictly divided into the above-mentioned categories. All regions have several ongoing monitoring activities, which inter alia cover habitat and species of community interest. A closer coordination at national level of regional activities is planned for the future also in relation to the National Network on Biodiversity described under point 10.1.8. ','','','','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures of particular relevance to biodiversity conservation have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other additional GAEC measures address:Arable stubble managementMinimum land management that reflects site-specific conditionsRetention of terracesStandards for crop rotationsMinimum soil cover standardsAvoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural landProhibition of the grubbing up of olive treesMaintenance of olive groves and vines in good vegetative conditionEstablishment of buffer strips along water courses (from 1st January 2012)Compliance with authorisation procedures for the use of water for irrigation.In the past, all the standards have been well implemented, with the exception of the two concerning minimum soil cover requirements and the retention of landscape features (including the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees). But implementation has been strengthened as a result of the 2010 Decree for Cross Compliance application at a national level, which applies (EC) no. 73/09.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Italy','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Italy total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 8658.24 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 17269.84 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 3713.25 million EUR, and 7183.22 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 41.37 and 42.27 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Italy was 1991.5 million EUR (3845.49 with co-financing) and amounted to 23 per cent of the EAFRD (22.27 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 17.28 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.2 per cent of EAFRD) and 33.08 million EUR of public expenditure (0.19 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 4.06 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.05 per cent of EAFRD) and 9.06 million EUR of public expenditure (0.05 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 22.45 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.26 per cent of EAFRD) and 43.87 million EUR of public expenditure (0.25 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided.NOTE: Lombardia, Puglia, Calabria and Piemonte missing Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)224.1503433.7839Forest environment payments (225)0.005960.01318','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species is promoted in the national biodiversity action plan and through other means. The Ministry for Agriculture has drawn up the National Plan on Agricultural Biodiversity (PNBA), approved in February 2008, with the aim of providing guidelines for the conservation and exploitation of agricultural genetic resources. Further purposes of the PNBA are:the coordination of all international and national initiatives on agricultural biodiversity;the definition of a national system for agricultural biodiversity conservation involving all the Italian regions according to Law n. 101/2004.The PNBA provides for the formation of the \"Standing Committee for Genetic Resources\" (CPRG), coordinated by the Ministry for Agriculture, with the aim of systematizing knowledge on genetic resources and implementing suitable activities at national and regional level. The in-situ and ex-situ conservation of commercial tree species is also covered under the “Framework Programme for the Forest Sector” (Programma quadro per il settore forestale – PQSF) – See Action 2.1.15). In addition, the National Biodiversity Strategy currently under development is going to address the in situ and ex situ conservation of genetic resources in the working area specifically given to this item.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: National Biodiversity Strategyhttp://www.minambiente.it PQSF http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/416  PNBA http://www.politicheagricole.it/NR/rdonlyres/eqcmef4rz5k4jzt26ixu6jse32hq7axu2sd7edta4iqewcz5bxb63a7xejygi6zaihtdplpteyukmktv2jp4towbztb/20080313_SR_Piano_nazionale_biodiversita_agricoltura.pdf      ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Italy in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national and general guidelines on afforestation are provided by the Ministry of Environment according to Decree 16 June 2005. Requirements take into account biodiversity and environmental concerns regarding forest management and forbid the use of non-native or not naturalised species in afforestation activities. More detailed provisions are available according to regional legislation, as the Regions are responsible for regulating forest management.Deforestation activities are usually not allowed following national forest legislation N. 3267/1923 and N. 227/2001. Change from forest to other forms of land used is only allowed for small, authorised and registered areas. This, according to the Member State, limits the application of related tools.Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not requested for forest management plans. Also Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) are not needed for forest management plans according to letter d, article 6 of the legislative decree No 4/2008. Biodiversity surveys are sometimes carried out in Natura 2000 areas. Most of the Italian Regions established specific legislation to regulate forest management policies and identified organisation models for the forest administration in a long-term programmatic document, the Regional Forest Programme (PFR – Piano Forestale Regionale). During the periodic reviews of the PFR, specific sectoral goals, actions and resources are identified.In addition, a general strategy on forest management is provided by the “Framework Programme for the Forest Sector” (Programma quadro per il settore forestale – PQSF). The Programme, as part of the Rural Development Programme, will last ten years (2009 - 2018) and will guide all forest activities carried out in Italy in this period.As Italian forest surface significantly increased during the last 50 years, reaching some 10 million hectares in 2005, afforestation is no longer a big priority for the Italian forest administrations. Some afforestation activities are still carried out using the EU funds provided by EC Regulation No 1698/2005, coordinated and implemented by the Regions according to regional rural development plans analysed and approved by the European Commission.','','','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: PQSFhttp://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/416  State Forest Servicehttp://www.corpoforestale.it http://www.ambientediritto.it:80/Legislazione/Boschi/2005/dm%2016giu2005.htm ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Italy had a total certified forest area of 765,868 hectares out of a total forest area of 9.98 million hectares. 48,766 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority is certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 717,102 hectares were certified. In total, 7.68 per cent of the forest area in Italy was certified.According to reporting by the Member State, as of 31 December 2009, 744,538.68 hectares of the Italian forest area are certified by the PEFC system, with a growth of 28.435,29 hectares in comparison with December 2008. In 2010, the total amount of forest area certified by FSC equals 62,281.91 hectares with an increase of 19.322.2 hectares. On the whole there is a growth of about the 45% in comparison to figures in 2008.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asphttp://www.fsc-italia.it/index.php?module=News&catid=&topic=6 http://www.pefc.it ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Italy amounted to 6.13 million ha, representing a share of 33.4 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. Detailed information on work carried out by the Member State with regard to HNV farmland can be found under A2.1.8.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures of particular relevance to biodiversity conservation have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other additional GAEC measures address:Arable stubble managementMinimum land management that reflects site-specific conditionsRetention of terracesStandards for crop rotationsMinimum soil cover standardsAvoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural landProhibition of the grubbing up of olive treesMaintenance of olive groves and vines in good vegetative conditionEstablishment of buffer strips along water courses (from 1st January 2012)Compliance with authorisation procedures for the use of water for irrigation.In the past, all the standards have been well implemented, with the exception of the two concerning minimum soil cover requirements and the retention of landscape features (including the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees). But implementation has been strengthened as a result of the 2010 Decree for Cross Compliance application at a national level, which applies (EC) no. 73/09.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','13/05/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State, no training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_8','','According to reporting by the Member State, national and regional monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory RDP biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	HNV farming.•	HNV forestry.•	Tree species composition.To satisfy the RDP\'s evaluation requirements the Farmland Bird Index was calculated in 2005 at regional and national levels on the basis of a national list of bird species. A process of revision of the index is currently under way, in order to improve its effectiveness at local levels. The regional lists of species have been revised in order to be more consistent with regional situations, and representative of farmland.Currently no detailed data on high nature value farmland is available. An analysis is being carried out in the framework of the ‘National Rural Network’ programme (rete rurale). In July 2009 guidelines for an evaluation of high nature value forest areas at national and regional level were developed by the \"Environment and GAEC\" Task Force within the same programme. HNV farming and forestry indicators are therefore in a process of methodological improvement.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/844 http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/D.6dc0dfede6bdac659ae7/P/BLOB:ID%3D2129 http://www.governo.it/GovernoInforma/Dossier/rete_rurale/brochure_ita.pdfhttp://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2130 http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/1687 http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2265 http://www.lipu.it/pdf/pdf_agricoltura/PSR%20e%20biodiversit%E0%20LIPU.pdf','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 465 million € has been added to the Italian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Italy attributed € 86 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 18 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programme on soil biodiversity has been implemented. To date, only regional activities have been carried out, both for -	microbiological indicators (e.g., a yearly monitoring of microbiological and biochemical indicators - identified according to Bloem et al., 2005 - has been implemented since 2005 for the whole Latium Region; work is mostly undertaken by CRA (Consiglio per la Ricerca e sperimentazione in Agricoltura), and -	soil fauna (eg, ARPA Piedmont annually monitors regional soils, and is using the QBS-ar Index, as provided by the Regional SOE Yearly Reports since 2003,) The ISPRA “Progetto Speciale Funghi” specifically addresses the innovative use of mycological indicators. It is operative since 2007 and gathers, through a series of conferences, the experience of the best national experts and the “Mycological Association Bresadola-Mycological Study Centre” (AMB-CSM) on the utilisation of fungi as biological indicators of land quality. A national project called SIAS (“Sviluppo di Indicatori Ambientali sul Suolo in Italia - Development of Soil Indicators in Italy”) provides the opportunity of an exchange of soil data and maps. It has the objective of collecting soil data from soil data providers at regional level, in order to assemble, at the first stage, Italian maps on soil organic carbon. In this regard, a 1km x 1km grid has been prepared for each Italian region. Each region should provide only data for its cells.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://rsaonline.arpa.piemonte.it/rsa2009/rapporto_2009/index0451.html?option=com_content&view=category&id=11&Itemid=46 http://www.arpa.piemonte.it/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=getit&lid=2347  http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/Meusis/italy.html http://www.arpa.piemonte.it/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&btitle=CE&mid=&ceid=717 http://rsaonline.arpa.piemonte.it/rsa2009/rapporto_2009/index1245.html?option=com_content&view=category&id=78&Itemid=292 http://www.apat.gov.it/site/it-IT/Servizi_del_sito/Area_riservata/LoginStanze.html?workspace=50 http://www.apat.gov.it/site/it-IT/Servizi_del_sito/Area_riservata/LoginStanze.html?workspace=32    ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 58 per cent of the continental fresh water habitats in Italy have a favourable conservation status; the status of the remaining 42 per cent is unfavourable. 67 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have a favourable status, 33 per cent have an unfavourable status. With regards to the alpine fresh water habitats in Italy, half have a favourable conservation status. A further 42 per cent have an unfavourable status and the status of the remaining eight per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12570042%58%0%0%U15   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12561042%50%8%0%U14  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12480033%67%0%0%U14  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Italy.According to the Member State, SINTAI is the information system established by law in Italy for data collection and analysis aimed for fulfilment of reporting obligations at EU and national level on protection of inland and marine water.SINTAI is developed and managed by ISPRA – Higher Institute for Environment Protection and Research in its support activity for Italian Ministry of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea.SINTAI manages data channel according to the following EU directives and national legislation where objectives and technical issues are established:Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and its national transposition laws D.Lgs 152/2006, D.M. 131/2008, D.M. 56/2009 and D.M. 17 luglio 2009UWWTD Directive 91/271/ECNitrate Directive 91/676/EC	D.Lgs 152/2009 implemented by D.M. 198/2002 and still effective for data channel on fish and shellfish water and waters used for abstraction of drinking waterAnalytic and geographic data transmitted to SINTAI in order to accomplish reporting obligation are to be considered as official and certified data.SINTAI was established in 2004. Past report as UWWTD report in 2007 and 2009, Nitrate report in 2005 and 2008, ex Art. 8 report for Water Framework Directive in 2007 and future report as RBMP report in 2010 are processed through SINTAI which now contains more than 2700 files. ','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Italy had a total number of 390 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 50.8 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, the colour of the water, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Italy did not develop any biological assessment methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters or no information was available.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 2234 in Italy.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Italy had a total number of 5562 IPPC installations and issued 3989 permits. 1588 permits were still outstanding. 11 was the number of permits that that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, Italy has not yet provided 2008 reports, so no data for 2006 to 2007 were available. According to Italy’s 2006 National reporting under the NEC Directive, the country is having difficulties in meeting its designated emission ceilings for nitrogen oxides and ammonia. In 2005 Nitrogen oxides emissions far exceeded the NEC Directive targets and the country does not expect to meet them by 2010.  However, the latest projections show that 2010 emission ceilings for sulphur oxides, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds will be complied with.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Italy the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 69 per cent respectively, considering an area of 124,788 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will also be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 61 per cent in 2010 and 55 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 14 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Italy’s gross nitrogen balance was 39 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 16 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the year 2000 and 2006, Italy’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. In 2005, there was an increase of nearly 10 per cent from the previous year but by 2006 this had decreased to 68.6 per cent, a 31.4 per cent decrease from the year 2000. 27 species were assessed. No data exist for Italy on national farmland bird indicators between 1990 and 2000.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the habitat with the highest percentage of favourable conservation status in Italy are the continental heath and scrub habitats, where all three occurrences are considered favourable. The alpine and Mediterranean heath and scrub habitats in Italy have a generally high level of favourable conservation status (60 and 67 per cent respectively). The remaining alpine and Mediterranean heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable status. 57 per cent of the continental forest habitats in Italy have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 43 per cent is favourable. 63 per cent of the alpine forest habitats in Italy have a favourable status, 33 per cent have an unfavourable status, while the status of the remaining four per cent is unknown. With regards to the Mediterranean forest habitats in Italy, a high percentage (75 per cent) have a favourable status. A further 18 per cent have an unfavourable status while the status of the remaining seven per cent is unknown. 58 per cent of the continental grassland habitats have a favourable conservation status, 25 per cent an unfavourable status and the status of the remaining 17 per cent is unknown. A high percentage (62 per cent) of the alpine grassland habitats in  Italy have a favourable status, while 31 per cent has an unfavourable status and the remaining eight per cent is of unknown status. 82 per cent of the Mediterranean grassland habitats in Italy have a favourable conservation status, nine per cent an unfavourable status and the remaining nine per cent is of unknown status. The continental, alpine and Mediterranean peat land habitats of Italy all have a conservation status that is generally favourable (83, 75 and 80 per cent respectively). The status of the remaining grassland habitats of Italy in all bio geographical regions is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12372025%58%17%0%U13   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13481031%62%8%0%U14  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1119109%82%9%0%U11  U20       Status of forest habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage211290057%43%0%0%U112   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage248151033%63%4%0%U18  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage285212018%75%7%0%U14  U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage303000%100%0%0%U10   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3120033%67%0%0%U11  U20       Status of peat land habitats ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6150017%83%0%0%U11   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8260025%75%0%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5140020%80%0%0%U11  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','','','10/12/2009',''),
	('Italy','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Italy showed the status of the five marine habitats of Community importance in the Marine Mediterranean region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (40%) and three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (60%). Coastal habitats were assessed in both the Continental and the Mediterranean biogeographic regions. In the Continental region, out of 11 coastal habitats assessed, two had a ‘Favourable’ status (18%), four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (36%), and five had an ‘Unknown’ status (45%). A total of 33 marine species of Community interest were assessed in Italy—including amphibians & reptiles, invertebrates, fish and mammals. Overall, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (3%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (9%), 22 had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%) and seven were ‘Not reported’ (21%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_1_4','','Italy reported that, in 2009, it had 303 surveillance stations and 185 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Italy has 260 coastal water bodies. Approximately 90% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. No assessment methods appeared to have been developed for monitoring phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates or for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm.A programme of measures for coastal areas has not yet been developed under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','15/04/10','','','13/01/10','15/04/10'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_1_5','','A national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is being developed. The Italian Ministry for the Environment is working on the preparation and the implementation of the national ICZM strategy. A first version of the document \"Towards the National Strategy for ICZM” was prepared. The approach adopted by the Ministry aims to involve all the social, political, administrative, scientific, and economic actors playing a significant role in the use, management and conservation of Italian Coastal Zone. In the near future, a formal operative meeting will be held with the other Ministries involved in the development of an ICZM National Strategy.','','The Italian Ministry for the Environment has also assigned several operational tasks to ISPRA, and it formally signed an agreement with the Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del MAre – CONISMA. The Ministry formally assigned financial effort to sustain actions finalized to integrate the ICZM principles in the Environment national legislative framework. The Ministry promoted and adopted the Carta di Siracusa on the Biodiversity, where ICZM principles were cited and integrated with other environmental management needs. Moreover Ministry has started several initiatives, measures and activities with reference to the 7th Protocol of Barcelona Convention, on Integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean. In particular, the Ministry is proactively collaborating with the PAP/RAC of MAP to the implementation of Coastal Area Management Programme – CAMP. CAMP Italy is a multi-CAMP area project, which will provide a good example of the application of the ICZM Protocol at sub-national level, representing an opportunity to test on the ground (i) new multi-level governance models concerned with coastal management, and (ii) new instruments finalized to integrate the interests of stakeholders of all the sectors linked to coastal zone with the necessity to deal with emerging coastal environmental challenges, such as the climate change.With reference to the information that was available in the “2006 ICZM Evaluation Report” (4.5.3 Status and Effectiveness of ICZM Implementation), which indicated that for Italy “some positive practices are reported, however, in no instance there is an effort close to a national ICZM strategy in place”, the stage of development of the strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management is now improved and from Category IV (i.e. No equivalent, only fragmented tools in place) Italy could now be considered between Category III (No ICZM National Strategy but equivalent) and Category II (ICZM National Strategy ready or under development). In fact, the number of positive examples of ICZM which can be found in regional and local efforts has increased and even if a certain level of fragmentation still persist a National coordination is now activated and Italian ICZM National Strategy is under development.','','15/04/10','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Italy','A3','A3_2','','Italy currently has 4,917 coastal bathing waters and the majority of these fulfil mandatory standards on water quality: 92.8% in 2008, down from 93.4% in 2006. A high proportion also reaches stricter guidelines standards, around 91% between 2006 and 2008.  However, a large number of bathing areas have had to be closed during the season with an increase from 262 closures in 2006 to 302 closures in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations, sampling sites in the Mediterranean off the Italian coast show that in the main there has been little change in nitrogen and phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005. However, three sampling sites have shown an increase in nitrogen and phosphate concentrations. Conversely four sites have shown a decrease in phosphate concentrations and one of nitrogen concentrations. ','','-','','26/3/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_4','','Italy’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measuresTotal funding for Axis 1 is €330,987,428 and includes measures such as reducing some over-capacity and improving gear selectivity. Axis 2 (€212,171,426) encourages the development of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€216,414,856) supports the protection of aquatic flora and fauna and Axis 4 (€46,677,712) promotes sustainable development and diversification of activities. ','','There is a slight difference in numbers between the amounts of EC funds as reported within the text of the Operational Programme and the figures provided by DG Mare. Data from the Operational Programme is used in the table above. ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_01_en.htm','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/12/2009',NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Italy had 14,093 vessels and 27% were involved in a serious infringement (3,868 vessels). A total of 3,457 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,206 and maximum fine of €20,660.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_5_2','','Conservation and management of fresh water species are committed to Provinces and therefore it is not possible to report into details all the initiatives carried out for diadromous species.As regards to eel there is an EC regulation that provides the realization of its management plan by Member States. In Italy the development of a management plan for eel is committed to Regions. At the moment only Sardinia has developed guidelines for eel management. The main actions of the Sardinian plan are the development of regulations for the protection of young eels and adults; improvement of environmental quality and the elimination of physical barriers to the movement of eels along the rivers. Environmental improvements are also foreseen through reducing fishing pressure to allow the sea migration of part of the adult population in order to reproduce and contribute to the renewal of the population. A monitoring program has been set up to assess the current situation and the results of implementing the plan. Furthermore there have been related activities to support diadromous species through the following projects: LIFE04 NAT/IT/000126: Conservation and breeding of Italian cobice endemic sturgeon; LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113: Conservation of Acipenser naccarii in the River Ticino and a large-scale restocking programme aimed at restoring viable populations of Adriatic sturgeon in the middle reach of the River Po.LIFE00 NAT/IT/007268: Conservation of Salmo marmoratus and Rutilus pigus in the River Ticino aimed at the removal of migratory barriers.','','','','26/3/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Italy','A3','A3_5_3','',' Italy’s fishing capacity has reduced consistently since 1999. The number of vessels has reduced by 25% to 13,654 vessels in 2008. Tonnage has decreased by 21% to 195,847 tons and power by 22% to 1,114,910 kW. The capacity of the Italian fleet was reduced by means of scrapping vessels. During 2007, 177 vessels with a combined tonnage of 9,422 GT and total engine power of 38,372 kW were decommissioned. The average activity of Italian fishing vessels has also steadily diminished, with a value for 2007 of 131 days per vessel. ','','2008 data: 13654 vessels; 195847 tons; 1144910 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','26/3/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats.  In 2006 Italy had 14,093 active vessels. There were 1,984 type D breaches in this year and 1,768 penalties imposed with an average fine of €903. There are no specific activities to reduce by-catch beyond those required under the CFP. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_6_2','','Shark Monitoring Italy has had several years of implementing shark monitoring programmes under different projects but it’s not possible to determine the total number of years of shark monitoring, as programmes depend on funds availability and there have been break periods.  However, compilation of data has provided a dataset running from 1795. Examples of such programmes are given below: 1) MedLem (MEDiterranean Large Elasmobranchs Monitoring) is a monitoring programme on the capture and sighting of the large cartilaginous fishes (including sharks) occurring in the Mediterranean Sea. This programme directly links up with the FAO IPOA-SHARKS (International Plan of Action).The principal aims of the programme are:Contribute to the knowledge and conservation of sharks following a common protocol to collect data about the specimens sighted, stranded or accidentally captured in the Mediterranean Basin; The collection of scientific papers related to elasmobranches in the Mediterranean area.The main objectives of the MedLem Database Application are:Implementation of data collection; Standardization of the data-entry procedures; Effective data sharing among the participating countries;Free access for participants to the web site.http://www.arpat.toscana.it/progetti/medlem/pr_medlem.html Thanks to the collaboration with several research institutes, military authorities as well as with professional and recreational fishermen, the MedLem programme has acquired valuable information on catch, sighting and stranding of large cartilaginous fish, starting from 1795 up to now.2) As well the MedLem programme there are GRUND and UE MEDITS bottom trawl survey projects which collect data on cartilaginous fishes. Seabird Monitoring There are several monitoring programmes for seabirds carried out nationally or at local level, some of them not longer ongoing. The following list reports some of the more significant programmes:1) Monitoring of Larus audouinii colonies in Italy, since 1997, coordinated by ISPRA;2) Monitoring seabirds along transects within a project  to identify a marine IBA, LIPU – Birdlife;3) National monitoring of Calonectris diomedea and Puffinus puffinus, also in relation to eradication projects of Rattus rattus, since 2000, carried out by ISPRA within protected areas;4) Italian Beached Bird Survey, 2006, coordinated by ISPRA (http://www.infs-acquatici.it/#MUS );5) Monthly monitoring transects between Livorno-Bastia, started in 2009 by ISPRA and Centro Ornitologico Toscano;6) IWC, wintering waterbird census, coordinated by ISPRA (http://www.infs-acquatici.it/#Censimento%20invernale%20degli%20uccelli%20acquatici%20(International%20Waterbird%20Census,%20IWC). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.arpat.toscana.it/progetti/medlem/pr_medlem.htmlhttp://www.infs-acquatici.it/#MUShttp://www.infs-acquatici.it/#Censimento%20invernale%20degli%20uccelli%20acquatici%20(International%20Waterbird%20Census,%20IWC) ','26/3/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Italy','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','26/3/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Italy','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Italy has 401 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However there are different ways of identifying marine sites and national data sources estimate the total at 342 (again see clarification below). Italy has not defined any specific fisheries measures for marine Natura 2000 sites. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusItaly’s national sources record 342 marine Natura 2000 sites (287 SCIs and 55 SPAs). However, Marine SCIs and marine SPAs may be distinct or may partially or totally overlap. The number of marine SPAs has been evaluated on the basis of the geographic location verifying if not the centroids but the borders include a marine part. This method is based on the presence of the following habitats and species:Habitats1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time1120 *Posidonia beds1130 Estuaries1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide1150 *Lagoons1160 Large shallow inlets and bays1170 Reefs8330 Submerged or partly submerged sea cavesMammals1366 Monachus monachus1349 Tursiops truncatusAmphibians and reptilesCaretta caretta1227 Chelonia mydasFishes1100 Acipenser naccarii1101 Acipenser sturio1102 Alosa alosa1103 Alosa fallax1099 Lampetra fluviatilis1095 Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 140Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). However, Italy has not requested any  specific fisheries measures within marine Natura 2000 sites outside of their territorial waters, or included any such measures within sites within territorial waters. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A3','A3_7_1','','Italy has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. All environmental indicators as reported in the appendix XIII of the DCF 10121/2009 will be estimated. The Medits and MEDIAS surveys will be used to estimates ecosystem indicators from 1 to 4. A dynamic indicator-based approach to the assessment of multi-stock fisheries has been applied to the data series obtained from Medits surveys (since 1994) by an international working group involving all the scientific teams contributing to the data collection process. A suite of population and community indicators, matching the ones proposed by the guidelines (SGRN 08-01), calculated from the Medits data and applied to areas defined according to the GFCM geographical units, have been already analysed by the Medits international working group. All the calculations have been made with the R-SUFI software. The application was done according to the 13 GFCM geographical sub-areas sampled by the MEDITS surveys. A set of simple indicators related to fishing impact on fish populations and communities were estimated from the MEDITS time-series data. The criteria for selecting the indicators for measuring fishing impacts on the population and community levels were that they should easily and reliably (with high precision) be calculated with the available MEDITS survey information and the direction of change under the impact of fishing should be known. According to these criteria, four indicators of population state, intrinsic population growth rate, total mortality, mean length and length at maturity, and five indicators of community state, total abundance and biomass, mean individual weight and length and the proportion of large individuals (across all species) were selected.The MEDIAS survey will record data necessary to assess indicators 1-3 of Appendix XIII in the scope of the pelagic ecosystem. Particular attention is given to the presence of species which could be affected by changes in climate and in the ecosystem structure, e.g. Sprattus sprattus (sprat) distribution and abundance in the Adriatic and Lessepsian migrants. All species caught are identified and registered (code 1); maximum mean length and proportion of large fish (codes 2 and 3) are registered for small pelagic fishes based on the net sampling. Moreover, acquisition of CTD profiles will allow studying the link between fish populations and oceanography and the definition of spawning and nursery areas. Data will be stored in a national as well as in an international MEDIAS database, realized with the co-operation of the other Member States involved in acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean.Data collected through the biological sampling will be used to estimate indicator 4 (Size at maturation of exploited fish species) and indicator 8 (Discarding rates of commercially exploited species). Ecosystem indicators 5 to 7 listed in appendix XIII (Distribution of fishing activities, Aggregation of fishing activities, Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears) will be estimated using VMS data. Ecosystem indicator 9 will be calculated using economic and transversal data.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.Italy provided the following additional details on collection and use of Indicators 5-7:Indicator 5: Distribution of fishing activities Indicator of the spatial extent of fishing activity. It would be reported in conjunction with indicator 6. It would be based on the total area of grids (3 km x 3 km) within which VMS records were obtained, each month.Indicator 6: Aggregation of fishing activities Indicator of the extent to which fishing activity is aggregated. It would be reported in conjunction with the indicator for ‘Distribution of fishing activities’. It would be based on the total area of grids (3 km x 3 km) within which 90% of VMS records were obtained, each month.Indicator 7: Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gearsIndicator of the area of seabed that has not been impacted by mobile bottom fishing gears in the last year. It responds to changes in the distribution of bottom fishing activity resulting from catch controls, effort controls or technical measures (including MPAs established in support of conservation).The use of VMS apparatus started mainly as a control tool for the application of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries’ resources. The so-called “blue box”, i.e. an on-board system allowing a fishing vessel to be tracked remotely, is one of the measures that the European Commission adopted under Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002). The Regulation provides that, beginning on 1st of January 2005, fishing vessels with an overall length exceeding 15 m “shall have installed on board a functioning system which allows detection and identification of that vessel by remote monitoring systems”. Subsequent Regulation (EC) No. 2244/2003 lays down more detailed provisions. VMS data represent a useful tool for management purposes as well, and are fully compatible with graphic rendering and interpretation through the GIS. The VMS database contains a huge amount of data, and a careful and long job of data “cleaning” will be necessary, since quality of data is imperative for its use in resource management. It will be necessary as well the separation between signals coming from the vessel during navigation and those transmitted during fishing activity, and their selection according to different fishing system. This data will be crossed with other sources of data: - Vessel Register, containing information about Boat characteristic (OL, GT, KW, fishing license...);- Logbook, containing vessel ID and information on the gear used. This allows the identification of the vessel to métier level 4. Logbook information usually includes retained catches of the main commercial species on a trip by trip basis and at the scale of an ICES rectangle. This information allows the identification of the vessel to métier level 5 or 6.VMS and logbook information needs to be processed in order to better describe fishingactivity for use in the three pressure indicators. Different methods are used to:• Identify fishing activity;• Create fishing tracks;• Define métiers.At first, it is necessary to distinguish fishing activity from other activities (e.g., steaming). This is possible by using both information data about boat activity (the “blue box” code) and vessel speed. These two sources of information have to be combined in different ways for the different metiers. The time frequency of VMS position returns for Italian vessels is 20 minutes. According to the Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), this is a very short intervals (< 0.5 h), so that it is likely that many fewer unaccounted movements have been undertaken and joining points by straight lines is reasonable. Métier level 4 describes gear types. Level 5 describes trawl with species (i.e., otter trawl and plaice), while métier level 6 is a specific description based on the catch. The DGMARE request indicates that activity information is required disaggregated to métier level 6. This level is based on the catch composition. However, level 6 (mesh size) corresponds to level 5 for what concern trawlers (for the bottom and pelagic trawl the minimum mesh size is 40 and 20 mm respectively, Reg. 1967/06/CE). Regarding the small scale fishery, all the different mesh sizes have been aggregated at level 5. According to the WGECO, the key information would be about the vessels and its gear, so down to métier level 5. If this is agreed, it should significantly reduce the data volume needed to address the request and have no impact on the conclusions. The approach used to define métiers at level 5 consists in a quantitative analysis of logbook data, which were directly combined with information gathered from VMS. The results will permit to describe the distribution of activity of fishing boats (over 15 metres long), linking descriptive with “operative” information. All the calculation has been made with the R software, in agreement with the other experiences carried out for indicators 1-4. Definition of indicator 5, in particular, foresees the selection of signals during fishing activity, and can be defined according to the main different fishing system. With this purpose, exercises and case studies were already performed and utilized for activities of technical assistance to the Directorate of Fisheries, as well as in framework of the project “Construction of a GIS supporting management processes in maritime fishing and aquaculture sectors…in the framework of EFF (European Fishing Fund)”. This exercises made possible the identification of the geographical and temporal distribution of fishing boats considered.Definition of  indicator 6 needs the elaboration of “frequency areas” for signals coming from different kind of fishing systems, and their assemblage according to their frequencies in the different geographical areas (GSA as a reference), and this could fit with the definition of indicator 6.Last indicator (N. 7 “Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears”) can only partly derived from the elaborations of number 5. It foresees the use and the crossing among different sources of data, as the areas subject to a kind of total or partial protection (both geographical and temporal), or dedicated to different activities. The presence of the majority of this data already stored in a GIS will facilitate their use according to the specific goal.It has to be noted, as a final note, that the definition of all the three indicators will be covered by the VMS data only for the fishing fleet over 15 metres long.','Italian National Program under Council Regulation No 199/2008 and Commission Regulation No 665/2008. National Programme 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94848 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDFMedits, 2007. Assessment of indicator trends related to exploited demersal fish populations and communities in the Mediterranean. DCF  Medits Working group. Nantes–France, 15-18 March 2005 and Kavala–Greece, 2-6 April 2006: http://www.ifremer.fr/docelec/default-en.jsp  ','14/04/2010','','','','05/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Italian waters* in 2004 was 2.93. This represents a decrease of 0.11 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.36 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','*Italy has never declared an EEZ. Maritime limits and boundaries depicted on Sea Around Us Project maps are not to be considered as an authority on the delimitation of international maritime boundaries. These maps are drawn on the basis of the best information available to the project. Where no maritime boundary has been agreed, theoretical equidistance lines have been constructed. Where a boundary is in dispute, the project attempt to show the claims of the respective parties where these are known and show areas of overlapping claims. In areas where a maritime boundary has yet to be agreed, it should be emphasized that these maps are not to be taken as the endorsement of one claim over another.From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.Italy also provided the following clarification: Currently Italy has not established an EEZ, but is planning to establish a EPZ in the northern Tirrenic Sea, according to law n. 61/2006.Moreover there are bilateral agreements regarding the continental shelf in offshore waters:- Agreement between the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Italy for the determination of the continental shelf of each of the two countries 18 December 1992 (entry in force 26/02/1999)- Agreement between the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic on the delimitation of the respective continental shelf areas of the two States, 24 May 1977 (entry into force: 12 November 1980- Agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two countries in the Adriatic Sea (entry in force 21/01/1970)- Convention between Spain and Italy on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two States, 19 February 1974 (entry into force: 16 November 1978)- Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Tunisia and the Government of the Italian Republic concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two countries, 20 August 1971 (entry into force: 6 December 1978)- Agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Italian Republic on the Delimitation of maritime frontiers in the area of the straights of Bonifacio, 28 November 1986 (entry into force: 15 May 1989).','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Italy','A4','A4_3','','In Italy, ecological connectivity is mainly implemented through Regional Ecological Networks which are strictly connected to vast area planning and to landscape planning. Most Regions have developed their own instruments and are going to give them a legal basis (e.g. RERU Rete Ecologica della Regione Umbria). Besides Ecological network policies are strictly connected to vast area planning and, general speaking, with landscape planning. ','','','RERU: http://www.agriforeste.regione.umbria.it/canale.asp?id=511','26/03/2010','','','23/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','A4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines are mostly implemented within the protected areas, where most efforts are developed for sustainable tourism.In Italy, the major legislative milestones in the area of tourism are the Framework Law n.135 of 29 March 2001  and Law n.181 of 18 May 2006, by which responsibility in the matter was conferred to the President of the Council of Ministers. The Department for the Development and Competitiveness of Tourism was set up, under the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, some months later, through Law n.286 of 24 Nov.2006.It is crucial to consider that the constitutional reform of 2003 (art.117) entitles regions and autonomous provinces with exclusive legislation powers in the matter. For that reason each of the 20 Italian regions has its own law in the matter. According to the basic principle of subsidiarity, however, all of them must follow the principles dictated by both EU and national legislation.In the field of policy-making, inter-ministerial cooperation was enhanced by setting up a “Tourism Policy Committee” a coordination body whose main task is to identify, in a common vision, the areas of interventions for drafting guidelines, both at national and regional level, and to find out initiatives in the framework of shared strategies, aiming at the  development of the tourism sector. It is chaired by the Minister in charge of Tourism. Sitting in the Committee are the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, Economic Development, Innovation in the Public Administration, Environment, Transport, Regional Affairs. The Department for the Development and Competitiveness of Tourism encourages and participates in all international initiatives in the field of sustainable tourism such as:- EDEN \"European Destinations of Excellence\" preparatory actionThe broad aim of this initiative launched by the European Commission in 2006 is twofold:to draw attention to the value, diversity and shared characteristics of European tourist destinations, and to promote destinations where the economic growth objective is pursued in such a way as to ensure the social, cultural and environmental sustainability of tourism. So far, four editions have been launched, each one with a specific theme: Best Emerging European Rural Destinations of Excellence (2007); Tourism and local intangible heritage (2008); Tourism and protected areas (2009); and Aquatic Tourism (2010). - Permanent Secretariat of the World Committee on Tourism Ethics,- Since November 2008, the Department also hosts, within the framework of UNWTO activities, the Permanent Secretariat of the World Committee on Tourism Ethics, promoting the Global Code of Tourism Ethics including Tourism as a factor of sustainable development.','','','Law n.135 of 29 March 2001:http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/01135l.htm Law n.181 of 18 May 2006:http://www.tuttocamere.it/files/egov/2006_181.pdfLaw n.286 of 24 Nov 2006:http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/06286l.htmEden Project:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/eden/what-is-eden/index_en.htm','26/03/2010','','','23/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Italian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 392.8 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','26/03/2010','','','04/01/2010','23/04/2010'),
	('Italy','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Italy has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and eradication and control of IAS. Provisions prohibiting the introduction of IAS into Italy are found under the Decree of the President of the Republic (DPR no. 357 of 1997) and its amendments (DPR no. 120 of 2003; Article 12). Despite a lack of clear reference to IAS, Law no. 157/1992 regulating the import of alien species for hunting purposes. The law provides for protection and control measures to be applied to potential IAS (Article 20 regulates on import and Article 19 on the control of mammals and birds including those that are non-native species). Alongside national legislation, some regional laws from the 20 regions in Italy contain provisions for IAS. One example is the Lombardia Regional Law no. 10/31 March 31 2008 which contains provisions for the introduction, eradication and control of IAS. The possession of potentially dangerous IAS is covered by regional Law 150/92. Imports of plants belonging to Chamaecyparis Spach and Pinus L. species that originate from Japan are covered under the Decree outlining phytosanitary requirements.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.   ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 67 are present in Italy. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','',''),
	('Italy','A5','A5_1_2','','No national strategy or action plan on IAS has been developed in Italy. However, the upcoming Italian Biodiversity Strategy is foreseen to address a number of specific IAS related aspects, including issues related to prevention, early warning and control of IAS in different ecosystems / sectoral areas. Furthermore, the Ministry for the Environment and Territory has produced very specific action plans for freshwater fishes (2003) and guidelines for exotic mammal and bird management (2001) which include control and eradication programmes.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A5','A5_1_3','','Italy has not yet ratified the Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). However, the country has been otherwise active in addressing the spread of IAS via ballast water. In 2001, the Italian Ministry for Environment established a national, cross-sectoral body of experts to address issues related to ballast water and IAS. Italy was also actively involved in the development of the IMO Convention, e.g. highlighting the requirements for regional and sub-regional cooperation in closed and semi-enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Sea. In addition, Italy is a member of the following international bodies dealing with ballast water:Trilateral Ballast Water Management Sub Commission (Croatia – Italy – Slovenia), established in 2004. Adriatic Ionian Initiative on Sustainable Development and Environment. ICES/IOC/IMO Study Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors (SGBOSV). Joint Expert Group for the designation of the Adriatic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) (proposal to be submitted at the 59th Session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO together with Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia). Mediterranean Globallast Regional Task Force (Italy is the lead country to develop the policy and monitoring component of the Mediterranean strategy on ballast water issue)As regards monitoring, Italy has had a dedicated national programme for monitoring the quality of coastal waters since 1997. However, this program does not include monitoring biological assemblages (e.g. possible IAS) in ports. Consequently, the first national baseline survey for introduced species in ports was conducted in 2006. The survey was carried out by Institute for Environmental Research and Protection (ISPRA, former Central Institute for Marine Research - ICRAM) and supported by the Ministry for Environment. The survey provided baseline information for two Italian ports and it also supported the development of a broader survey protocol to be further used in other ports. More baseline surveys are planned for spring 2010. Furthermore, Italy is also planning to introduce a voluntary ballast water reporting form (BWRF) for the risk assessment of Italian ports, as agreed in the frame of the Trilateral Sub-Commission between Croatia, Italy and Slovenia. The BWRF, together with the port surveys, will represent the first step in order to build an efficient and prompt early warning system in marine areas in Italy.The Italian Ministry for Environment has also provided support to scientific research on IAS in marine ecosystems. Assessment of non-indigenous species in Italian seas started in 2002 by ISPRA/ICRAM with the collaboration of several Italian universities and other research institutes.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) has conducted a national inventory of alien species (including all taxonomic groups) with the aim to develop an indicator of IAS trends to be included in their annual report on the state of environment (Annuario dei dati ambientali). The inventory also explored the relationship between alien and native species in Italy, and the relative proportions of alien vs. native species were used as additional indicators for the overall status of IAS in Italy. The collected data was included in a database, together with species-specific information on the taxonomy, area of origin, year of introduction, observed impacts of a given species. It is foreseen that this database will form a basis for the establishment of a regularly updated IAS portal online. No early warning and information system for IAS is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire,DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species GatewayCelesti-Grapow, Pretto, Carli, Blasi (eds), 2009. Non-native flora of Italy. CD. MATTM-DPN, SBI, Interuniv. Res. Center “Biodiv., Phytosoc. & Landscape”Minelli, Ruffo, La  Posta (eds.), 1993-1995. Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana. Fascicoli 1-110. Edizioni Calderini, Bologna; Conti, Abbate, Alessandrini, Blasi, 2005. An annotated checklist of the italian vascular flora. MATTM-DPN; Univ. di Roma La Sapienza-Dip.Biol.Veg.Weblink:http://www.europe-aliens.org   ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A5','A5_2_2','','Italy has not adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.     However, Italy does have some draft measures with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops. These include that the cultivation of genetically modified crops be excluded from protected areas and Natura 2000 areas (as well as other areas protected for biodiversity). It is foreseen by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces that in the future closed areas will be developed where the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be banned.Currently, 16 out of 20 Italian regions, 41 provinces and 2446 municipalities have declared themselves to be free from genetically modified organisms. Liguria, Marche, Molise, Piemonte, Sardegna, Toscana and Umbria are all members of the European network of genetically modified organism-free regions.According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, in Italy 16 out of 20 Italian regions, 41 provincias and 2446 municipalities have declared themselves, formally or informally GMO-free.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm, http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in March 2009. The National Biodiversity Strategy is under development (foreseen for the end of 2010), the document “Strategy and Preliminary Programme for the Implementation of the Convention of Biodiversity in Italy” posted on the CBD web site represents a preliminary Programme for CBD implementation.Italy had paid their contributions to CBD, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. As of 28 Nov 2008, there were still EUR56,921 outstanding for the 2008 contribution to the CMS Trust Fund.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Italy spent EUR0.9m in 2007 on multilateral biodiversity-related aid, which is 0.01% of the total multilateral biodiversity-related aid budget. The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid for Italy for 2006.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Italy spent EUR2.7m in 2006 and EUR73.2m in 2007 for bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.001% and 0.07%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/200907/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A7','A7_1_4','','Italy contributed EUR106.97 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 6.81% of the total replenishment. Italy contributed EUR87.91 million to the 4th replenishment which is 4.11% of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A7','A7_2_2','','In Italy, the SEA Directive has been transposed by the D.lgs 152/06 (the so called “Codice dell’ambiente”), entered into force on 31st July 2007 and modified by Dlgs 4/2008, in force since February 2008. They define and revise the framework for all environmental assessment procedures (Sea, Eia, Appropriate assessment).A list of relevant projects, following Directive 85/337/CE, is provided at national and regional level. For such projects EIA is mandatory.Plans and programmes concerning Natura 2000 sites are in any case subject to SEA. ','','At national and regional level, until 2008 most SEA activities focussed on structural funds (SF) programmes (more or less 50 programmes). Some plans and programmes not financed by SF underwent a SEA process at regional level, due to regional legislation in force before 31.07.2007. Now Regions have in different ways transposed national legislation and all plans and programmes concerning sectors listed within the Directive 2001/42/CE undergo a SEA or at least a screening procedure.If assessed plans or programmes concern Natura 2000 sites, an appropriate assessment has to be provided within the SEA process. Its results have to be inserted into the environmental report in a specific chapter.','www.minambiente.it (section VAS for SEA and VIA for EIA)','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A8','A8_1','','Italy has not provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. While there is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, public awareness on the guidelines has been raised, in particular through the Standing Committee for Genetic Resources. The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources has been transposed into national legislation and awareness of it has been raised. In 2004 the Ministry for Agriculture started the project \"Plant Genetic Resources (RGV/FAO)\" with the aim of implementing at national level the FAO Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources combining capabilities and scientific experiences. 28 Centres and Research Units are involved under the guidance of the Council for the Research and Experimentation in Agriculture (CRA). Moreover in 2007 10 NGOs were involved in the Semi Rural Network (Rete semi Rurali). The three-year project provides for restoration, conservation, characterization, exploitation and documentation of plant genetic resources. No information is currently available on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. No support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implements the CBD Bonn Guidelines. The aims of the Standing Committee for Genetic Resources (see Narrative Summary in Action A.2.1.1) include:- the possible development of vegetable genetic resources marketing and the regulated access to benefits according to Bonn Guidelines;- the implementation of the Bonn guidelines even in relation to the ecosystem approach.','','','','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Italy did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','In 2004 the Ministry for Agriculture started the project \"Plant Genetic Resources (RGV/FAO)\" (weblink: http://sito.entecra.it/portale/public/documenti/rgvtrattatofao.pdf) with the aim of implementing at national level the FAO Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources combining capabilities and scientific experiences. 28 Centres and Research Units are involved under the guidance of the Council for the Research and Experimentation in Agriculture (CRA - http://sito.entecra.it/portale/index2.php). Moreover in 2007 10 NGOs were involved in the Semi Rural Network (Rete semi Rurali; weblink: http://www.semirurali.net/).The three-year project provides for restoration, conservation, characterization, exploitation and documentation of plant genetic resources. Information on RGVs are available in a web database (weblink: www.rgv-politicheagricole-cra.it).','','','http://sito.entecra.it/portale/public/documenti/rgvtrattatofao.pdf;  http://sito.entecra.it/portale/index2.php; http://www.semirurali.net/; www.rgv-politicheagricole-cra.it','26/03/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A8','A8_1_4','','No information available.','','At this stage there are no official and aggregate data, while there is various partial information on certified products, regional activities, etc.','www.fsc.italia.it','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 14.889, 324 and 96.118, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The aggregate number of seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008 was 284. However, disaggregated information is not available on the numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the staff of enforcement authorities and the Scientific Authority. Technical assistance has been also been provided to the Scientific Authority. Italy has not provided CITES related technical or financial assistance. Italy paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','26/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','A9','','','In Italy, a national adaptation strategy including biodiversity is foreseen (for more informations see national communication to UNFCCC).However, some regional strategies have been developed for which links are provided: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Regione Piemonte, Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aosta ','','','http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php Provincia Autonoma di Trentohttp://www.provincia.tn.it/trentinoclima2008/materiali.html Regione Piemontehttp://www.regione.piemonte.it/cgi-bin/montagna/pubblicazioni/frontoffice/pubblicazione.cgi?id_settore=1&id=825&id_argomento=53&area=1 Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aostahttp://www.regione.vda.it/gestione/gestione_contenuti/allegato.asp?pk_allegato=3872 Italian Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf','26/03/2010','','','22/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A9','A9_3_2','','The Italian Ministry for Agriculture is developing the Biomass Action Plan, whereas the NREAP is in development according to art. 4.2 of Directive 2009/28/EC on the use of energy from renewable sources.','','','','26/03/2010','','','22/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','A9','A9_4_1','','In Italy, a national adaptation strategy including biodiversity is foreseen (for more informations see national communication to UNFCCC).However, some regional strategies have been developed for which links are provided: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Regione Piemonte, Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aosta ',NULL,NULL,'http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php Provincia Autonoma di Trentohttp://www.provincia.tn.it/trentinoclima2008/materiali.html Regione Piemontehttp://www.regione.piemonte.it/cgi-bin/montagna/pubblicazioni/frontoffice/pubblicazione.cgi?id_settore=1&id=825&id_argomento=53&area=1 Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aostahttp://www.regione.vda.it/gestione/gestione_contenuti/allegato.asp?pk_allegato=3872 Italian Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf','26/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'22/04/2010',NULL),
	('Italy','A9','A9_4_3','','Habitats most at risk in Italy have been identified and for more information please see the Chapter 6.1 Section “Biodiversity and natural ecosystems” from the Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCC.About forestry species most at risk the Italian Ministry for Environment promoted the project “BioRefugia”, created by the La Sapienza University of Rome to complete an initial project jointly funded by the EU and the State Forest Department. The effects of climate changes on the surveyed species (27 tree species most commonly found in Italian woodlands) were assessed using a model with two climate scenarios created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (scenarios B1 and A1F1).','','','Italian Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf BioRefugia project website: http://sweb01.dbv.uniroma1.it/bruno/biorefugia/index.html ','26/03/2010','','','22/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A1','A10_1','','Latvia does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, nor does it incorporate biodiversity research into other national programmes.','','','','05/03/2010','','','11/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','A10_1_2','','Latvia is not planning to follow up the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) at the national nor as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency','','','','05/03/2010','','','25/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','A10_1_8','','Latvia has a national biodiversity platform, developed during the European BIOplatform project. However, the copyright date on the website and the news articles have not been updated since 2004.','','','Reference or title: Bioplatform website (European Platform for Biodiversity)Weblink: http://www.bioplatform.info/EPBRS, http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info Latvian National Bioplatform: http://bioplatforma.daba.lv/ ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','A10_1_9','','Latvia is not a participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). There are no organisations from Latvia participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI), the European contribution to GBIF.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of all Marine Baltic coastal habitats is reported to be favourable. In the Boreal biogeographical region, 5 of the 9 (56%) forest habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. Half or more of heath and scrub, 1 of the 2 (50%), freshwater, 4 of the 7 (57%), bogs, mires and fens 4 of the 7 (57%), dune 8 of the 9 (89%) and sclerophyllous scrub 1 (100%) habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 10 (60%) grasslands habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of the 2 (50%) of heath and scrub habitats and 2 of the 7 (9%) of freshwater habitats is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','01/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Latvia has designated 331 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 7663 km², totalling 11.0% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 6 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 562 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 98, with a total area of 6766 km², totalling 9.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 4, with a marine area of 520km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','01/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','46% of the Natura 2000 sites have a completed management plan, while management plans are in preparation for 4% of sites. Certain management schemes are applied to all Natura 2000 sites in Latvia.  Apart from tailor-made management plans for individual Natura 2000 sites, there are Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers (Nr. 415, 22.07.2003.) \"General regulation for protection and management of specially protected nature territories\". General regulations contains the list of prohibited activities acording to the category of protected area. All Natura 2000 sites in Latvia are legally protected as specially protected nature territories or micro-reserves.  ','','Since June 1, 2009, all protected areas in Latvia are managed by the Nature Protection Board. ','Reference or title:Weblink:www.daba.gov.lv ','01/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_2_3','','1) For the protection of rare, as well as disperse species and habitats apart from specially protected nature territories, micro-reserves are being established in Latvia. A buffer zone (supporting ecological connectivity to some extent) can be set around micro-reserves established for protection of bird species. 2) Protected belts along the sea coast and rivers and around lakes are set in legislation. Although they were established to decrease or eliminate the effects of the negative anthropogenic impact on the objects for which the protection zones have been determined, they can serve also as connectivity corridors among protected territories.','','',':','02/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_3','','Of the 269 regularly occurring bird species in Latvia, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Latvia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. In the Baltic Sea biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate, another 1 of the 3 (33%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1of the 3 (33%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 5 of the 14 (36%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of 13 (62%) fish, 23 of 34 (68%) of invertebrates, 12 0f the 26 (46%) mammals and 7 of the 23 (30%) plants are in a favourable condition. 15 of the 23 (65%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 3 of the 14 (21%) amphibians and reptiles are in a unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 5 of the 13 (38%) fish, 8 of the 34 (24%) invertebrates and 8 of the 26 (31%) mammals is unknown.','01/02/2010','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Baltic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%133%133%133%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Boreal Amphibians and reptiles 536%536%321%17%00%14Fish 862%00%00%538%00%13Invertebrates2368%39%00%824%00%34Mammals1246%312%312%831%00%26Plants 730%1565%14%00%00%23','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;  http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Latvia has the following species action plans (all are completed): 3 for birds, 3 for mammals, 3 for amphibians and reptiles, and 3 for invertebrates. There are two Farmland Bird indices used in Latvia: the Latvian Farmland Bird Index (LFBI, 12 species) and the Europe Farmland Bird Index (EFBI; 13 species according to list as of 2006).  Number of species according to species groups included in the Red Data List of Latvia:Total number of Red List species - 759, including Mammals - 24, Birds - 78, Reptiles and amphibians - 9, Fishes - 15, Invertebrates - 162, Plants - 315, Mosses - 87, Lichens - 34, Mushrooms - 35.','','','http://biodiv.lvgma.gov.lv/cooperation/fol288846','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','B1_1_1','','In Latvia, there are direct budget allocations for nature conservation as well as indirect allocations through the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund (LEPF). In 1995 the Latvian parliament adopted a law “On Nature resources tax”, which provides for imposing tax on use of natural resources such as water, air, and packaging material. All tax is collected in the Latvian Environmental Protection fund, which finances project proposals in eight different budget lines. The most important are the budget lines “Biodiversity” and “Environmental education and awareness building”. LEPF also provides co -financing to important nature protection project proposals submitted to the Global Environmental Facility, EU LIFE programme, and bilateral projects. Biodiversity issues are fully integrated in the Rural Development Plan, implementation of which is financially supported by the EU European Agriculture Guidance Guaranty fund. Biodiversity issues concern both the requirements to be taken into account under regular agriculture activities as well as specially dedicated activities for the management of important habitats.Bilaterally the Danish EPA, as well as Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan have provided the most substantial support. Multilateral external funding sources relate to the EU and the GEF. In addition, EU subsidies are paid for the maintenance of biodiversity in agricultural lands; the Latvian Environmental Protection fund is financing smaller scale environmental and biodiversity protection projects. Within LIFE projects from 2004 – 2008, Latvia spent up to EUR1,555,658 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Latvia spent up to EUR456,182 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Latvia’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Latvia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','05/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','B1_1_4','','Latvia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR26m; there are no allocations for category 55 (protection of natural assets) and category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage).','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','B1_1_8','','No information is available.','','','','25/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B2_4','','Latvia has created the Concept of the Environment Policy 2009-2010, which has been approved by the Government. A new Biodiversity Programme will be due by 2012.','','','http://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/dokumenti/ppd/?doc=9338   ','05/03/2010','','','11/03/2010 ',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','B3_1_2','','No partnerships have been facilitated for setting up farming and biodiversity or forestry and biodiversity partnerships.However, a small number of activities have been established for forestry and biodiversity. Some examples can be found in the local development groups established through the support of LEADER programme of CAP.','','','','05/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage biodiversity and planning partnership at local, regional, national levels.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','01/03/2010','','','na','16/03/10'),
	('Latvia','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','05/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Latvia has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions have been made by Latvia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','05/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Latvia','A1','C1_2','','Of the 26 SEBI indicators, Latvia applies two directly (Nationally designated protected areas, Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives), while 11 have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','C1_2_1','','Of the 26 SEBI indicators, Latvia applies two directly (Nationally designated protected areas, Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives), while 11 have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A1','C1_3_1','','Latvia implements monitoring schemes for the following habitats: coastal habitats (2 schemes), dunes habitats (2), freshwater habitats (2), heath and scrub (1), grasslands (1); bogs, mires and fens (1), rocky habitats (1) and forests (1).  Monitoring schemes are implemented for the following species groups: birds (2 schemes), amphibians and reptiles (1), plants (1).','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.A standard for the retention of landscape features will be introduced in 2010.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Luxembourg total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 94.96 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 393.06 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 53 million EUR, and 212.01 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 51.82 and 53.94 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Luxembourg was 26.78 million EUR (107.12 with co-financing) and amounted to 28.2 per cent of the EAFRD (27.25 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.16 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.17 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.65 million EUR of public expenditure (0.16 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Luxembourg for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)1.4821.852Agri-environment payments (214)n/an/aForest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','18/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A Programme on Sustainable Use and Long-term Conservation of Genetic Resources of Plants and Animals, Forest and Fishes used in Agriculture and Food, 2007-2009 was adopted by the Government in 2007. No further details of measures or their budgets were provided. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','','05/03/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Latvia in this regard, and thus no payments were made. According to reporting by the Member State, support for the long term maintenance of local breeds was available under the Rural Development Plan 2004-2006. This was subsequently covered by national subsidies from 2007 onwards. Payments for the maintenance of local breeds will again be covered under EU Rural Development financing in 2010.','','Percentages were calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys are not applied. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 50 ha for afforestation and deforestation. The Law on Environmental Impact Assessment determines only types of documents for which SEA should be applied. Within evaluation of these documents the impact of afforestation and deforestation can be also analysed, but legislation does not refer to any limits in application in ha. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Latvia had a total certified forest area of 1.62 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.94 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Latvia was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 55.11 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Latvia amounted to 0.57 million ha, representing a share of 19.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','18/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.A standard for the retention of landscape features will be introduced in 2010.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have not been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_8','','The only mandatory biodiversity related indicator that is currently monitored is the population trends of farmland birds. Monitoring schemes have not been put in place for HNV farming, HNV forestry or tree species composition mandatory indicators, or any additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 13 million € has been added to the Latvian national Rural Development Programme The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Latvia provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 57 per cent of the boreal freshwater habitats in Latvia have an unfavourable conservation status while 14 per cent have a favourable status. The status of the remaining 30 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Latvia.Status of freshwater habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7412057%14%29%0%U14  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Latvia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 1.98 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.72 mg O3/l in 2005, but with a peak of 2.41 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were well below the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a weak increase from 0.10 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.11 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were well below the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.09 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.00 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were well below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 0.5 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 2.1 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.036 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.040 mg P/l in 2005. Values were well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present an upward trend, increasing from 0.055 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.057 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values above the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Latvia had a total number of 152 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 66.1 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to 2007, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values had decreased, whereas in previous years it had been increasing. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Latvia did not develop any biological assessment methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters or no information was available.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 261 in Latvia.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Latvia had a total number of 76 IPPC installations and issued 76 permits. 1 permit was still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','05/03/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Latvia’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, non-methane volatile organic compounds and sulphur oxides already were far below the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Although the country expects slight increases in its emissions of nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides, it is expected to easily meet its 2010 targets. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Latvia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 20 and 99 per cent respectively, considering an area of 35,823 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 14 and 12 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and a reduction to 96 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 44 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, no data are available in the requested format.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.meteo.lv/upload_file/parskati/slodzes/VUK_PARSKATS_2008_gala_25062009.pdf ','05/03/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1995 and 2006, Latvia’s national farmland bird indicator has remained fairly stable. In 2004, there was a decrease of 14.6 per cent from the previous year to reach the lowest it had been since 1995. By 2006 the indicator was 99.4 per cent, a 0.6 per cent reduction from the baseline year of 1995 (where it was 100 per cent). No data exist for Latvia on national farmland bird indicators between 1990 and 1995.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 80 per cent of the boreal grassland habitats in Latvia have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 20 per cent have a favourable status. 44 per cent of the boreal forest habitats in Latvia have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 56 per cent have a favourable status. With regards to the boreal heath and scrub habitats in Latvia, 50 per cent have an unfavourable conservation status and the status of the other 50 per cent is unknown. 43 per cent of boreal peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status, the remaining 57 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.     ','','Boreal is the only bio geographical region in Latvia.Status of grassland habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10820080%20%0%0%U12  U26       Status of forest habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9450044%56%0%0%U14  U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2101050%0%50%0%U11  U20       Status of peat land habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7430057%43%0%0%U14  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','01/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Latvia found that of the two marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region both had a ‘Favourable’ status (100%). There were seven coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region in Latvia—three of these had a ’Favourable’ status (43%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (43%) and one had a ‘Bad’ status (14%).There were three marine species assessed in Latvia, all mammals, of which one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%), one had a ‘Bad’ status (33%) and the remaining one had an ‘Unknown’ status (33%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','23/10/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_1_4','','Latvia reported that, in 2009, it had 14 surveillance stations and 4 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Latvia has 7 coastal water bodies. Approximately 85% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It currently no has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates or any assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae. Latvia has established a programme of measures and a monitoring programme for coastal areas under the Water Framework Directive.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-frameworkCoastal measures link: http://www.meteo.lv/public/29935.html ','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','31/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_1_5','','The Spatial Development Concept of the Coastal Zone (2011-2017) is being prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Governments in February 2010.It will include an overview of existing situation and problems in the coastal area, define values of national importance in the coastal area; define unified goal of conservation and development of the coastal area;  will determine policy principles and actions to be implemented from 2011-2017.','','','','24/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_2','','Latvia has 46 coastal bathing areas. In 2007 100% of these achieved mandatory standards for water quality, but this dropped to 95.7% in 2008 because two sites were found not to reach standards for E.coli. An increasing proportion of sites are reaching the stricter guidelines standards increasing from 77.8% in 2006 to 84.8% in 2008. There are no trend data for nitrogen concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005. The sampling station off the coast of Latvia in the Baltic Sea showed no change in phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005.','','-','','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_4','','Latvia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €27,814,590 and includes capacity reduction as one of the activities. Axis 2 (€61,505,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€32,204,000) promotes the protection of aquatic flora and fauna, while Axis 4 (€38,548,635) supports diversification of economic activities. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com07/com07_97_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','05/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Latvia had 897 vessels and 10% were involved in a serious infringement (94 vessels). A total of 94 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €129 and maximum fine of €1,138.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_5_2','','Latvia does not have specific management plans for salmon, trout, sturgeon or eels. However, river restoration takes place in a number of different projects and in relation to the removal of migratory barriers there have been discussions on the removal of the Staicele dam (on the Salaca river) for several years. There is some stock enhancement undertaken for salmon, trout, lamprey and vimba. ','','','','02/03/2010','','','24/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_5_3','','Latvian’s fishing capacity has reduced from 942 vessels in 2004 to 841 in 2008 (11% reduction). Tonnage has also decreased from 42,137 to 38,299 tons (9% reduction) as has fishing power from 70,807kW to 61,080kW (14% reduction). During the FIFG programme (until 2006) the Latvian fishing fleet was decreased by 52 vessels through a compensation scheme. The current operational programme for fisheries 2007-2013 includes an objective for matching the capacity of the Latvian fishing fleet to the available fishing resource. Decommissioning of 70 vessels in the Baltic segment and 110 vessels in the small-scale segment is foreseen in order to adjust capacity to the available quotas. During 2007, 17 vessels with a total capacity of 950 GT and 2 228 kW were decommissioned with public aid.','','2008 data: 841 vessels; 38299 tons; 61080 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_6_1','','Latvia’s regulation regarding ‘Commercial fishing in Territorial Waters and Economic Zone Waters’ sets the timing, allowed methods for fishing as well as allowed size of fish and provisions regarding by-catch. In relation to Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy which concern prohibited fishing gear or methods (i.e. those most likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats) there were 14 type D breaches of Latvia’s fleet in 2006 (from a total of 897 active vessels). Penalties were imposed for all of these breaches with an average fine of €136. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_6_2','','Latvia has been monitoring seabirds since 1984 which includes registration of the number and species of wintering birds. Monitoring of seabirds includes registration of number and species of wintering seabirds. (See http://www.meteo.lv/public/monitoringa_atskaites.html for the 2006 monitoring report of wintering seabirds).  ','','','http://www.meteo.lv/public/monitoringa_atskaites.html','05/03/2010','','','24/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','05/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Latvia has 31 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). All these sites are coastal and within territorial waters. There is currently insufficient information on the existence of respective species and habitats outside territorial waters to designate offshore sites. Establishment of marine Natura 2000 sites and respective management requirements do not include prohibition or limitation of fishery activities.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 3Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). ','Data source: DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites. ','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A3','A3_7_1','','Latvia has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Latvia indicates that the planned Baltic International Acoustic Survey (in cooperation with other Baltic Member States) and the sprat acoustic survey could contribute to the calculation of ecosystem indicators 1-4 in Appendix XII.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','05/03/2010','','','23/10/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Latvia was 3.18 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.06 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.50 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','05/03/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Latvia','A4','A4_3','','Latvian legislation does not require considering ecological networks in spatial planning.','','','','02/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A4','A4_4_1','','There is no information available on implementation of CBD guidelines on sustainable tourism in Latvia, and tourism policy documents do not contain measures to minimize impact of tourism on biodiversity or other provisions of the guidelines.','','','','02/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Latvian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 26 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spending on the categories 51 are foreseen by the Latvian Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','05/03/2010','','','04/01/2010','29/04/2010'),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Latvia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however; there is specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Possession and trade of IAS is not addressed. The Law on Protection of Species and Habitats (16.03.2000) contains provisions for the control and introduction of IAS. Introduction of non-native species into Latvia is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. If a positive assessment is given then introduction for social or economic use may be possible. The Law on Plant Protection regulates for the import and export of plants. Amendments to the Law introduced on 2 November 2006 establish provisions for introduction and control of IAS (Articles 18.1 and 18.2). Furthermore, there is national legislation in place that prohibits the use of alien tree species in forest restoration of afforestation.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 37 are present in Latvia. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_1_2','','Latvia has not developed a national strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS).The National Programme on Biological Diversity sets out goals for controlling IAS in all relevant sub-programmes including agriculture, inland waters, marine and coastal areas, forests and urban ecosystems although there is not a biodiversity action plan which deals comprehensively with IAS.According to reporting by the Member State, as for actions on specific species, in 2006 the Programme of Localisation and Distribution of Hogweed 2006-2012 was adopted by the government. In 2008, it also adopted specific Regulations on the Localisation of Distribution of Hogweed.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_1_3','','Latvia has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.   ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is under development.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','02/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A5','A5_2_2','','Latvia has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is Regulation No. 30, Adopted 15 January 2008, Regulation regarding the Requirements for Coexistence of GM Crops, as well as the Procedures forSupervision and Control. Ziņotājs No.4, 28.02.2008.        According to the Law on Circulation of Genetically Modified Organisms a local government may determine a prohibition by issuing binding rules for the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the relevant administrative territory or in a particular territory thereof upon its own initiative or on the basis of a proposal of a person. The prohibition shall be determined for a period of time which is not less than five years. Prior to taking of the binding rules the local government shall inform the public and publish a notification regarding the intention to determine such prohibition in the newspaper issued by the local government, but, if there is no such newspaper – in other local newspaper as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and  the Ministry of Environment indicating the territory where the determination of the prohibition for cultivation of genetically modified crops is intended, as well as the place and term for the submission of public opinions, proposals and objections. The term for the submission of proposals and objections may not be less than 30 days from the day of publication of the notification.  According to the Law on Circulation of Genetically Modified Organisms a local government may determine a prohibition by issuing binding rules for the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the relevant administrative territory or in a particular territory thereof upon its own initiative or on the basis of a proposal of a person. The prohibition shall be determined for a period of time which is not less than five years. Prior to taking of the binding rules the local government shall inform the public and publish a notification regarding the intention to determine such prohibition in the newspaper issued by the local government, but, if there is no such newspaper – in other local newspaper as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and  the Ministry of Environment indicating the territory where the determination of the prohibition for cultivation of genetically modified crops is intended, as well as the place and term for the submission of public opinions, proposals and objections. The term for the submission of proposals and objections may not be less than 30 days from the day of publication of the notification.  According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, 29 local governments have issued binding rules on prohibition for the cultivation of genetically modified crops, as of beginning 2010.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaire, Notifications published and binding rules on prohibition for the cultivation of genetically modified crops issued by local governments, MS questionnaire Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmMinistry of Environment of Latviahttp://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/gmo/ Ministry of Agriculture of Latviahttp://www.zm.gov.lv/?sadala=1772 Ministry of Environment of Latviahttp://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/gmo/ Ministry of Agriculture of Latviahttp://www.zm.gov.lv/?sadala=1772 GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','02/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A6','A6_1_1','','Germany submitted their 4th national report to the CBD in April 2010. The “National Programme on Biological Diversity” (no date of publication given) was posted on the CBD website in 2003.Latvia had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Latvia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure on Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Latvia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','05/03/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A7','A7_1_4','','Latvia has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A7','A7_2_2','','In Latvia, ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory.','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A8','A8_1','','There is no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing or the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and no activities raising awareness of these issues has been raised yet. There is no information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources. Latvia has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and many items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','05/03/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','There is no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing and no activities raising awareness of the Guidelines has been raised yet.','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Latvia did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and no activities raising awareness of the Agreement has been raised yet.','','','','05/03/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A8','A8_1_4','','No data is available.','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 519, 4 and 17, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. Latvia made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens. The total number of seizures and confiscation of specimens was 2400 for 2007 and 89 for 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to traders, NGOs and the public. Oral and written advice/guidance, training and financial assistance was also provided to the Staff of Management Authority, Scientific Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Latvia has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Latvia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','05/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','A9','','','','','','CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.http://www.cbd.int/countries/ ','05/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_3_2','','A Programme on Development of Biogas Production and Use 2007-2011 was adopted in Latvia in 2007 as well a concept on Use of Renewable Energy Resources 2006-2013 (elaborated in 2006)','','',':http://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/atjaunojamie_energoresursi/','05/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.http://www.cbd.int/countries/ ','05/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'29/04/2010',NULL),
	('Latvia','A9','A9_4_3','','Although no scientific studies have been carried out to identify most vulnerable species and habitats in Latvia, there is opinion of several experts on particular species and habitats for which Latvia cannot achieve favorable conservation status because of climate change. These assumptions are based on unpublished information and opinions from ornithologists that relates to species with winter-related ecological requirements (temperature, snow coverage)However, since 2006 there is a state research program on “Impact of climate change on the waters of Latvia” which consists of 9 working packages, and 2 of them are dealing with inland and sea waters ecosystems. No results are published yet though.','','','Further information on the “Impact of climate change on the waters of Latvia” Program: http://kalme.daba.lv/en/wp1/National reports in the framework of UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php','05/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Lithuania.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','13/05/10',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','A10_1_2','','Lithuania currently does not have plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','20/04/2010','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','A10_1_8','','The Lithuanian Biodiversity Research Forum (LBRF) is a network of institutions and societies of Lithuania that work on or are interested in biodiversity research, protection, sustainable use or dissemination of information. It was launched at 15 October 2004. Scientists, practitioners and policy-makers as well as all institutions working in the field of biodiversity are invited to take part in active exchange of knowledge and opinions within the Forum. The front page indicates that the latest additions were made in 28 October 2005.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','A10_1_9','','Lithuania does not currently participate in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as either a Participant or Associate Member.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.  In Lithuania, the Institute of Ecology, Department of Terrestrial Ecosystems at the University Vilniaus and the state scientific Institute of Botany-Flora, Geobotany lab, Mycology lab are participants of ENBI. The Institute of Ecology is a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums, which aims to provide ENBI work packages and ENBI Community at large with a communication space, and consolidates the outcomes of this communication as an information resource open to everybody. The Institute of Botany is a ‘member’ of Work Package 6: Collections. The objectives of this Work Package are to organize and integrate networks of European natural history specimen databases and develop strategies to update and maintain key European specimen  databases; materially broaden the network of European specimen databases; and  Develop standards and best practice for the archiving and digital imaging of reference (\'type\') specimens.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.All coastal habitats in the Marine Baltic biogeographical region are reported to be in favourable condition.In the Boreal biogeographical region, 100% (2 of 2) of coastal habitats are in favourable condition. Half or more of bog, mire and fen habitats (4 of the 8 or 50%), rocky habitats (2 of the 3 or 67%), dune habitats (6 of the 9 or 67%), freshwater habitats (5 of the 7 or 71%) and sclerophyllous scrub habitats (1 of 1 or 100%) are reported to be in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. 56% of grassland habitats are in an unfavourable- bad condition. The condition of the single Boreal heath and scrub habitat is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regions HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine Baltic Coastal habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1BorealCoastal habitats2100%00%00%00%00%2Dunes habitats00%667%333%00%00%9Freshwater habitats229%571%00%00%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%444%556%00%00%9Bogs, mires & fens225%450%113%113%00%8Rocky habitats133%267%00%00%00%3Forests323%646%431%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and  http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Lithuania has designated 267 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 6664 km², totalling 9.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 2 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 171 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 77, with a total area of 5435 km², totalling 8.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 1, with a marine area of 171 km².','','The percentage for marine areas is not available.3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. ','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Lithuania has 16% of Natura 2000 sites with a management plan completed, 20% of sites with a management plan in preparation and 36% of sites with no management plan completed or in preparation.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_2_3','','Lithuania has tools in place to support ecological connectivity. Nature frame network is used to strengthen the connectivity between Natura 2000 sites or other protected areas.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.vstt.lt/VI/rubric.php?rubric_id=50','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_3','','Of the 242 regularly occurring bird species in Lithuania, 7 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Lithuania, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 7 of the 14 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 10 of the 15 (67%) of fish, 9 of the 28 (32%) invertebrates and 15 of the 23 (65%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 6 of the 28 (21%) and 19 of the 23 (83%) invertebrates and plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, respectively. The conservation status of 5 of the 14 (36%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 28 (21%) invertebrates was reported to be unfavourable-bad. The status of 2 of the 15 (13%) fish and mammals and 7 of the 28 (25%) invertebrates is unknown.   ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Boreal Amphibians and reptiles 750%214%536%00%00%14Fish 1067%213%17%213%00%15Invertebrates932%621%621%725%00%28Mammals1565%417%14%313%00%23Plants 14%1983%14%29%00%23','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Lithuania has the following number of action plans per species group in preparation: 9 for birds, 5 for mammals, 1 for fish, 3 for invertebrates and 4 for plants. Red data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.am.lt/files/Raudonoji_knyga.pdf','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','B1_1_1','','After Lithuania\'s accession to the European Union, compared to domestic funds, financial resources from the European Union became dominant. Relevant state programmes include the Environmental Protection Promotion Programme, with allocations for protection and management of biodiversity and landscape (including scientific studies of protected species, enforcement of control of use of nature resources, public information) and the Action Programme of Cohesion Encouraging for 2007-2013. The latter receives major funding from the European Regional Development Fund and includes several biodiversity-relevant measures. Additionally, in the framework of the Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013 major funding is dedicated to forest ecosystems. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Lithuania spent up to EUR2,369,624 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Lithuania’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Lithuania’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','20/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','B1_1_4','','Lithuania’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR71.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR73.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR42.7m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','20/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','B1_1_8','','This information is not available.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B2_4','','Lithuania has not created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B3_1_5','',' Lithania aims to include key actors and stakeholders in the private sector in partnerships to integrate biodiversity concerns into their relevant sectoral and cross – sectoral plans, programmes and policies. The Long-term Development Strategy of the State (LTDSS) adopted by Lithuanian Parliament on 12 November 2002 (Resolution No. IX-1187) is a strategic planning document is one of the most significant planning documents. It includes aspects of sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection. Lithuania does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.  ','',' No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnershipsat the local, regional and national levels.','Reference or title: Lithuania CBD 4th National ReportWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','20/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','B4_1_1','','A communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. Lithuania reported that it has not yet been fully implemented.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Lithuania has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Lithuania between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','20/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','C1_2','','Lithuania applies 10 SEBI indicators directly and has nationally adapted further two: Evaluation of critical loads to ecosystems according to EMEP/CORINAIR requirements; and Nutrient flow through selected typical agro-ecosystems.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','C1_2_1','','Lithuania applies 10 SEBI indicators directly and has nationally adapted further two: Evaluation of critical loads to ecosystems according to EMEP/CORINAIR requirements; and Nutrient flow through selected typical agroecosystems. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A1','C1_3_1','','The National Environmental Monitoring Programme (NEMP) for the period of 2005-2010 includes special parts for monitoring of species and habitats of EU importance. The main objective of these parts of NEMP is the collection of data, necessary for the assessment and forecast of the changes in the state of habitats and species of EU importance, effects of natural and anthropogenic factors on them, providing the possibility to make optimal decisions for conservation and restoration of habitats and species. Monitoring of bird species started in 2005, other species (mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates, plants) in 2008, detailed monitoring of habitats (coastal habitats; dunes habitats; freshwater habitats; heath and scrub; grasslands; bogs, mires and fens; forests; other habitats) is planned to start in 2012. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://gamta.lt/files/LR_vyriausybes_nutarimas_del_valstybines_aplinkos_monitoringo_2005-2010_metu_programos_patvirtinimo.pdf','20/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Lithuania total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 1765.79 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 2285.3 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 659.67 million EUR, and 824.59 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 37.35 and 36.08 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Lithuania was 291.93 million EUR (364.92 with co-financing) and amounted to 16.53 per cent of the EAFRD (15.97 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 6 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.34 per cent of EAFRD) and 7.5 million EUR of public expenditure (0.33 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 20.4 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.16 per cent of EAFRD) and 25.5 million EUR of public expenditure (1.12 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 8 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.45 per cent of EAFRD) and 10 million EUR of public expenditure (0.44 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only) Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.1450.182Agri-environment payments (214)8.5910.737Forest environment payments (225)0.0010.001','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/10','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, a national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, in situ conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds is promoted in the national biodiversity strategy and action plan. But no further details of the actions taken are provided by the Member State.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Lithuania in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. EIA is applied when afforestation/deforestation area is larger than 1 ha in urban areas and 10 ha in rural areas, SEA if the area is larger than 10 ha. If these procedures are applied biodiversity data are usually carried out as well.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Lithuania had a total certified forest area of 1.02 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.1 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Lithuania was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 48.62 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Lithuania amounted to 0.63 million ha, representing a share of 15.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'11/05/2010',NULL),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity, but no further details are provided.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, national / regional monitoring schemes have not been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 22 million € has been added to Lithuania’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Lithuania attributed no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. However, the section on ecosystems monitoring of the National Environmental Monitoring Programme includes monitoring of density of pedobionts and soil microbiological activity according to the International Cooperative Programme (ICP) integrated monitoring requirements.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://gamta.lt/files/LR_vyriausybes_nutarimas_del_valstybines_aplinkos_monitoringo_2005-2010_metu_programos_patvirtinimo.pdf ','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the majority of the boreal freshwater habitats in Lithuania have an unfavourable conservation status (71 per cent). The remaining 29 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.    ','','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Lithuania.Freshwater habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7520071%29%0%0%U15  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title   ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Lithuania oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, slightly increasing from 2.51 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.56 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.34 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.45 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were slightly higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.53 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.69 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.95 mg N/l in 2004. 2005 figures were below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 1.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 2.2 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 2.8 NO3/l in 2003. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.168 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.111 mg P/l in 2005. The latter value was lower than the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a weak upward trend, increasing from 0.03 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.038 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values below the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Lithuania had a total number of 52 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 61.9 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24//02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Lithuania developed a benthic invertebrate assessment for rivers. All other biological assessment methods for rivers, but also lakes, transitional and coastal waters are only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete).','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Lithuania under the Water Framework Directive.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Lithuania had a total number of 151 IPPC installations and issued 148 permits. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, Lithuania’s emissions for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia and volatile organic compounds are currently well below the EU Emissions Ceilings Directive targets. It is predicted that the implementation of all current legislation for these pollutants and other measures taken within the framework of climate change policy will allow Lithuania to achieve these levels in 2010. However, this also means that a further increase of all emissions is expected. 2007 data compared to the previous year show an upward trend for ammonia and nitrogen oxides.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of 2007 emissions, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Lithuania the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 52 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 26 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 32 and 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 92 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','A2_4_3','','','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','','','','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Lithuania generally have an unfavourable conservation status. All 9 occurrences of boreal grassland habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 77 per cent of the boreal forest habitats have an unfavourable status, while the remaining 23 per cent have a favourable status. The conservation status of the boreal heath and scrub habitats is unknown. Peat land habitats in Lithuania have a predominantly unfavourable conservation status (63 per cent). 25 per cent of peat land habitat has a favourable status and the status of the remaining 13 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Boreal is the only bio geographical region in Lithuania.Status of grassland habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U14  U25       Status of forest habitats  BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131030077%23%0%0%U16  U24       Status of heath and scrub habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8521063%25%13%0%U14  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','20/04/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. For the Second Article 17 Report for Lithuania, only one marine habitat was assessed in the Marine Baltic region, and it was assessed as ‘Favourable’. There were two coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region, both of which had a ‘Favourable’ status. There were no marine species assessed.','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_1_4','','No monitoring programmes have been established for coastal areas. No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','20/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_2','','Lithuania has 15 coastal bathing areas and in 2008 100% of these achieved both mandatory standards and the stricter guidelines standards for water quality. This is an improvement particularly in relation to the guideline standards from 66.7% in 2006 and 60.0% in 2007. In terms of nutrient concentrations, there has been no change in recorded nitrogen concentrations in the Baltic Sea off the Lithuanian coast, but there has been some decrease in recorded phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005.','','-','','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL);

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_4','','Lithuanian’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €16,528,892 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and improving gear selectivity to reduce by-catch. Axis 2 (€29,908,007) promotes aqua-environmental measures in aquaculture and reduction of fishing capacity in the inland sector. Axis 3 (€12,332,322) supports the protection of aquatic flora and fauna, and Axis 4 (€8,925,027) aims to diversify activities and promote eco-tourism. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_98_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','20/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','20/04/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Lithuania had 266 vessels and 1.5% were involved in a serious infringement (4 vessels). A total of 4 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,231 and maximum fine of €1,593.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_5_2','','Lithuania has specific management plans for Salmon, Trout and Eel. The trout recovery and protection program (2003 – 2011) includes the following measures: Restore sea trout migration to potential breeding places, which are currently segregated by mechanical barriers. Also restore migration routes within the Baltic Sea and the lower Nemunas, Neris, Minija, Dubysa and Venta rivers basins;Prevent the build (or rebuild) of dams or other hydraulic equipment which impede fish migration within rivers important for migration of sea trout;Install artificial sea trout and sea trout spawning grounds for juveniles within suitable locations;Monitor the status of sea trout stocks, and perform genetic research; and Strengthen the protection of sea trout during periods of migration and spawning. Lithuania has submitted an Eel management plan (under Council Regulation (EC) 1100/) to the European Commission which was adopted by the EC on 22th December 2009.  The plan sets out measures for the recovery of the stocks of European eel. Lithuania had declared its national territory as one unit for European eel stock management, as the Nemunas river basin includes almost all Lithuania territory and the most important eel habitats within the country. Practical measures to stop eel stock decline are as follows:(1) Limit fishing in the northern part of the Curonian Lagoon to allow silver eel escapement to the sea;(2) Decrease fishing effort by about one third by 2012;(3) Reduce fishing licenses by 43% within inland water bodies and further reduce effort by shortening the fishing season to spring time only;(4) Shorten the fishing season for yellow eels to 3 months;(5) Limit the use of bait in long lining;(6) Reduce the day catch limit from five to three eels within recreational fishing; (7) Assess the impact of the plan in the most essential sites and, according to obtained data, discuss and implement measures to further decrease mortality. Stocking will be also used as one of the measures for eel stock recovery.Since March 13, 2009 Lithuania has been ready to implement CITES requirements by regulating trade on the national market through import and export controls. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_5_3','','Lithuanian fishing capacity has decreased from 2004 to 2008. Vessel numbers have reduced from 293 to 221 (25% reduction); tonnage from 75,588 to 50,478 tons (37% reduction); and power from 77,721 to 59,764 (23% reduction). Reductions were made between 2000 and 2006 using FIFG funds as an overall reduction in the Baltic high sea fleets by 45%. However, there is still excess capacity in the Baltic. In 2007, eleven vessels with a total capacity of 1 173 GT and 1 893 kW were decommissioned.','','2008 data: 221 vessels; 50478 tons; 59764 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Lithuania had 266 active vessels. There were 2 type D breaches in this year and 2 penalties imposed with an average fine of €869. No information on actions taken to reduce unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by Lithuania.','','2007 data is currently not available ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','20/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_6_2','','There are no shark monitoring programmes in Lithuania. No information on seabird monitoring was provided by Lithuania.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Lithuania has 7 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below).  However, according to Lithuanian sources, there are two established marine Natura2000 sites within territorial waters which have selected on criteria which are different from those detailed below. Lithuania has defined specific fisheries management measures for one of the marine Natura2000 sites within its territorial waters. No further information on the type of fisheries measures was provided. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below: Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 6Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A3','A3_7_1','','Lithuania has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, the Lithuanian Fisheries Research Laboratory will collect data for ecosystem indicators 1—4 and 8 in Appendix XIII. The data for Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency of fish capture is collected annually with economic data collection questionnaires, but it can be difficult to produce the data per metier, as the data is collected as total by vessel rather than per metier, as vessels can change between different metiers during the year. However, it is possible to calculate this indicator in accordance with the KW Days, collected with transversal data. The time lag for fuel consumption is 1 year as with economic data collection (the data for 2008 will be collected in 2009). The parameter fuel efficiency of fish capture will be calculated in accordance with DCR and STECF recommendations. The required data for indicators 5-7 cannot be provided by defined level at this time.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture',' ','20/04/2010','na','','na','13/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Lithuanian EEZ waters in 2004 was 3.16. This represents a decrease of 0.12 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.57 since 2004. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A4','A4_3','','Nature frame network is mandatory in Lithuania and must be taken into account in spatial planning.','','','','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A4','A4_4_1','','Development of sustainable tourism is considered as part of the Lithuanian National Strategy for Sustainable Development. (Adopted in 2003, amended in 2009)','','','National Strategy for Sustainable Development: http://www.am.lt/VI/en/VI/index.php#r/140','07/04/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the hypothesis detailed hereunder, Lithuanian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 198.3 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','07/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Lithuania has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Several pieces of legislation in Lithuania provide for the control of pathways for introducing species including the Law on Wild Flora (1999), the Regulation of the Ministry of Environment on import of new plant and fungi species (2000) and the Law on Protected Plant, Animal, and Fungi Species and Communities (1997, amended 2001). The import and export of plant species is regulated by the Law on Plant Protection (1995, amended 2003). It is also prohibited to use alien species for afforestation under national legislation. The Ministry of Environment approved an Order on Introduction, Reintroduction and Relocation, an Order on Control and Eradication of Invasive Species and Composition of Committee on Invasive Species Control (Order no. 352) issued in 2002 (and amended in 2008). A list of IAS was approved by Ministerial Order No. D1-433 in 2004 and amended in 2009.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 39 are present in Lithuania. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 39 are present in Lithuania. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.According to reporting by the Member State, at the national level 19 species are included in the list of invasive species, approved by the Ministerial Order in 2009.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_1_2','','No national strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) has been developed in Lithuania. The Lithuanian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1998) sets a goal (to protect locally characteristic species and natural populations by preventing the spread of adventitious and invasive species and by enhancing research) and actions related to IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_1_3','','Lithuania has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','07/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A5','A5_2_2','','Lithuania has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The co-existence legislation in force in Lithuania is: the Order of Minister of Agriculture No 3D-1 Concerning Approval of the Rules on GM Plants Intended to Be Grown in Lithuania Declaring and Information Providing. Official Journal „Valstybės žinios“ No 5-236 (2007); the Order of Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Environment No 3D-504/D1- 608 Concerning Approval of the Rules on Coexistence of GM Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops. Official Journal „Valstybės žinios“ No 121- 4978 (2007) and; Order of the Head of State Seed and Grain Service under the Ministry of Agriculture No 1A-235 Concerning the Rules on the Inspection of the GM agricultural plants seed crops, nurseries of propagating materials of horticultural and ornamental plants. Annex of the Official Journal „Valstybės žinios“ No 3-48 (2005).  According to the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Lithuania.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, GMO free Europe initiativeWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmhttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/','07/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in October 2009. The “Republic of Lithuania Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan” was published in 1996.Lithuania had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention (for the latter, the data source shows an outstanding payment of EUR8 as of 31 Dec 2008)..','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','04/07/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Lithuania for 2006 and 2007.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Lithuania','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Lithuania for 2006 and 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/07/2010','','','07/01/2010, 12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A7','A7_1_4','','Lithuania has not contributed to the 3rd or 4th GEF replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','04/07/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','04/07/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A8','A8_1','','While no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing or the Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exist, law No IX-533 on National Plant Genetic Resources was adopted in 2001. No public awareness regarding the Guidelines or the MTA has been raised. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is nearly 100%. Lithuania has issued a low number of import, export and re-export applications for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','04/07/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','In 2001, law No IX-533 on National Plant Genetic resources was adopted. No activities raising awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines have been undertaken.Law No IX-533 on National Plant Genetic resources adopted in 2001 ','',' ','Reference or title:Weblink:','04/07/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Lithuania did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','04/07/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Lithuania does not have national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources nor have national activities raising awareness on this treaty been undertaken. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A8','A8_1_4','','The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources from 2006 - 2009 is nearly 100%.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 175, 15 and 0, respectively. The number of import applications denied in 2007 and 2008 were 15. No export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The aggregate number of significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 62 for 2007-2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training have been provided to Staff of Management Authority, Staff of Scientific Authority, Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and the public. Lithuania has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Lithuania paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','20/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','A9','','','','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','20/04/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','20/04/2010',NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('Lithuania','A9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by Luxembourg to encourage business biodiversity partnerships','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A10_1','','Luxembourg public research has undergone major shifts in recent years and is facing a period of important transformations in the near future. Biodiversity research in Luxembourg is being funded through the following programme of the National Research Fund (FNR): Sustainable Resource Management. Understanding Ecosystems and Biodiversity Research in this field will help to reverse the trend of ongoing loss of biodiversity and to ensure the achievement of long-term sustainability goals. These research activities will also contribute to fulfil the many commitments Luxembourg has to the EU, particularly those under the European Commission Action Plan aimed at conserving biodiversity and preventing biodiversity loss within the EU and internationally. Besides several objectives related to safeguarding important habitats and species, the Luxembourg National Action Plan for Nature Conservation explicitly states the need for improving the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, which requires strengthening of the related research areas. One objective of public research in this domain is to reach a systematic assessment of ecosystem services in order to properly ascertain the socio-economic benefit of biodiversity, which is practically unvalued so far. This approach should identify opportunities for economic benefit by emphasising the potential sources of economic growth through conservation of biodiversity.','','','http://www.fnr.lu/en/Grants-Activities/Research-Programmes/CORE-Programme','04/02/2010','','','03/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A10_1_2','','Luxembourg does not have any plans to follow up the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as part of either a national initiative or wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','04/02/2010','','','03/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A10_1_8','','The development of nature protection policies and strategies should be based on sound scientific evidence, in order to effectively evaluate the measures and projects implemented and to guide development of future strategies.The Act of January 19, 2004 concerning the protection of nature and natural resources in Luxembourg required a substantial strengthening of the scientific process, particularly regarding the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. As of December 4, 2003, the Chamber of Deputies passed a motion urging the Luxembourg Government to draft a bill providing for the association of municipalities in the implementation of the objectives of the Act of January 19, 2004 and the building and the improvement of scientific work on conservation. An audit on the protection of the natural environment created by the design offices and BASLER ERSA demonstrated the absence of a sound scientific basis for nature protection. In particular, the requirements for scientific monitoring the implementation of the European network Natura 2000, including the description, every 6 years, the conservation status of 31 habitats and 19 species to be protected in Luxembourg as well as 75 species of birds, required strengthening and improvement of scientific work as well as better coordination with all stakeholders. These findings and discussions led to the passing of the Act of August 3, 2005 regarding the partnership on environmental protection and the establishment of a national biodiversity platform in the form of the observatory of the natural environment, composed of representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Administration of Forestry, the National Museum of Natural History, municipalities and municipal unions and associations active in the field of conservation and the environment. In addition, three scientists in the field of preservation of biodiversity are part of the observatory.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','04/02/2010','','','na','03/03/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A10_1_9','','Luxembourg became an Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in May 2008.No organisations from Luxembourg are members of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI), which is Europe’s contribution to GBIF. ','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','04/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','03/03/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Continental biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in favourable condition. The remaining 1 of the 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of all heath and scrub habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad. For all freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats as well as for 5 of the 6 (83%) rocky habitats and for 3 of the 7 (43%) grassland habitats the conditions are unknown. Conditions have not been reported for 1 of the 7 (14%) grasslands and 1 of the 8 (13%) forests habitats.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','04/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of November 2009, Luxembourg has designated 48 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 399 km², totalling 15.4% of the country’s area. All these sites have been designated as Special Areas of Conservation. The number of Special Protection Areas is 12, with a total area of 139 km², totalling 5.4% of the country’s area. ','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Luxembourg.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm; http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2009/0220/a220.pdf#page=2','   04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan',' In Luxembourg, 29 % of Natura 2000 sites have a management plan completed, 6 % of the sites have a management plan in preparation and 65% have no management plan completed and in preparation. The terms of reference for the establishement of Natura 2000 management plans is currently being revieved. New management plans will be initiated during the second semester of 2010. For the 35% of SAC\'s with a management plan completed or in preparation, a pluridisciplinary management body has been established. A national, legally binding spatial planning instrument aiming at the conservation and sustainable development of landscapes is in preparation. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument are compatible with and aiming at the achievement of the objectives of the Natura 2000 network. ','','For the 35% of SAC\'s with a management plan completed or in preparation, a pluridisciplinary management body has been established. A national, legally binding spatial planning instrument aiming at the conservation and sustainable development of landscapes is in preparation. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument are compatible with and aiming at the achievement of the objectives of the Natura 2000 network. ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PSP/index.html','04/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_2_3','','Regulations on subsidies for financing the establishment of structural landscape elements such as hedgerows, field margins and trees are in place. Nationally relevant biological corridors are being defined by a national, legally binding spatial planning instrument for landscape protection (see above).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PSP/index.htmlhttp://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2008/0046/a046.pdf#page=2','04/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_3','','Of the 182 regularly occurring bird species in Luxembourg, 4 are globally Near-threatened and none are Red-listed. Data on the national bird red list for Luxembourg is available at http://www.luxnatur.lu/lnv005.htm. Note the figures above refer to all bird species of Luxembourg, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Continental biogeographical region, 5 of the 10 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 1 of the 6 (17%) fish, 4 of the 15 (27%) invertebrates and 3 of 7 (43%) plants are in a favourable condition. 2 of the 6 (33%) fish and 15 of the 25 (60%) mammals are in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 10 (30%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of 6 (50%) fish, 10 of the 15 (67%) of invertebrates, 8 of the 25 (32 %) of mammals and 2 of the 7 (29%) plants species is regarded as unfavourable- bad. The condition of 2 of the 7 (29%) plant species is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= unfavourable - inadequateU2= unfavourable - badXX= unknownNA=not reported Continental Amphibians and reptiles 550%110%330%110%00%10Fish 117%233%350%00%00%6Invertebrates427%17%1067%00%00%15Mammals00%1560%832%28%00%25Plants 343%00%229%229%00%7','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html; http://www.luxnatur.lu/lnv005.htm','04/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Luxembourg has the following completed species action plans: 5 for birds, 3 for mammals, 6 for amphibians and reptiles, 3 for invertebrates and 11 for plants. In addition, there are species action plans in preparation, namely, 4 for birds, 1 for invertebrates and 3 for plants. The European common bird index not yet available in Luxembourg but monitoring began in 2009. The red list for mammals is limited to bats. Invertebrate red lists exist for butterflies and moths, dragonflies as well as orthoptera. Fish and bird red lists will be updated in 2010.','','','http://www.mnhn.lu/recherche/default.htm#rl','23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B1_1_1','','The Plan National Protection Nature (PNPN) 2007-2011 contains a detailed budget for the envisaged measures to implement the seven targets of the 2007-2011 action plan; the total spending foreseen is EUR52,241,000. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Luxembourg spent up to EUR1,493,999 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Luxembourg’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','22/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B1_1_4','','Luxembourg does not have any allocations for categories 51, 55 and 56.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B1_1_8','','Luxembourg has allocated EUR59,000 in 2006, EUR36,000 in 2007, EUR54,000 in 2008 and EUR600,100 in 2009 for biodiversity research activities and programmes. From 2006-2009, Luxembourg has spent between EUR36,000 and EUR600,100 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure.','','','','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B2_4','','Since the 1960s, over 80% of wetlands and about 35% of dry grasslands have disappeared in Luxembourg. At the same time, the area occupied by orchards has been reduced by 58.5%. In terms of structural elements of landscapes, nearly 28.5% of hedges and rows of trees and more than half (- 55%) of solitary trees have been removed. In order to reverse this trend of commoditization and standardization of the natural environment and to focus government action and its partners on Conservation Council of Government adopted the National Plan for Protection Nature (PNPN) at its meeting on May 11, 2007. The PNPN is a political action program for the protection of nature for the period 2007 - 2011, combining two strategic objectives (1) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and (2) Protection of landscapes and ecosystem services, as well as seven specific targets to achieve these objectives. The PNPN focuses primarily on the implementation of concrete measures for the protection and conservation of nature and identified 41 priority measures including 15 priority measures and 36 priority sites to be classified as a protected area. An estimate of the budgetary impact of these measures is an integral part of PNPN.','','','http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PNPN/PNPNvfinale200407-2.pdf','22/02/2010','','','03/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B3_1_2','','Engagement of key stakeholders in the fields of agriculture and forestry are encouraged locally through contractual biodiversity conservation initiatives  On a national level, agriculture and forestry representatives are represented at the national council for nature protection, which is a platform for exchanging and advising government authorities on biodiversity related issues','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B3_1_5','','A national, legally binding spatial planning instrument (“plan sectoriel paysage”) aimed at the conservation and sustainable development of the landscape was in preparation. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument will be compatible with Natura 2000 network objectives and will directly address biodiversity conservation by aiming to further the current network. The plan was being prepared with close collaboration between the Ministries for the Environment and for Spatial Planning with the active participation of governmental, private and non-governmental stakeholders. At a regional level, local municipalities have collaborated to establish syndicates for nature protection and conservation. Five syndicates currently exist and cover approximately 45% of the national territory.','','The “plan sectoriel paysage” is currently available in the form of a first draft, which was adopted by the government in 2008 and presented to the Parliament. It is expected that the final document and the relevant legal instruments will be in place by the second half of 2011. This timeframe takes into account the time allocated for a broad public consultation to take place in the second half of 2010.','http://www.sicona.lu/http://www.sias.lu/html/naturzenter_-_station_biologiq.htmlhttp://www.naturpark-our.lu/http://www.naturpark-sure.lu/','23/02/2010','','','','27/02/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by Luxembourg to encourage business biodiversity partnerships','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up by Luxembourg to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds in Luxembourg.','','','','22/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B4_1_1','','A national campaign on biodiversity and nature conservation was launched and fully implemented in 2007. The campaign consisted of a website (www.biodiv.lu), a TV spot, also shown in major cinemas, notices in daily newspapers and internet news sites and the publication of a brochure. The main objective of the campaign was to involve the general public in nature conservation in their daily lives. With the support of national celebrities, the brochure aimed to demonstrate that the daily choices we make can have a positive influence on nature conservation and biodiversity generally. The website has now been reorganized to reflect the national partnership dedicated to the celebration of the international year for biodiversity. ','','','www.biodiv.lu','22/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A1','B4_1_2','','The Ministry for the Environment of Luxembourg made a declaration supporting the implementation of joint actions under the 2010 countdown initiative on the 21 May 2007. It suggested implementation of a national plan using tangible measures, like the creation and implementation of action plans concerning target species and their habitats. Luxembourg also stated that it would extend the national network protected areas of Community, national and municipal interest. The Ministry expressed a commitment to promote good practices with respect to biodiversity protection among private companies and public bodies and towards the integration of nature protection principles in development cooperation projects. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Luxembourg between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects. ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','22/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','C1_2','','A national biodiversity monitoring programme has been developed between 2008 and 2009. Its implementation will begin in 2010. A number of biodiversity indicators will be derived from the national biodiversity monitoring programme and will be regularly updated.','','Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD.                                                               Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','22/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','C1_2_1','','A national biodiversity monitoring programme has been developed between 2008 and 2009. Its implementation will begin in 2010. A number of biodiversity indicators will be derived from the national biodiversity monitoring programme and will be regularly updated.','','','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD                                                                   Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','22/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A1','C1_3_1','','A national monitoring programme for a range of habitats will be launched in 2010, while a national inventory of annex 1 habitats was carried out between 2007 and 2010. Species on the annexes of the Habitats Directive will be monitored starting in 2010.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter, and minimum levels of maintenance of agricultural areas.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Luxembourg total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 94.96 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 393.06 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 53 million EUR, and 212.01 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 51.82 and 53.94 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Luxembourg was 26.78 million EUR (107.12 with co-financing) and amounted to 28.2 per cent of the EAFRD (27.25 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.16 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.17 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.65 million EUR of public expenditure (0.16 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Luxembourg for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)6.3390725.35676Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. Nor is the in situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species promoted in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan. However, measures are taken through the RDP to conserve the Ardennes breed of draft horse (with a cost of 27,000 EUR). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Luxembourg in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. There are currently no limits set in hectare for the application of the above mentioned instruments.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Luxembourg had a total certified forest area of 45,340 hectares out of a total forest area of 87,000 hectares. 18,835 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system, under which 26,505 hectares were certified. In total, 52.11 per cent of the forest area in Luxembourg was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC).  ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Luxembourg amounted to 0.01 million ha, representing a share of 9.0 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter, and minimum levels of maintenance of agricultural areas.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Advisory services have been set up top support implementation of cross-compliance, including measures to retain landscape features, but no information is provided on RDP Axis 2 measures.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','No link','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_8','','The only mandatory biodiversity related indicator that is currently monitored is tree species composition. Monitoring schemes are being set up for farmland bird population trends and HNV farming (both to be started in 2010). No monitoring is carried out in being developed for HNV forestry. ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 5 million € has been added to Luxembourg’s Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Luxembourg provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','This table presents the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','04/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all four occurrences of the continental freshwater habitats in Luxembourg have an unknown conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.    ','','Continental is the only biogeographical region in Luxembourg.Status of freshwater habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage400400%0%100%0%U10   U20       According to reporting by Member State, between 2007 and 2010 a national survey of all Annex I habitats has been carried out. Information on the conservation status of freshwater habitats will thus be available for the next reporting period.','Reference or title: HD Article 17 report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Luxembourg oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 4.66 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.47 mg O3/l in 2005. 2005 figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.36 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.43 mg N/l in 2005. Values were higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005. No figures for 2003 were available.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 5.08 mg N/l in 2002 to 4.67 mg N/l in 2005, but with a peak of 5.29 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly above weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear trend from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 24.2 mg NO3 /l in 2003 and 23.8 mg NO3/l in 2005.No information on phosphorus concentrations in river and lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Luxembourg had a total number of 10 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 50 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has slightly increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Luxembourg all biological assessment methods for rivers were partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete), including phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish fauna.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 4 in Luxembourg. ','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Luxembourg had a total number of 32 IPPC installations and issued 42 permits. No permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','26/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Luxembourg’s non-methane volatile organic compounds did not meet the ceilings of the NEC Directive. According to its reporting, the country expects emissions in 2010 to be well below the NEC Directive targets for sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and ammonia and slightly below for non-methane volatile organic compounds. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Luxembourg the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 15 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 1,015 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 13 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and a reduction to 99 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 98 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Luxembourg’s gross nitrogen balance was 129 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 44 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 43 per cent of the continental grassland habitats in Luxembourg have an unfavourable conservation status, 43 per cent have an unknown status and 14 per cent were unreported. 38 per cent of the continental forest habitats have a favourable conservation status, 38 per cent have an unfavourable status, 13 per cent have an unknown status and the remaining 13 per cent were unreported. All of the continental heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable conservation status and the status for all 3 occurrences of continental peat land habitats is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.   ','','Continental is the only bio geographical region in Luxembourg.Status of grassland habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7303143%0%43%14%U12   U21       Status of forest habitats ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8331138%38%13%13%U12   U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U10   U21       Status of peat land habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage300300%0%100%0%U10   U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A3','A3_4','','There is no Fisheries Operational Programme listed for Luxembourg: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','-','Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','04/02/2010','','','','28/4/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A3','A3_5_2','','Luxembourg has a specific management plan for European Eel which has been submitted to and approved by the Commission although the document is not currently accessible. Luxembourg does not have specific plans for salmon, trout or sturgeon, but does have a number of activities that support and promote diadromous species. For instance in terms of restoring habitats, there are activities to protect gravel banks, allow the natural dynamics of rivers and rehabilitate natural habitats as well as improve water quality. There are also activities to remove migratory barriers including the creation of fish ramps and fish passes; stock enhancement for salmon through the breeding and release of fingerlings; and finally for eels there have been initiatives to trap and truck mature eels from up river to down river. Some key initiatives for diadromous species include: 1) A national inventory of migratory obstacles has been established (2008-2010) which indicates the priorities for transformation. Transforming migratory barriers has been underway over the past 10 years.2) Mapping areas of spawning and juvenile salmon congregations, as well as stock enhancement has been undertaken from 1992 to 2004 in the river Sure and Our.3) Trapping and trucking of about 400 to 1000 Atlantic eels is undertaken annually since 2004 taking adult eels from the river Sure tributary to the Mosel/Rhine (where there is no commercial fishery).','','','','22/02/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Luxembourg','A4','A4_3','','A national, legaly binding spatial planning instrument aiming at the conservation and sustainable developpement of landscapes is in preparation in Luxemburg. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument are compatible with and aiming at the achievement of the objectives of the Natura 2000 network as well as the coherence of ecological networks in general. ','','','http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PSP/index.html','23/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A4','A4_4_1','','','','','','04/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, there was no direct spending from Luxembourg under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity. Indeed, no spending under biodiversity categories (51, 55 and 56) is foreseen by the Luxemburg Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','04/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','24/04/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Luxembourg has no specific legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is general legislation that addresses various issues relating to IAS. The Act of 19 January 2004 on Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (amended) contains provisions under Articles 30, 26 and 27 that can be applied to IAS. Article 30 prohibits the import and introduction of alien species into the wild without Ministerial authorisation which may only be granted following an extensive consultation. Articles 26 and 27 contain provisions for the control, possession and trade of wild native and alien flora and fauna. There are some legal measures for preventing the introduction and distribution of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Although no legislation pertaining to the control and eradication of alien species is currently in force, hunting legislation is under development for the control of alien species if necessary. A review of the legal framework is underway in order to determine whether or not it is sufficient.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 19 are present in Luxembourg.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_1_2','','There is no national strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) in Luxembourg. The National Nature Conservation Plan (Plan National Protection de la Nature 2007-2011) adopted in May 2007 contains an IAS strategy which addresses IAS issues. As part of the strategy, action plans may be prepared for IAS that threaten native biodiversity or public health.According to reporting by the Member State, a national survey on certain IAS species has been carried out by the National Museum for Natural History, Luxembourg. Training courses to identify and eradicate the main target species have been organised. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkhttp://mnhnl.lu/cgi-bin/baseportal.pl?htx=/projects/neophytes/intro ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_1_3','','Luxembourg has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, there is no specific database on invasive alien species (IAS), but rather a common, centralised national database for all biodiversity relevant data hosted by the musée national d’histoire naturelle. This database is called RECORDER and contains all data stemming from inventories of IAS undertaken since 2006 within the overall framework of a project (see link below). No an early warning and information system for IAS is under development. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://mnhnl.lu/cgibin/baseportal.pl?htx=/projects/neophytes/intro ','04/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A5','A5_2_2','','Luxembourg has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is: Loi du 18 mars 2008 sur la commercialisation des semences et plants ainsi que sur la coexistence des cultures génétiquement modifiées, conventionnelles et biologiques. Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 27 mars 2008, p. 446; and Règlement grand-ducal du 22 juillet 2008 fixant les distances d’isolement et les conditions techniques à respecter lors de la mise en culture de semences et plants génétiquement modifies. Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 20 août 2008, p.1824.  At the local level, 69% of municipalities have declared themselves GMO free zones. 10% of farmers have sigend individual declarations of abstaining from planting GMO\'s on their farms. On the national level, the cultivation of MON810 is banned.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm,','04/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBS has been submitted and published on the CBD website in December 2009. There is currently no National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.Luxembourg had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while payments for 2007 and 2008 for the World Heritage Convention were, as of 31 Dec 2008, still outstanding.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Luxembourg for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Luxembourg','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Luxembourg for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A7','A7_1_4','','Luxembourg contributed EUR5.16 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.21% of the total replenishment. Luxembourg contributed EUR4.79 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.22% of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Luxembourg','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','','04/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Luxembourg','A8','A8_1','','While Luxembourg did not provide funds for the Access & Benefit-sharing (ABS) Working Group and has no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on ABS, national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exists and awareness on the conservation and propagation of local fruit tree varieties has been raised. No information on the national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is available. Luxembourg has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with a few applications denied, and a low number of items seized. Support to the development of national capacity for implementing CITES was provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','04/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Luxembourg has no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on ABS and no awareness on the Guidelines has been raised. ','','','','04/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Luxembourg did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Luxembourg has national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. Awareness raising campaigns about the conservation and propagation of local fruit tree varieties have taken place regularly over the last decade, mainly by national NGOs, partially supported by the LEADER programme.  ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:For national ratification, see http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2003/0196/a196.pdf#page=8','23/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A8','A8_1_4','','No wood products consumption data available.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 146, 2 and 13, respectively. Information was not available on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 5 for 2007 and 8 for 2008 representing a net increase of 3. As to capacity-building at the national level, training was provided to Staff of Management Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Technical assistance was provided to traders. Luxembourg has not provided technical and financial assistance in relation to CITES. Luxembourg paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','A9','','','No national biodiversity strategy does actually exist in Luxemburg.In 2010 a broad partnership between governmental, private and non-profit organisations will be launched with the aim of determining new strategies and concrete measures in the realm of climate change. Biodiversity will be one pillar of this process with the objective to identify concrete win-win situations, projetc and measures between biodoversity, climate, development and agricultural policies.','','','','04/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_3_2','','The NREAP of Luxemburg is currently in preparation under the supervision of the Ministry of economy and foreign trade and is planned to be finalized by the end of June 2010.','','','The overall capacity of production of renewable energies and a strategy for their further development in Luxembourg are shown in the following document: http://www.eco.public.lu/documentation/etudes/2007/03/Endbericht_RES-Lux_26_03_07_final.pdf','22/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_4_1','','No national biodiversity strategy does actually exist in Luxemburg.In 2010 a broad partnership between governmental, private and non-profit organisations will be launched with the aim of determining new strategies and concrete measures in the realm of climate change. Biodiversity will be one pillar of this process with the objective to identify concrete win-win situations, projetc and measures between biodoversity, climate, development and agricultural policies.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'04/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'24/04/2010',NULL),
	('Luxembourg','A9','A9_4_3','','Luxemburg is currently undertaking studies on identification of species at risk of climate change. An example of research is a study on the risk of climatic changes to the conservation of Arnica Montana, which is an ongoing PhD project under the supervision of Dr. G. Colling of the Museum of natural history in Luxembourg. There is no such scientific studies for habitats identification so far.','','','','04/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','','','No information was provided by the Member State. It appears that no forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','A10_1','','Although Malta does not have a specifically dedicated programme aimed at supporting biodiversity research, the Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) supports biodiversity research, both directly and indirectly, through assistance to students of the University of Malta undertaking studies related to various issues of biodiversity and nature protection, and funds (partially or completely) the publication of relevant scientific studies and scientific journals. MEPA has also commissioned a series of studies throughout the years with the aim to increase the understanding of biodiversity on a national scale, including studies related to the collation of information on threatened and endemic species, as well as study of Posidonia meadows in Maltese waters. Various national research institutions also contribute towards the better understanding of Maltese biodiversity, and some of these intuitions also participate in regional research projects. These institutions include the University of Malta Department of Biology and its established Institutes (e.g. the International Environment Institute, the Institute of Islands and Small States and the Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics) and the Malta Centre for Fisheries Science. ','','','Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences: http://vafd.gov.mt/capture-fisheries  Department of Biology - University of Malta http://home.um.edu.mt/biology/11_research.html  Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.ies.com.mt/  International Environment Institute http://www.um.edu.mt/iei/ Institute for Islands & Small States http://www.um.edu.mt/islands/ Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics http://www.um.edu.mt/iei/entities/icod Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) http://www.mcst.gov.mt/ Malta National Biodiversity Platform http://www.um.edu.mt/pressreleases/2003/bioplatform.html MEPA International Funded Projects http://www.mepa.org.mt/internationally-funded-projectsatmepa','19/2/2010','','','09/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','A10_1_2','','Malta does not have any plans to follow up the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as part of either a national initiative or wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. A number of issues identified in the MA are catered for through various policies and processes within the Malta Environment & Planning Authority and other relevant bodies, as well as through assessments such as the State of the Environment Report. ','','','','19/2/2010','','','09/03/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','A10_1_8','','Malta has a national biodiversity platform, composed of different government and nongovernment representatives working together to assess and promote research and policy requirements for biodiversity in the Maltese Islands and also support the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy. The main objectives of this platform are to provide a network for scientists and policy makers that work in different fields of biodiversity, thus enhancing the communication between scientists and end-users of research results; to promote the dissemination of current best practices and information regarding the scientific understanding of biodiversity conservation; and to contribute to European Research Area for Biodiversity, by promoting the National Platform on biodiversity and linking it to other European Platforms, thus helping to improve the effectiveness of European biodiversity research. ','','Last update date for the www.maltabioplatform.org is 12/2/2010','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info http://www.maltabioplatform.org/ ','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/03/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','A10_1_9','','Malta is not currently a participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility as a Participant or Associate member. There are also no organisations from Malta are participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI), which is the European contribution to GBIF.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/03/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data..In the Mediterranean Sea biogeographical region, the condition of 1 of 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 3 of the 4 (75%) coastal habitats is unknown. For the 1 of 4 (25%) coastal habitats that have been assessed the condition is reported to be favourable. In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) and 1 of 1 (100%) freshwater habitats and grasslands are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively. 3 of the 3 (100%) dune habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of the 2 (50%) rocky habitats, 1 of the 2 (50%) freshwater habitats and 2 of the 5 (40%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are unknown. For the 1 of the 7 (14%) coastal habitats that have been assessed the condition is reported to be favourable.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_summaries/national_sumarypdf_16/_EN_1.0_&a=d and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','19/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Malta has designated 28 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 50 km², totalling 13.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. There is 1 site with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 8 km² (0.18%). The number of Special Protection Areas is 13, with a total area 16 km², totalling 4.5% of the country’s terrestrial area. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','19/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Of 28 Sites of Community Interest, 1 site is covered by a Management Plan (MP), MPs are being prepared for 3 other SCIs, while for the remainder no MP has been prepared or completed.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Information provided is extracted from the Article 17 General Report (2008).Weblink: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/mt/eu/art17/','19/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','A1_2_3','','National tools to support ecological connectivity are in place and can be found in a variety of forms ranging from plans and associated policies to national legislation offering protection to ecological corridors.The development framework for the Maltese Islands is laid out in the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands adopted through the Development Planning Act of 1992. The Structure Plan aims to influence the quality and distribution of land uses through a set of sectoral and area-based policies that take into account the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the Maltese Islands. The objective of this national planning tool is three-fold. The Structure Plan provides guidance to Local Plans and gives a general direction for development and strives to conserve and enhance the countryside and promote integrated land and water planning. The Structure Plan encompasses a variety of policies, including RCO Policies, which aim towards the conservation of natural habitats, natural features and the landscape. The said RCO Policies provide conservation measures with respect to a number of issues ranging from ecology, to rehabilitation of degraded habitats and landscapes to agricultural land.In addition, ecological corridors in Malta are considered to be essential for the coherence, connectivity and resilience of the natural environment. As such, nationally, these corridors include traditionally built rubble walls, and natural features such as valley watercourses. Rubble walls are legally protected by the ‘Rubble Walls and Rural Structures (Conservation and Maintenance) Regulations, 1997’ (LN 160 of 1997, as amended by LN 169 of 2004). Important valley watercourses are being addressed via the implementation of the EC Habitats Directive and the EC Water Framework Directive as well as related national legislation.Nonetheless,  the majority of protected areas that form part of the National Ecological Network come along with a “buffer zone”, which for instance covers agricultural land, apart from the fact that the boundaries of certain protected areas (under different designations) overlap. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Structure Plan:http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpg-structureplanRubble Walls and Rural Structures (Conservation and Maintenance) Regulations, 1997 as amended:http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1362','19/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','A1_3','','Of the 204 regularly occurring bird species in Malta, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 3 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Malta, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Mediterranean Sea biogeographical region, the conservation status of all amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates, mammals and plants is unknown. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 7 of the 9 (78%) amphibians and reptiles and 1 of 13 (8%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 6 (33%) invertebrates and 8 of the 13 (62%) plants and 1 of 1 (100%) fish is regarded unfavourable-inadequate. 3 of the 6 (50%) invertebrates, 4 of the 13 (23%) plants and 1 of the 9 (11%) of amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 6 (17%) of invertebrates and 1 of the 8 (13%) of mammals is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported Mediterranean SeaAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%1100%00%1Fish 00%00%00%1100%00%1Invertebrates00%00%00%6100%00%6Mammals00%00%00%8100%00%8Plants 00%00%00%2100%00%2MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 778%111%111%00%00%9Fish 00%1100%00%00%00%1Invertebrates00%233%350%117%00%6Mammals338%450%00%113%00%8Plants 18%862%431%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_summaries/national_sumarypdf_16/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','19/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','National species action plans have been drafted, for marine mammals and marine turtles. However, these need to be reviewed and processed for consultation. Moreover, Malta is currently drafting a further species action plan concerning cartilaginous species, which would also require reviewing and processing for consultation.Red Data Lists: The Red Data Book (RDB) for the Maltese Islands was published in 1989. In view of this, studies were commissioned in connection with selected groups of species in order to re-assess their status in line with the new (updated) IUCN Criteria. Publication of Red Data Lists, and hence updating the RDB, is envisaged.','','','','19/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','B1_1_1','','No information from national reports to the CBD on biodiversity funding programmes was available. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Malta spent up to EUR459,867 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','No information from national reports to the CBD on biodiversity funding programmes was available because, as of November 2009, Malta had not submitted any national reports to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Malta’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','04/05/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','B1_1_4','','Malta’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR1.7m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR19.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR4.3m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','04/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','B1_1_8','','A specific value in Euro cannot be provided at this stage, also since some activities carried out vis-à-vis research are in kind.Malta has been actively involved in carrying out research activities with the aim to gain a better understanding of the Maltese biodiversity. Moreover, various national research institutions including the University of Malta and its institutes, as well as relevant NGOs, also contribute towards strengthening an understanding of Maltese biodiversity, and some also participate in regional research projects (apart from academic research at a national level).Amongst the activities related to biodiversity research Malta has conducted the following:The commissioning of a number of studies, through the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, covering a number of taxonomic groups, with the aim to assist in the development of a National Database on Biodiversity, including studies on endemic species and invasive alien species;Application for funds with the aim to prepare management plans and/or legislation for the Natura 2000 sites of the Maltese Islands;The establishment of the ‘National Research & Innovation Programme’, which is set on 4 priorities namely: ICT, Health & Biotech, Energy & Environment, and High Value Added Manufacturing. Specific allocations of funding for biodiversity research activities fall directly under the Energy and Environment priority. A typical example is a 4-year Project on the ‘Valorisation of the indigenous vine varieties of Malta: Conservation, Assessment and Innovation’ which has been funded under the R&I 2008 Programme;Nationally, the Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences is involved in scientific research and monitoring, in addition to the technical advice provided to the fishing and aquaculture community. In general, Malta is involved in a variety of fisheries related activities, such as the MEDITS trawl survey, MEDLEM, collaboration on a project on the incidental by-catch of seabirds and participation in the EU-financed SELFDOTT project;Participation in the EU funded project on the development of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy;Sponsorship of journals and the publishing of biological abstracts; Assistance to university students carrying out dissertations which are deemed to provide relevant information;Studies carried out by national experts in their own capacity. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','04/05/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','B2_4','','Malta’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) are currently under development.  Although the process for developing Malta’s NBSAP is still ongoing, other national documents of a strategic nature have been developed that have put forward a number of recommendations for safeguarding, as well as conserving and managing, biological resources in the Maltese Islands. These include: State of the Environment Reports (SOERs), State of the Environment Indicators (SOEIs), the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) and the National Report on the Strategic Action Plan for the Conservation of Maltese Coastal and Marine Biodiversity (SAPBIO Report). The NBSAP, once developed and formally adopted, will aim to yield results in terms of increased awareness on, and stewardship of, biodiversity, and drive forward direct biodiversity action across sectors via an integrated approach. The participation of all relevant stakeholders is deemed crucial in order to achieve this.','','-','','19/2/2010','','','09/03/2010',''),
	('Malta','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','B3_1_2','','No partnerships have been facilitated for farming and biodiversity or forestry and biodiversity.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','B3_1_5','','The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) is the national agency responsible for land use planning and environmental regulation in Malta (established under the mandate of the Environment Protection Act (2001) and the Development Planning Act (1992)). MEPA is committed to ensuring that land use and the protection of the environment meet the needs of current and future communities by aiming to implement a policy of sustainable development. The Authority is governed by the MEPA Board which provides strategic guidance as well as being responsible for deciding upon certain planning and environmental permits. Other relevant frameworks in Malta include the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands and its Seven Local Plans adopted through the Development Planning Act. The Structure Plan aims to influence the quality and distribution of land use through a set of sectoral and area-based policies that take into account the socioeconomic and environmental conditions of the Maltese Islands. The Structure Plan provides guidance to Local Plans, and provides a general direction for development control with conservation and enhancement of the countryside in mind.  Local plans are aimed at regulating development both at a regional level and at the local level.','','The MEPA website provides access to information on Maltese biodiversity, protected areas and adopted policies, including State of Environment Reports/Indicators for Malta. It also provides information on developments and related permits and decisions.','Reference or title: MEPAWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/organisationReference or title: Boards and CommitteesWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/boards-committeesReference or title: Structure Plan Weblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpg-structureplanReference or title: Local Plans Weblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/LPLegislationPolicyDocs?topic=none&doctype=Local%20Plans%20&doctypeid=1&docname=none','19/2/2010','','','na','16/03/10'),
	('Malta','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was provided by the Member State. It appears that no forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','B3_1_7','','Although no forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity, a number of private banks in Malta have financially supported biodiversity conservation projects. On certain occasions, banks have established dedicated funds for activities to improve the environment and for raising public awareness on environmental issues. On other occasions, staff time has been devoted to participation in conservation projects. Local banks are engaged in and affiliated with afforestation projects, clean-up activities, awareness-raising and education.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','B4_1_1','','A communications campaign in support of full implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan was being developed.Over the course of 2010, Malta  will  be  holding  events  to  celebrate  the 2010 International  Year  of  Biodiversity. Activities planned for 2010 and beyond may  include  several  short  written  contributions  in a local newspaper  and  on  the  MEPA  website,  together  with  the publication of posters,  the  launching  of  a  Red Data List (of selected species) and action plans. Other activities are expected to include a biodiversity photo competition,  setting  up  billboards  at  specific  protected  areas, open lectures,  awareness-raising and  clean-up activities.   Selected   legislation   and   policy documents related to biodiversity are also expected to be issued in 2010.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Malta has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Malta between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.   ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','19/2/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Malta','A1','C1_2','','Out of the 26 SEBI indicators listed, Malta has specified that 8 of these indicators have been computed for Malta. Additionally, for 6 of the SEBI indicators a similar biodiversity indicator has been identified. The remaining 12 indicators are not available or not applicable to Malta.','','Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','C1_2_1','','Out of the 26 SEBI indicators listed, Malta has specified that 8 of these indicators have been computed for Malta. Additionally, for 6 of the SEBI indicators a similar biodiversity indicator has been identified. The remaining 12 indicators are not available or not applicable to Malta. At the national scale, around ten additional indicators have been considered.','','N/a means not applicable or not available for Malta.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A1','C1_3_1','','In view of the designation processes of the Natura 2000 exercise, countrywide surveys were carried out as well as literature analysis on both habitats and species listed in the EC Habitats Directive. This was further augmented through the first assessment carried out by Malta in line with Article 17 of the EC Habitats Directive; this assessment has established the baseline for gathering future trend data on species and habitats of Community interest.Selected habitat types are treated with higher priority and surveyed on a regular basis (e.g. dunes and \'forests\'), whilst other species and habitats (i.e. those not covered by the EC Habitats Directive) are surveyed on an ad-hoc basis. Moreover, general surveillance is also carried out in a number of key protected areas, and monitoring is ongoing in protected areas covered by a Management Plan.Work has continued in relation to a number of habitats for which there is limited or no information. In this regard, MEPA has carried out a survey of the immediate coastal area of the Maltese Islands in relation to the reef habitats and macroalgae, which is still ongoing. Moreover, MEPA has commissioned a number of surveys aimed at identifying threathened and endemic species found in the Maltese Islands, which include all fauna of the Maltese Islands. This has produced species data sheets with information on abundance, status and distribution of each species.Similarly, MEPA has commissioned surveys aimed at identifying alien flora and fauna of the Maltese Islands, with the aim of prioritising activities in relation to safeguarding the native flora and fauna, and maintaining and/or restoring the conservation status of these species.','','','','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC conditions implemented in Malta relate to minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), retention of terraces, standards for crop rotation (where applicable), arable stubble management, appropriate machinery use and the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative condition.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://docs.justice.gov.mt/LegalPub/Legal_Publications%5CLegal_Notices%5CEnglish%5C2009%5C207%20-%202009%20-%20E.pdf ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_1','','According to official data in 2010, for the period 2007-13, the Maltese indicative budget for expenditure from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounts to 77.65 million EUR and to 101.61 million EUR if national expenditures are included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 is that of 20.02 million EUR, and 25.03 million EUR if national expenditures are included. This amounts to 26 and 25 per cent of Axis 2 budget respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment measures (M214), the EAFRD budget is that 8.42 million EUR (10.53 with co-financing) and amounted to 10.84 per cent of the EAFRD (10.36 per cent with co-financing). Axis 2 Measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) were not selected for the current Rural Development Programme and therefore there is no expenditure allocated to these measures, according to reporting by the MS','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0*0*Agri-environment payments (214)n/a*n/a*Forest environment payments (225)0*0**According to reporting by the Member State, following data refer to actual payments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 20th January 2010:(213): n/a(214): EAFRD: € 369, 953.57 Total: € 462, 441.32(224): n/a(215): n/a','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties and rare breeds of livestock is promoted. The Rural Development Fund 2004-2006 (funded under the EAGGF) enabled the uptake of funds aimed at the conservation of species in danger of genetic erosion including an agri-environment measure aimed at the ‘Conservation of Autochthonous species – Maltese Ox’. Moreover, the agri-environment measures under the RDP 2007-2013 provide for support for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture (including plant species and varieties and livestock breeds).   ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: RDP 2004 – 2006: http://www.agric.gov.mt/maltas-rural-dev04-08?l=1 RDP 2007 – 2013: http://www.agric.gov.mt/programming-period07-08?l=1 ','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Malta in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','19/2/2010','','','',''),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation or deforestation into account. Planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys are not applied. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 5 ha for afforestation and 3 ha for deforestation. No information on limitations of the application of SEA in hectare was available. It should be noted that afforestation and deforestation are regulated through different aspects of the Environment Protection Act and the Development Planning Act. Afforestation would constitute a ‘development’ under certain criteria of the latter Act. In such circumstances, afforestation would be subject to a development permit from MEPA, in which cases biodiversity considerations are taken into account.Indeed, the \'Environment Impact Assessment Regulations, 2007\' (Legal Notice 114 of 2007), which transpose the EIA Directive, published through the powers of the Development Planning and Environment Protection Acts, includes provisions related to afforestation and deforestation activities. An Environment Planning Statement or an Environment Impact Statement would be required depending on the area covered by the afforestation scheme. Afforestation and deforestation projects are also covered through Section 9 of Schedule IA of the above-mentioned Regulations, which refers to developments affecting natural and cultural heritage (such as protected trees and protected copses).Moreover, any afforestation activities located within protected areas declared under various Regulations of the Environment Protection Act would also be regulated, as for instance would afforestation within Special Areas of Conservation under the \'Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006\' (Legal Notice 311 of 2006). If such afforestation is not within management of the protected site, and is likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, an appropriate assessment would be required to assess the implications of such operation or activity on the site in view of the its conservation objectives, as per regulation 19 of the aforecited Regulations.Deforestation activities are covered through the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations (Legal Notice 114 of 2007). An Environment Planning Statement or an Environment Impact Statement would be required depending on the area covered by the deforestation (more than 3 ha; more than 10 ha, respectively).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/permitting-ea-overview http://www.mepa.org.mt/permitting-ea-sea http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpgdocuments/LNs/LN114%20english.pdf ','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','No information on forest certification in Malta was available.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','No information on Malta was available.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC conditions implemented in Malta relate to minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), retention of terraces, standards for crop rotation (where applicable), arable stubble management, appropriate machinery use and the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative condition.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://docs.justice.gov.mt/LegalPub/Legal_Publications%5CLegal_Notices%5CEnglish%5C2009%5C207%20-%202009%20-%20E.pdf ','19/2/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Members State’s response training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. No further details on training related to Axis 2 measures were provided. However, according to reporting by the Member State, farmers will benefit from training under Measure 111 on a number of subjects. These subjects may include (i) adherence to Cross Compliance requirements, (ii) understanding and implementing a Fertilizer Plan, (iii) the use of plant protection products, (iv) food handling, grading and traceability and (v) the use of information technologies and modern production methods. Beneficiaries from agri-environment payments are obliged to attend a minimum number of hours of training regarding this measure. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have not been put in place for any of the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	HNV farming.•	HNV forestry.•	Tree species composition.No other programme-specific biodiversity indicators have been drawn up. As regards population trends of farmland birds, in 2008, BirdLife Malta was contracted by the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs to monitor and evaluate requirements related to Farmland Birds, specifically to create the FB Index for Malta. The work was undertaken by BirdLife Malta in collaboration with the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) who helped with the development of the methodologies and provided expertise for fieldwork development and data analysis. The following Graph shows the FB Index for two hypothetical scenarios (I) an increase in all populations over 5 years and (II) a decrease of 10% in all populations over 5 years.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No linkDr. André Raine and Dr Simon Gillings, 2008. Farmland Bird Report for Malta. Sub-contracted to BirdLife Malta by Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 1 million € has been added to Malta’s national Rural Development Programme The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Malta provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’. ','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. However, projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. No details were available in this regard.Indicators documented on the State of the Environment for the years 2005 and 2006, have been compiled by the Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) in partnership with the National Statistics Office (NSO). In addition to the 2005 indicators a short note on soil biodiversity has been prepared and attached to the State of the Environment Report 2005. The State of the Environment Report (SOER) - 2005 provides indictors on: - soil organic matter, - concentration of heavy metals in soils - risk of soil erosionState of the Environment Indicators reported in 2006 (SOEI) for soils included:- soil organic matter,- lead concentrations in soil,- soil salinity.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: SOER 2005 - Soil indicatorshttp://www.mepa.org.mt/soer2005-soil SOER 2005 Soil Chapter: Short Note on Soil Biodiversityhttp://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1156 SOEI developed in 2006http://www.mepa.org.mt/soe2006-soil ','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 50 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats in Malta have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 50 per cent has an unknown status.     ','','Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Malta.Status of freshwater habitatsMediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2101050%0%50%0%U11  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','No information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Malta.According to European Environment Agency data, concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 58.8 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 54.6 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2002. ','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Malta had a total number of 82 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 94.3 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, over the time period reported the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values steadily increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, the colour of the water, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Malta provided no reporting on the development of biological assessments methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters.According to reporting by the Member State, Malta is not designating any rivers, lakes and transitional waters under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as it is scientifically not possible to apply the WFD methodology to the small inland water systems of Malta. Malta has developed an assessment method for Posidonia oceanica during the first intercalibration cycle. However, this needs to be revised within the second intercalibration cycle (2008-2011). No methods for other Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) have been developed yet.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no reporting of the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was provided for Malta.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, at the beginning of 2010, Malta had a total number of 8 IPPC installations and issued 6 permits. 2 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Malta’s nitrogen oxides and sulphur emissions exceeded the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) were already below. According to its reporting, by taking into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures, Malta will be able to meet its NEC targets for ammonia and NMVOCs, but will exceed those for sulphur oxides emissions and nitrogen oxides in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data,no information on the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and of eutrophication based on EEA core set indicators is available for Malta.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, the first comprehensive survey on the calculation of the Gross Nutrient Balance in Malta and Gozo covers the agricultural year from September 2006 to August in 2007. ','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=2364,  ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','No data on Austria exists as regards the index on trends in common farmland bird species by the European Census Council and Birdlife International. According to reporting by the Member State, a Farmland Bird Index has been developed in 2008. It included bird species from established European lists, together with other bird species, appearing mainly in a local context.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the existing Mediterranean grassland habitat in Malta has an unfavourable conservation status. 50 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, 17 per cent have an unknown status and the remaining 33 per cent was unreported. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','There are no heath and scrub habitats in Malta (only sclerophyllus Scrubs) or peat land habitats.  Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Malta.Status of grassland habitatsMediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U11  U20       Status of forest habitatsMediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6301250%0%17%33%U13  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','19/2/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_1','','Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The First Article 17 Report for Malta found that of the five marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (20%) and the other four had an ‘Unknown’ status (80%). There were seven coastal habitats assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region of Malta. One of these had a ‘Favourable’ status (14%), three had an ‘Inadequate status’ (43%), and the remaining three had a ‘Bad’ status (43%).Malta has 22 species to assess—including reptiles, fishes, mammals, plants, and invertebrates. All of these had an ‘Unknown’ status in the First Article 17 report.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats120%00%00%480%00%5MediterraneanCoastal habitats114%343%343%00%00%7Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%6100%00%6Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%00%12100%00%12Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%00%00%22100%00%22The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_1_4','','Malta has been developing a monitoring programme and a programme of measures for management action in coastal areas as required by the WFD. The monitoring programme and programme of measures are part of the 1st Water Catchment Management Plan (WCMP) that is due to be published in 2010. Malta reported that the monitoring programme will cover all coastal water bodies as designated by Malta under the WFD. Monitoring parameters will include all biological, supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. Priority substances and other pollutants will be monitored in the relevant water bodies. The Programme of Measures (PoM) will include measures for controlling point source and diffuse sources of pollution in coastal waters, as well as to regulate activities and development that have a potential impact on the good ecological and chemical status of the water body.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','05/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_1_5','','Malta submitted its official Report on the Implementation of the Recommendation forIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe to the European Commission on 27 March 2006. Malta\'s ICZM Strategy is embodied in the Coastal Strategy Topic Paper prepared by MEPA as part of the Structure Plan Review. This Strategy was formulated as part of the revision of the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands and was prepared prior to Malta’s accession to EU membership. The aim is that this Strategy is integrated in the spatial planning process. ICZM is the remit of a number of agencies; however, the Malta Environment & Planning Authority has the leading role in order to ensure that ICZM issues are considered in development planning mechanisms.','','','Reference or title: Coastal Strategy Topic PaperWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpg-structureplanreview#coastal','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','A3','A3_2','','Malta has 87 coastal bathing areas. The majority of these reached mandatory standards on water quality in 2008 (98.9%) and only one bathing water was non-compliant due to the presence of surface-active substances. In 2007 four bathing areas were non-compliant. The proportion of bathing areas reaching the stricter guideline standards has increased from 83.9% in 2006 to 94.3% in 2008. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as Malta has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years.','','-','','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_4','','Malta’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €2,900,000and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity particularly for migratory stocks such as blue fin tuna and swordfish. It also allows for improving gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€2,347,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and better coastal landscape management. Axis 3 (€5,460,105) promotes the protection of aquatic flora and fauna. There is no funding or activities under Axis 4.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/801&type=HTMLhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','19/2/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Malta had 1,412 vessels but there were no serious infringements reported. As for 2007, national data states that Malta detected 2 (two) serious infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy, but no penalties were imposed.','','','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_5_2','','These diadromous species are not recorded in Malta; hence this section is not applicable. ','','-','-','19/2/2010','','','11/5//2010',''),
	('Malta','A3','A3_5_3','','Maltese fishing capacity remained relatively stable from 2004 – 2007, but then reduced slightly in 2008. Between 2004 and 2008 fishing vessels have reduced from 1,312 to 1,148 (13% reduction): tonnage from 15,115 to 10,807 tons (29% reduction) and power from 94,073 to 85,227kW (9% reduction). The fleet is now composed mainly of small-scale vessels under 12m in length which represent 99% of the fleet. There is no indication of any major future changes in fleet capacity. ','','2008 data: 1148 vessels; 10807 tons; 85227 kW. ','Member state data. These data are different to the data presented in the EC record on fleet capacity (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en) because during these years recreational vessels registered with the Fisheries Department, were erroneously included in the assessment of the Maltese Fishing Fleet.','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Malta had 1,413 active vessels but no type D infringements were reported. In 2007 Malta had 1,385 active vessels and one type D infringement was reported – fishing in an unauthorised area. Malta works to reduce by-catch through vessel inspections carried out by the Malta armed forces and market inspections by VRFCC (Veterinary Regulation Fisheries Conservation and Control).','','-','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_6_2','','Monitoring of marine biodiversity is being carried out both in the form of a series projects and in the form of compliance monitoring as per regulatory requirements.Sharks:The Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences (MCFS), the national institution responsible for scientific monitoring and research related to capture and culture fisheries in Malta, is actively participating in the Mediterranean International Bottom Trawl Survey (MEDITS Trawl Survey), which has been collecting information on the status of a number of species in the Mediterranean Sea. The MEDITS survey is performed in order to collect data on abundance and biological aspects of benthic and demersal species. The MCFS is also involved in another initiative known as MedLEM. MedLEM is a monitoring programme on the capture and sightings of the large cartilaginous fishes occurring in the Mediterranean Sea. This initiative contributes to the knowledge and conservation of the sharks by following a common protocol to collect data in the Mediterranean Basin. Due to the fact that this survey is carried out on a regular basis it is deemed as monitoring.Moreover, Malta (through the MCFS) has been collecting data under the Data Collection Regulation (DCR; EC 1639/01) now superseded, by the Data Collection Framework (DCF; EC 949/08), since 2005. In the new DCF period (i.e. 2011-2013), sharks have been included with other species and hence data will be collected under this framework. However, detailed data on sharks and rays began in 2007 during the MEDITS trawl survey (which is also part of the DCR/DCF). Seabirds: Malta holds approximately 10% of the world’s Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) population, the largest breeding population of European Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) in the Mediterranean and significant colonies of Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis). BirdLife Malta carries out an annual monitoring of the breeding colonies of these seabird populations.  This work is undertaken at key breeding sites on Malta, such as Rdum tal-Madonna and Gozo.  Other research carried out includes the Comino Bird Ringing Project, and ringing activities in nature reserves at Ghadira, Is-Simar and on the island of Filfla, a Bird Sanctuary designated for its breeding colony of European Storm-petrels.Another type of monitoring activity carried out in Malta is bird ringing which has been ongoing since 1965. Bird ringing is an important conservation tool to investigate aspects of bird ecology and biology such as survival rates, population age structure, breeding success rates and migration.  Understanding migration patterns is particularly important in terms of international conservation, as an understanding of migratory routes provides crucial information for the planning of integrated systems of protected areas.  Through the ongoing LIFE funded project “Monitoring and Conservation of Shearwaters and Petrels in the Maltese Islands (GARNIJA-MALTIJA)” a study was carried out with the aim of assessing the perceptions of fishers on seabird by-catch and to undertake a preliminary evaluation – using a questionnaire – of the impact of the Maltese fishing fleet on incidental by-catches of birds. ','','',' http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/profiles/mt.pdf','19/2/2010','','','11//5/2010',''),
	('Malta','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','-','-','19/2/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Malta','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Malta has four marine Natura 2000 sites based on the method outlined below. However, there are different ways of defining marine Natura2000 sites and Maltese sources suggest there is only 1 marine Natura 2000 site within territorial waters, MT 101 \'Il-Bahar bejn Rdum Majjiesa u Ras ir-Raheb\', as stated in the Commission Decision 2008/335/EC. The method used to define this site as a marine Natura 2000 site is given in the clarifications below.  There have been no specific fisheries management measures adopted for this site, but this will be tackled once the management plan for the marine site is approved and implemented.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusThe criteria used by Malta to identify the one marine site is given below: Presence of the following: Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1170: Reef• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesPlants:• Posidonia oceanica• Cymodocea nodosa• Cystoseira compressa• Cystoseira ercegovicii• Cystoseira spinosa var. spinosa• Cystoseira spinosa var. tenuior• Cystoseira squarrosa• Cystoseira ercegovicii var. lateram• Sargassum acinarium• Sargassum vulgareInvertebrates:• Pinna nobilis• Spondylus gaederopus• Aplysina aerophoba• Astroides calycularis• Centrostephanus longispinus• Ophidiaster ophidianus• Lithophaga lithophaga• Dendropoma petraeum• Erosaria spurca• Luria lurida• Tonna galea• Maja squinado• Scyllarides latusData source: Standard Data Form for the MT 101 \'Bahar bejn Rdum il-Majjiesa to Ras ir-Raheb\'http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2kIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data:Marine sites within territorial waters: 1Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Lastly, another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf).','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2k','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A3','A3_7_1','','Malta has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Through the Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences (MCFS), Malta has been collecting data under the DCR and then DCF since 2005. The results obtained are used in national and regional fisheries management processes. An assessment of priority habitats and species present on Maltese territory is underway following which action Plans will be developed. The National Programme Proposal for 2009-2010 indicates that the data requirements to calculate the ecosystem indicators 1-4 in Appendix XII will be derived from the Mediterranean International Trawl Survey (MEDITS). VMS data will be used for indicators 5-7. Indicator 8 on the rate of discarding will be estimated from on-board observation data for the fleets Malta will survey and the transversal data (e.g. capacity and effort data). Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency will be calculated from data collected through the economic survey and transversal data.   ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' National Data Collection Programme: Malta 2009-2010 National Programme Proposal:https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_tabs1=folders&_20_folderId=95004&_20_cur1=1&_20_delta=20&_20_keywords=&_20_advancedSearch=false&_20_andOperator=true&cur2=2 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','19/2/2010','','','','09/03/10'),
	('Malta','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Malta was 3.31 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.95 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.71 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Malta','A4','A4_3','','Malta does not yet formally operate through a spatial planning context although a number of policies in the current policy framework do have a spatial planning nature. However this is contemplated in the current  MEPA reform process. Again, the current planning framework does not formally contemplate ecological networks but there were ad hoc instances where ecological networks were taken into account (eg. Scheduling of coastal cliffs, scheduling of some valleys, protection of Ghadira Isthmus etc). In Malta it is rather difficult to have continuous and large scale ecological networks in view of the small scale of the territory and the highly heterogenous and fragmented land use patterns.','','','','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','A4','A4_4_1','','Whilst noting that the CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism have not yet been implemented in the national context, Malta has produced a National Tourism Policy for 2007 – 2011.Sustainable Tourism Development within the context of the National Tourism Policy is related to proper planning, development and performance of the tourism industry and reflects a management perspective which constantly relates and prioritises the economic importance of tourism without underestimating the tourism impacts on the cultural, social and environmental pillars of the Maltese Islands. The National Tourism Policy highly relates to the natural and built environment of the Maltese Islands and aims to tackle various objectives, including:1. to manage tourism in Malta and Gozo under the principles of sustainable development;2. to maintain and conserve environmental and socio-cultural resources, being the key elements of the Maltese Islands’ tourism product;3. to manage and balance economic, social and environmental impacts seeking the national interest, but not at the expense of degrading environmental and socio-cultural resourcesWhen focusing on tourism’s role in achieving these measures, the document states that in order to be competitive our tourism sector must operate within a clean and healthy environment and one which invests in innovation to secure the creative responses to competition and globalisation. On the whole, the National Tourism Policy is committed to support the implementation of projects to valorise on Malta’s unique environmental and cultural assets. ','','','Malta National Tourism Policy for 2007 – 2011 (www.ppcd.gov.mt/file.aspx?f=519','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Maltese direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 25.1 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','19/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Malta','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Regulation 28 in Part V (Introduction and Reintroduction of species) of the Maltese Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations (2006) addresses several issues related to invasive alien species (IAS) including import, possession, introduction, control and eradication. With regards to specific legislation, various pieces of subsidiary legislation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) Chapter 435, Act XX of 2001 (as amended) contain provisions for addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Schedules and Regulations under the Trees and Woodland Protection Regulations 2001 (LN 12 of 2001) address import and trade of IAS. The import/export and possession of any species of fauna or flora that would endanger the biological identity of any Maltese ecosystem or species of fauna or flora is prohibited under Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations 2004 (LN 236 of 2004). Another set of regulations that can be applied to the import of non-native species of animals are Importation Control Regulations (2004). ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','According to the EEA, of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 17 are present in Malta. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2 (as last updated i30 June 2009)According to a comparative information provided by the Member State (Feb 2010) the number of worst invasive alien species in Malta would be 23.  These species include: Oryctolagus cuniculus, Rattus norvegicus, Carassius auratas, Fistularia commersonii, Gambusia affinis, Siganus luridus, Sphoeroides pachygaster, Rhyncophorus ferrugineus, Percnon gibbesi, Crepidula fornicate, Pinctada radiate, Acacia saligna, Ailanthus altissima, Carpobrotus edulis, Cortaderia selloana, Halophila stipulacea, Helianthus tuberosus, Opuntia ficus – indica, Oxalis pes-caprae, Robinia pseudoacacia, Asparagopsis armata, Caulerpa racemosa, Womersleyella setacea. However, it should be noted that the number of invasive alien species in Malta is much larger since a number of alien species present in Malta considered to be invasive are not included in the EEA list of “the worst invasive alien species”. This is also because the island ecosystems are more threatened by alien invasions than the continental Europe.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A5','A5_1_2','','The Sustainable Development Strategy for the Maltese Islands (2006-2016) identifies the need for a national policy on the introduction and eradication of IAS as a main component of the policy sub-theme ‘Nature and Biodiversity’. A national IAS strategy is under development.The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for Malta is currently being developed. The NBSAP will address IAS as one of the key threats to national biological diversity.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A5','A5_1_3','','Malta has not yet ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, nationally two studies have been commissioned by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) to develop lists of alien flora and fauna already present in the islands. The aim of these studies is to identify IAS in Malta, e.g. establish their current range and invasiveness and assess the threats posed to local biodiversity. In addition, the current use of these species will be assessed. In the end, recommendations will be provided on the management of these species. The collected data will help to build a national database on alien species. No early warning and information system for IAS is under development yet.','',' The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, besides having ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Malta has adopted relevant EU Regulations and Directives including Regulation 1946/2003 on transboundary movements, which implements the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety into EU law. No legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming has yet been adopted. Malta does not impose any bans on GMO cultivation and no GMOs are yet cultivated in Malta.According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Malta.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A6','A6_1_1','','While the 4th National Report has not been submitted to the CBD, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is under development. Malta had paid her annual contribution to CBD, CMS and Ramsar Convention, but not to the World Heritage Convention. Malta is not a party to AEWA and has hence not made a financial contribution to the Agreement.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Malta for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure on Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Malta for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','19/2/2010','','','07/01/201006/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A7','A7_1_4','','Malta has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A7','A7_2_2','','Malta’s EIA and SEA procedures reflect the requirements of the relevant EU directives as well as national legislation, particularly the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2007’ (LN 114 of 2007) and ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, 2005’ (LN 418 of 2005 as amended by LN 327 of 2008).These regulations require carrying out the assessments of the projects and programmes listed in their respective schedules. As such, these involve the carrying out of environment impact assessments (EIA) for development projects that may have significant impacts on natural and human populations, and the undertaking of strategic environment assessments (SEA) for plans or programmes that may result in significant effects on the environment prior to the implementation of the actual project.The environmental assessment of EU funded projects is carried out for their relevant activities of parts thereof that fall under the categories listed in the Schedules of the EIA and SEA regulations.','','','Reference or title: Weblink:EIA Legislation:http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpgdocuments/LNs/LN114%20english.pdfSEA Legislation:http://www.mepa.org.mt/LpDocumentDetails?syskey= 894 ','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A8','A8_1','','While Malta has not provided funds to the CBD Access & Benefit-sharing Working Group and does not have specific legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on ABS, she has incorporated the provisions on ABS of the CBD text into national legislation. The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources has been signed but not yet ratified. Information on national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available. Malta has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied; a small number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The ABS requirements of the CBD text have been incorporated in national legislation via the \'Convention on Biological Diversity (Incorporation) Regulations, 2002\' (Legal Notice 160 of 2002). This Legal Notice entered into force through Legal Notice 173 of 2002. In 2006, the \'Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006\' (Legal Notice 311 of 2006, as amended by Legal Notice 426 of 2007 and Legal Notice 162 of 2009) entered into force. The aim of these Regulations is to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity in the territory of the Member States of the European Community through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the Maltese Islands. Moreover, these Regulations provide the provisions required for the implementation in Malta of a variety of European Directives and Regional Agreements.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Convention on Biological Diversity (Incorporation) Regulations, 2002 http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1507Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1211','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Malta did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources has been signed but not yet ratified.','','','','19/2/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A8','A8_1_4','','Information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available.','','','','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 122, 36 and 1, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. Malta made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens. In 2007 3 seizures were carried and in 2008 8 seizures were made, amounting to 2% and 5% respectively. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and technical assistance to Staff of enforcement authorities, traders, NGOs and the public Oral and written advice/guidance, training and financial assistance was also provided to the Scientific Authority. Malta has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Malta has paid its contributions to the CITES Trust Fund for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in full in October 2009.','','The information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined as provided in the Biennial Report 2007/2008 as submitted to the EC.','','19/2/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','A9','','','','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A9','A9_3_2','','Malta has not yet produced a National Biomass Action Plan. On the other hand Malta has produced its forecast document as required in Article 4(3) of the Directive 2009/28/EC \'On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC\'. This document is foreseen to be an essential component of the NREAP for Malta.Key mechanisms in implementing sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids and requirements addressing the impact of biomass for cooling, heating and electricity on biodiversity are not yet being developed in Malta. This is due to the fact that the relevant requirements have not yet been transposed nationally. ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/doc/malta_forecast_english.pdf','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','A9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','19/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Malta','A9','A9_4_3','','Within the context of SAP-BIO, Malta had produced a ‘National Overview on vulnerability and impacts related to Climate Change on Mediterranean marine and coastal biodiversity’. This report provides a brief overview of the information available on climate change impacts, as well as an expert opinion on the vulnerability of Maltese biodiversity to such impacts. Based on this overview, Malta acknowledges that research related to climate change is still in its preliminary phases and there are significant gaps in information and knowledge on local trends in climate parameters, climate change impacts and the vulnerability of the Maltese Islands to such impacts.','','','','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','A10_1','','The Netherlands is preparing new research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. Themes of this new national research program include ecosystem functions and services, dynamic nature, and spatial perspectives.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research: www.nwo.nl  ','25/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','A10_1_2','','The Netherlands has a national follow-up planned to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The MA approach is currently used by the national taskforce on biodiversity and valuation/accounting methods are used for the assessment of ecosystem services.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: www.taskforcebiodiversiteit.nl; www.alterra.wur.nl ','25/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','A10_1_8','','The national biodiversity platform in the Netherlands is an independent, national network of researchers, funders, policymakers and users.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info NL Bioplatform: http://www.biodiversiteit.nl/samenwerking-voor-biodiversiteit/netwerken-nederland/nederlandse-biodiversiteitsplatform ','25/02/2010','','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','A10_1_9','','The Netherlands became voting Participants in GBIF in February 2001. The Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility (NLBIF) is the Dutch national node of the GBIF. The objectives of the Netherlands national GBIF node (NLBIF) are to: act as a national focal point for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF); form a national platform for the sharing of biodiversity data, information and know-how available in The Netherlands; provide access to biodiversity data, information and know-how in other countries, for users in The Netherlands; and stimulate the development and promote the use of ICT tools and methodologies to support data management, exchange, analysis and electronic dissemination of biodiversity information worldwide.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.Several Dutch organisations participate in ENBI. The University of Amsterdam Zoological Museum is the overall Co-ordinator of ENBI and are also the lead contractors on Work Package 1: Coordination and continuity. The NGO (in operational relations with UNESCO) Expert centre for Taxonomic Identification (ETI) are the lead contractors for Work Package 9: Interoperability and common access. The general objectives of this Work package are to: make an inventory of existing interoperability tools in the various domains of biodiversity databases and data collections, to enhance common protocols and approaches;  build a library of functions to support an overarching architecture for interoperability and common access based on elements and efforts existing in the biodiversity informatics community (Species2000, BioCASE, ALLSpecies, etc); and develop a design for a prototype to demonstrate the feasibility of an interoperable system with common access to selected databases and the Species 2000 europa project in collaboration with work package 8.Some of the Dutch organisations are involved as ‘members’ of other Work Packages. This includes the Centre for Genetic Resources, at Plant Research International B.V. who are members of Work Package 6: Collections and the National Herbarium of the Netherlands, who are members of Work Package 13: non European Data Globally Available.The Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility (NLBIF), who are the national node for the Global  Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of several Work Packages, including WP2: ENBI Forums, WP5: Check lists and species banks, WP6: Collections, WP7: Observational data, WP12 Info services on European data and WP13: non European Data Globally Available. ','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','25/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of 5 of 6 (83%) Pannonian rocky habitats is reported to be favourable. All sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of 5 (60%) of both freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The only coastal and halophytic habitat (pannonic salt steppes and salt marshes), the only dune habitat, and both heath and scrub habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. There is a slight uncertainty with 1 of 12 (8%) of Pannonian grasslands reported as of unknown condition.','15/02/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%360%240%00%00%5Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%18%1083%18%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%360%240%00%00%5Rocky habitats583%117%00%00%00%6Forests00%00%13100%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Hungary has designated 467 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 13,973 km², totalling 15.0% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 55, with a total area of 13,512 km², totalling 14.5% of the country’s area. The total area of the overall Natura 2000 network (excluding overlaps) is 19,682 km².','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Hungary.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Management plans were prepared for 20 Natura 2000 sites in 2009 with the financial assistance of Transition Facility (A 2006/18/176.02.01). These Natura 2000 sites with management plans cover alltogether ~45,000 ha. Requirements concerning the contents of the management plans were laid down in the 275/2004 (X. 8.) govermental regulation. The plans were prepared by a consortium (members: Szent István University Gödöllő -Institute of Environmental and Landscape Management; VÁTI Hungarian Public Nonprofit Limited Liability Company for Regional Development and Town Planning; Hungarian Academy of Sciences - Institute of Ecology and Botany ) in close cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Water and national park directorates since the plans are supposed to serve as samples for the preparation of further management plans. It is important to emphasize that the Hungarian regulation prescribes a management plan for each protected area in form of an act of the minister responsible for nature protection. Consequently, in many Natura 2000 areas the main necessary management requirements have already been put in force in form of a management plan as well. This concerns an overlap with Natura 2000 on 53,684 ha, involving parts or complete 29 Natura 2000 sites (21 SCI, 8 SPA). Protected areas with a management plan in preparation cover 545,707 ha, and fully or partly overlap with 146 (118 SCI, 28 SPA) Natura 2000 sites. The figures of the table take into account the management plans that affect Natura 2000 and protected areas as well.In frame of LIFE projects management plans have been already prepared for 9 SPA, and the preparation of management plans for 4 SCI is in process. We also would like to highlight that Hungary has identified High Nature Value Farmland Areas (HNVFA) in order to maintain the favourable condition of those agricultural areas which can be considered as environmentally sensitive and also play a very important role in saving biological diversity. The feasibility studies of the HNVFAs contain the detailed review of the areas particularly focusing on the natural values and reasonable land use prescriptions. The 25 HNVFAs fully or partly overlap with 128 Natura 2000 sites (101 SCI and 27 SPA). It means that the most important requirements for farming have been identified on 50% (476,645 ha) of the utilized agricultural area of the Natura 2000 network, so that in effect these studies play the role of management plans for the overlapping Natura 2000 sites.Moreover, Hungary is in a special situation since a significant share of the protected - and in addition Natura 2000 – areas are state owned. More than 55% of this territory (154,000 ha) is managed by local farmers. The land use contracts between the national park directorates and farmers contain in every case the management commitments that have to be fulfilled in course of the farming activities. Obviously, the interests of Natura 2000 network are considered by the definition of land use prescriptions in first place.It is also of high importance that the approval of the MoEW is needed in case of each plan for forestry management. Meanwhile, the review of previously validated forest management plans on Natura 2000 sites is still in progress and will have been finished by 2010.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_2_3','','The main legal background of the National Ecological Network is ensured by the Act on Nature Conservation No. LIII of 1996. Prescriptions for the areas of the network have been built into the Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003. The Act and the database of the National Ecological Network were amended in 2008, when – as a major improvement - most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured on planning level. By the Act, the areas of the network must be supervised every 5 years.National Ecological Network (following the guidelines of the Pan-European Ecological Network)Area: 3 350000 haCore area: 1 782 000 ha (53%)Ecological corridor: 845 000 ha (25%)Buffer area: 720 000 ha (22%)Legally protected: 835 000 ha (23%)     (The network includes protected and non protected areas)Natura 2000 area (overlapping): 1 883 000 ha (56%)More than 95% of the protected nature conservation areas, and about 95% of the Natura 2000 areas belong to the National Ecological Network.The protection and maintenance of the values of the ecological network take place in the framework of one of the main strategic documents of the Hungarian nature conservation, in the National Environmental Programme, and in the National Nature Conservation Master Plan (appendix of the Programme).The latest National Environmental Programme covers the period 2009-2014 (NKP III.) and emphasizes coherence and ensurance of harmonised protection between the elements of the Natura 2000 network and other parts of the National Ecological Network, in line with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive.  Using EU Funds, such as LIFE and LIFE+ programmes as well as the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (since 2006) special attention has been paid to the protection, maintenance and development of nationally protected areas as well as Natura 2000 sites (including ecological corridors, landscape features as well), : -	Habitat restoration projects: aiming to restore damaged habitats and to create new habitats and ecological corridors, -	Technical adjustment of linear infrastructure to remove ecological barriers for migrating birds. See short description of “Accessible Sky programme, partly funded from the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (see under additional clarifications). Other tools to strengthen coherence, connectivity and support of biodiversity in the wider environment: -	Programme for establishing the transboundary Fertő-Hanság/Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel Ramsar Site between Hungary and Austria (2009)-	Establishing of the Croatian-Hungarian Transboundary Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve (nomination with UNESCO MAB Programme, 2009)-	Transboundary eco-tourism development programmes, and establishment of study trails and promotional campaigns in the border region-	Joint transboundary monitoring (e.g. Natura 2000 monitoring) and habitat restauration programmes-	Common Geopark project (Nógrád Geopark)-	Programme to improve the co-operation activities along the River Drava in order to amend the protection of biodiversity-	Common water management development project (Hungary-Ukraine) -	Establishment of a common network for protected nature conservation areas in the West-Pannonian region (PANANAET program)','','Act on Nature Conservation no. LIII of 1996: The most important provisions for the ecological network (article 53, paragraph (2) sections a-b):„By the act the establishing, developing and supporting of the National Ecological Network must be an important task in the National Environmental Action Plan.” The Act  contains the definition of the ecological network and the ecological corridor.By the Act, the National Environmental Programme shall contain the long term and medium term aspects of the establishment and maintenance of the ecological network and ecological corridors.National Nature Conservation Master Plan II (2003-2008)  (Part of the National Environmental Programme, Parliament Resolution, No. 132/2003 (XII.11.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2003-2008):“The various natural and landscape assets of the country, outstanding in international comparison too, can be safeguarded by designating protected areas in all planning-statistical regions, as well as by way of ecological networks that include the protected areas, too”.The National Environmental Programme includes as an appendix the National Nature Conservation Master Plan, which is one of the most important tools for protecting biodiversity in Hungary.National Nature Conservation Master Plan III (2009-2014)(Part of the National Environmental Programme III, Parliament Resolution, No. 96/2009. (XII. 9.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2009-2014).Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003:By the Act the National Ecological Network must be one of the national spatial zones in the spatial plans, and the network must be a highlighted zone in regional spatial plans. Ecological networks included in 14 regional plans have been approved.The amended Act on the National Spatial Plan came into force in July 2008. The National Ecological Network (core area, ecological corridors, buffer zones) are determined by this plan. Most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured at planning level.Accessible Sky agreement for  bird-friendly transformation of high, medium and low voltage power lines on a national scale:Timescale: 2008-2020. Aerial power lines pose a serious threat to wild bird populations due to electrocution and collision. For several endangered species, power lines are among the most important causes of mortality. An agreement was prepared and signed in February 2008 on collaboration among all distribution companies as well as the Ministry of Environment and Water and BirdLife Hungary to minimise bird mortality along power lines. Funding is provided mainly through the Structural Funds (Environment and Energy Operational Programme), LIFE Nature and LIFE+, but thanks to the improving co-operation, distribution companies also co-finance the projects. Most prominent recent examples are the burial of 80 km of medium-voltage power lines in the Hortobágy National Park (Structural Funds), the burial of 11 km of medium voltage power lines in the Borsodi Mezőség Landscape Protection Area (LIFE Nature) and the fitting of bird diverters on 45 km of medium and high voltage power lines in some of the most important Great Bustard sites in Hungary to avoid collision (LIFE Nature). Presently running projects include two LIFE Nature projects (focussing on Saker Falcon and Red-footed Falcon) aiming at the insulation of a total of 910 km of medium voltage power lines. There is an important, self-financed initiative by the Hungarian high-voltage electricity distribution company to fit high-voltage power lines with markers where there are conflicts with the most important bird habitats. Under the agreement, BirdLife Hungary, commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Water, produced a conflict map in late 2008 to prioritise all power lines in Hungary as to the urgency of bird-friendly conversion. The total length of top priority power lines is 21,700 km. Based on this figure, the funding needed to convert all top priority power lines is in the order of 60 million euros. The plan is to eliminate most of this threat by 2020. Under the agreement, and based on regular consultations with all partners concerned, distribution companies have also prepared and constantly update BAT (best available technology) for the creation of bird-friendly power lines where new power lines are set up. The BAT documentation is available in Hungarian. BirdLife Hungary has set up a national database of all observed bird casualties and runs yearly surveys to monitor certain power lines. The Act on Nature Conservation No. 53 of 1996 was also amended in December 2008 to only allow bird-friendly technologies at new or fully renewed power lines. Locations of particular importance to birds are carefully considered in the planning phase, especially since Hungary’s accession to the European Union, as the requirement of an appropriate assessment is compulsory also in Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive. ',':www.kvvm.hu, www.termeszetvedelem.hu , www.tuzok.hu, http://www.falcoproject.hu/hu/content/show, http://www.sakerlife.mme.hu/en/content/show','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_3','','Of the 284 regularly occurring bird species in Hungary, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 9 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Hungary, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 9 of 21 (43%) fish, 18 of the 74 (24%) invertebrates and 14 of the 43 (33%) mammals and 10 of the 44 (23%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 17 of the 26 (65%) amphibians and reptiles, 33 of 74 (45%) of invertebrates, 20 of the 43 (47%) mammals and 22 of the 44 (50%) plants was reported unfavourable-inadequate. 9 of the 74 (12%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 44 (25%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 6 of the 26 (23%) amphibians and reptiles, 6 of the 21 (29%) fish, 14 of the 74 (19%) invertebrates and 7 of the 43 (16%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported PannonianAmphibians and reptiles14%1765%28%623%00%26Fish943%629%00%629%00%21Invertebrates1824%3345%912%1419%00%74Mammals1433%2047%25%716%00%43Plants1023%2250%1125%12%00%44','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','15/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Hungary has the following completed species action plans: 2 for birds, 4 for mammals, 3 for amphibians and reptiles, 1 for fish, 10 for invertebrates and 20 for plants. In addition, there 2 are species action plans for mammals in preparation. A biodiversity indicator for agricultural habitats and a biodiversity indicator for forest habitats have been derived from the Monitoring of Our Common Birds Scheme. The species groupings follow the 2008 recommendations of the European Bird Census Council (EBCC). The Farmland Bird Index derived from this scheme is used by the European Commission as an indicator of sustainable development. A Red Data list is under preparation for birds by BirdLife Hungary. 57 bird, 34 mammal, 10 amphibian and reptile, 35 fish and 179 plant species have been listed on the Red Data list by OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Hungary 2008.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Hungary 2008.  ','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','B1_1_1','','Public resources for biodiversity include the following:The National budget, including the specific budgets of the ministries involved in biodiversity policy;Budgets of the provinces of the Netherlands (mainly financed by the National budget);Budgets of the municipalities of the Netherlands (only partly financed by the National budget);Budgets of the water boards in the Netherlands;EU resources.A mix of policies including financial support and incentives is developed and supplied in the Netherlands. The mayor ones include the following:Green funds: applied for a broad field of activities: e.g. nature conservation, sustainable forestry, etcAccelerated depreciation for investments: applied for a broad field of activities e.g. prevention of invasive species, fish migration facilities, and so on.A tax exemption is in place reducing the fiscal real estate value of historical estates (Natuurschoonwet). This measure provides essential support to the maintenance of privately owned nature areas. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, the Netherlands spent up to EUR7.938.526 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. The Netherlands spent up to EUR6.734.487 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites.  However, the Netherlands have provided the following figures for their expenditure for management and restoration:Expenditure management 2004: 60 mlnExpenditure restoration 2004: 15 mlnExpenditure management 2005: 70 mlnExpenditure restoration 2005: 13 mlnExpenditure management 2006: 80 mlnExpenditure restoration 2006: 23 mlnExpenditure management 2007: 85 mlnExpenditure restoration 2007: 60 mlnExpenditure management 2008: 83 mlnExpenditure restoration 2008: 72 mln','','The information on national programmes is taken from the Netherland’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the Netherlands’ contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','11/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','B1_1_4','','The Netherland’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR5.7m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR1.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR15.5m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','11/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','B1_1_8','','The Netherlands allocated EUR12,000,000 each year from 2006 to 2009 for European and national biodiversity research activities and programmes.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','11/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B2_4','','Policy programme Biodiversity 2008 - 2011; Action plan Biodiversity 2008-2011; www.biodiversiteit.nl ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:biodiversiteit.nl','23/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B3_1_5','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','na','11/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','B4_1_1','','A communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. The Netherlands reported that this campaign has been fully implemented.The Dutch communication strategy \'COMBIO\"(Communication Biodiversity) supported international communication between governmental bodies, NGOs and Businesses. In addition, educational programmes on biodiversity were supported through grants and by the publication of policy documents regarding Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).','','Further information can be found on weblinks provided below. ','Reference or title: National Biodiversity Communication CampaignsWeblinks: www.biodiversiteit.nl www.nme.nl www.senternovem.nl/LvDO','15/03/2009','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A1','B4_1_2','','The Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) (11/10/2006), National Museum of Natural History Naturalis (04/09/2009), Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency (22/05/2007), Reconstructiecommissie Kempenland (25/04/2008), Staatsbosbeheer, Regio Zuid (19/01/2007), Waterschap Aa en Maas, Waterschap Brabantse Delta, Waterschap De Dommel and Waterschap Rivierenland (15/02/2007) all made declarations supporting the IUCN Countdown Initiative. Waterschap Aa en Maas communicated that it was committed to contributing to the improvement of water quality and to the implementation several nature recovery projects related to water management initiatives. Waterschap De Dommel communicated that it was starting up a working group on biodiversity in the waterboard in the Province of Noord Brabant in order to develop a Biodiversity Action Plan.Between 2006-2008, the Netherlands contributed a total sum of 218,000 euros to fund IUCN Countdown projects.','','In 2006 the Netherlands, contributed 150,000 euros to fund Local and Regional Authorities for Biodiversity 2010. In 2007, the Netherlands, contributed 15,000 to fund “Countdown 2010 National Activities (LNV)” and 53,000 euros to fund “Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Lounge, Belgrade Norway, Belgium”. This contribution of 53,000 euros was shared between the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium.','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedWeblinks:www.iucn.nl www.ecnc.nl ','15/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','C1_2','','The Netherlands apply 20 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, while having nationally adapted further 4 of the indicators. The only SEBI indicators not applied are Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms, and Patent applications based on genetic resources. The national nature balance report lists some 6 additional biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','15/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','C1_2_1','','The Netherlands apply 20 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, while having nationally adapted further 4 of the indicators. The only SEBI indicators not applied are Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms, and Patent applications based on genetic resources. The national nature balance report lists some 6 additional biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/HaltingBiodiversityLossInTheNetherlands.pdf      ','09/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A1','C1_3_1','','The Netherlands operate monitoring schemes for all major habitat types and for the major species groups (birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates, plants).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','09/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other GAEC standards relate to minimum soil cover requirements, minimum land management measures reflecting site-specific conditions, the retention of terraces, arable stubble management and avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','08/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in the Netherlands total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 593.2 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 1121.34 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 183.37 million EUR, and 346.28 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 30.91 and 30.88 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in the Netherlands was 130.44 million EUR (246.34 with co-financing) and amounted to 21.99 per cent of the EAFRD (21.97 per cent with co-financing). There are no payments in the Netherlands for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)33.57385102.694Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State, a national strategy and action plan has been developed and adopted that specifically addresses the conservation of genetic resources. The national strategic goals are fully in line with the CBD, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and the Global Plan of Actions on plant genetic resources and Animal genetic resources. The key aims are further elaborated in the policy document \"Sources of Existence\' (Bronnen van Ons Bestaan (2002), which focuses on sustainable management of genetic resources.   The Member State does not provide information on specific in situ projects that aim to maintain genetic diversity, but notes that the action plans regarding ex-situ management of genetic resources and the coordination concerning in-situ management of genetic resources in the Netherlands on PGR, AnGR and Forestry GR has been entrusted to the Center for Genetic Resources, Netherlands at Wageningen. Further information is provided in the National Report on Animal Genetic Resources (2004) and the Second National Report on Plant Genetic Resources (2009).   ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','18/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in the Netherlands in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. However, no details have been provided.No planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are applied for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation operations. It remains unclear to what extent they are carried out for deforestation operations.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 the Netherlands had a total certified forest area of 181,538 hectares out of a total forest area of 365,000 hectares. All of the certified forest area in the Netherlands was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 49.74 per cent of the total forest area.According to reporting by the Member State, 151.516 ha (42%) of the forest area was FSC certified at the end of 2009. ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website; Kerngegevens Bos en Hout in Nederland van ProbosWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','24/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in the Netherlands amounted to 0.37 million ha, representing a share of 14.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other GAEC standards relate to minimum soil cover requirements, minimum land management measures reflecting site-specific conditions, the retention of terraces, arable stubble management and avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','08/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010',NULL),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_8','','According to reporting by the Member State, monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (regional and national level).Tree species composition (regional and national level).','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/3/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 98 million € has been added to the Netherland’s Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, the Netherlands attributed € 23 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 23 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','24/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, monitoring is undertaken by the Soil Biological Indicator Programme (BOBI) to provide a national overview of soil ecosystems with different soil types and land use. Data is combined with practical data to show the relation between agricultural measures, soil management and sustainable soil use. However, it remains unclear to what extent parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory. Projects have been undertaken by the Member State to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity, but no details were submitted.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.kennisonline.wur.nl/KB/KB-01/001/019/    ','18/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all seven occurrences of Atlantic fresh water habitat in the Netherlands have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Atlantic is the only biogeographical region in the Netherlands.Status of freshwater habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U16  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ andhttp://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in the Netherlands ammonium data were only available until 2002, where it amounted to 0.58 mg N/l. Previous years showed a slight downward trend.  2002 values were higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a slight downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 3.16 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.13 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were below weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 21.1 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 22.2 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 28.5 mg NO3/l in 2003. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a downward trend, decreasing from 0.135 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.105 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values well above the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe. No information on phosphorus concentrations in rivers was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 the Netherlands had a total number of 396 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 71.2 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values had increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the Netherlands developed all four biological assessment methods for lakes and rivers, including phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish fauna, as well as all four assessment methods for transitional  waters and all three for coastal waters, including phytoplankton, macro-algae and angiosperms, and benthic invertebrates.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by the Netherlands under the Water Framework Directive.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 the Netherlands had a total number of 2565 IPPC installations and issued 4065 permits. 472 permits were still outstanding.','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 the Netherlands’ emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and ammonia were still above relevant targets set by the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD). Emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOV) were already lower than the relevant ceilings. Projections for 2010 indicate that nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and NMVOC emissions will fall within national NECD ceilings. Ammonia will slightly exceed the target.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in the Netherlands the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 76 and 94 per cent respectively, considering an area of 6,968 km2 and 4,447 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 71 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 60 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 88 per cent in 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 76 per cent of  natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, the Netherland’s gross nitrogen balance was 229 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 34 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, the Netherlands’ national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. By 2006 the indicator was at 74.7 per cent, a 25.3 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 15 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. ','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic grassland, forest, heath,scrub and peat land habitats in the Netherlands have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Atlantic is the only bio geographical region in the Netherlands.Status of grassland habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage88000100%0%0%0%U12  U26       Status of forest habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U15  U22       Status of heath and scrub habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11  U21       Status of peat land habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U14  U23       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','','','10/12/2009',''),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for the Netherlands found that of the two Marine Atlantic marine habitats, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and the other had a ‘Bad’ status (50%). There were five coastal habitats assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (60%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (40%).A total of 32 species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, comprising reptiles, fish and mammals. Of these 32, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (3%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (9%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (6%), one had an ‘Unknown’ status (3%), and the remaining 25 were ‘Not reported’ (78%).','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%150%150%00%00%2AtlanticCoastal habitats00%360%240%00%00%5Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%4100%4Marine AtlanticFish00%250%125%00%125%4Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals14%14%14%14%2083%24Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL13%39%26%13%2578%32The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_1_4','','The Netherlands reported that, in 2009, it had 26 surveillance stations and 16 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. The Netherlands has 15 coastal water bodies. Approximately 75% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates. No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_2','','Netherlands has 86 coastal bathing waters and 100% of these have reached mandatory standards for water quality between 2006 and 2008. A high proportion of these have also reached the stricter guideline standards although this dropped from 90.7% in 2006 and 2007 to 88.4% in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations in coastal waters, sampling sites in the North Sea off Holland’s coast have shown no change in nitrogen concentrations between 1985 and 2005. However 21 out of 29 sites have seen a decrease in phosphate concentrations over the same time period. ','','-','','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_4','','Netherland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €45,613,233 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and encouraging investment in more sustainable fishing techniques. Axis 2 (€17,779,398) includes the aim to increase the sustainability of mollusc cultivation and to reduce discards and waste in processes. Axis 3 (€46,403,461) includes an aim to promote sustainable management of fish stocks and increase the share of environmentally certified fish. Axis 4 does not have any specific environmental measures.The Netherlands has chosen to use funding provided under the European Fisheries Fund in a very specific way focusing on innovation and collaboration. It was decided that after years of decommissioning schemes the time had come to shift away from expansion of fishing effort towards innovation and collaboration with the industry on more sustainable fishing techniques. This approach was built on principles of driving change from the industry itself, and through competition and collaboration as providing the best climate for innovation.The Netherlands therefore opted for tendering schemes which provide opportunities for all fishermen or groups to come up with and implement innovative plans. Over a two-year period (2008/2009) 150 innovation and collaboration plans and projects were submitted for approval. A selection was made of the best 50 and these were awarded with an EFF grant.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/24&type=HTML','01/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/12/2009',NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 the Netherlands had 831 vessels and 12% were involved in a serious infringement (96 vessels). A total of 15 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,005 and maximum fine of €2,500.','','2007 data is not currently available. The Netherlands commented that they would have preferred existing 2009 data to be used – however this was not provided by the Commission or by the Netherlands.  ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_5_2','','No information on restoration programmes for diadromous species was provided by the Netherlands','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_5_3','','Netherland’s fishing capacity has reduced consistently since 1999 until 2008. The number of vessels has reduced from 1,118 to 823 (26% reduction); tonnage from 191,792 to 146,921 (23% reduction) and power from 503,639 to 343,943kW (32% reduction). The Netherlands operational programme for fisheries 2007-2013 sets an objective of reducing overcapacity in the plaice and sole fisheries of the North Sea by 15% during 2007 and 2008. This has so far been achieved. However, the capacity of pelagic trawlers segment increased in 2007 by 7% in tonnage and 12% in power following the replacement of the capacity withdrawn during 2006.  ','','2008 data: 823 vessels; 146921 tons; 343943 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf ','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 the Netherlands had 831 active vessels. There were 35 type D breaches in this year and 10 penalties imposed with an average fine of €1,167. No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures relating to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by the Netherlands.','','2007 data is not currently available ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_6_2','','No information on monitoring programmes for sharks or seabirds was provided by the Netherlands. ','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink: www.noordzeenatura2000.nl ','12/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','The Netherlands has 13 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). To date, no requests have been made to the Commission concerning fisheries measures within marine Natura2000 sites outside of territorial waters. However, there are three requests in preparation for Doggerbank, Clever Bank and Frisian Fron as part of the ICES-led FIMPAS project.Within territorial waters, there are three Marine Natura2000 sites for which specific fisheries measures are being considered (Voordelta, Vlakte van de Raan and the North Sea Coastal Zone) – collectively known as the Heijkoop process. Within one of these sites, the Voordelta area, the Commission has confirmed measures proposed by the Netherlands (Commission Decision of 11 June 2008) for the conservation of marine eco-systems (notified under document number C(2008) 2415 2008/915/EC). There have also been fisheries restrictions within Compensation Natura 2000 sites that were created following the extension of Rotterdam harbour. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 10Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.www.noordzeenatura2000.nl ','12/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A3','A3_7_1','','The Netherlands has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Indicators 1-3 listed in Appendix XIII require data on species abundance and length distribution by species from fishery independent research surveys. Such information is collected routinely in the Netherlands through established trawl surveys such as IBTS and BTS. The information is available for part of the marine region defined by the survey area on a haul by haul basis. Indicator 4 requires extended information on age, length, sex and maturity from fishery independent research surveys. From 2009 onwards, this information will be collected for the target species in the surveys. Indicators 4-7 require position registration data based on VMS. VMS data will be made available for research purpose under certain conditions, safeguarding the confidentiality of the identity of the vessel. The data are available in a resolution of one record every 2 hours and are stored in the central database VISSTAT. This database also contains logbook and selling slips data. The different data sources can be linked. The data collection through the LEI panel allows for the direct calculation fuel costs per quarter and métier for some segments. Estimation of the total costs for fuel  (indicator 9) in these métiers will be based on total effort from logbooks and fuel costs per sea day from panel data. For all other fleet segments, fuel costs per métier and quarter will be estimated, based on the quarterly effort by métier. The fuel costs per sea day is considered to be equal in different métiers and quarters. ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','National Programme 2009-2010-The Netherlands (the drawing-up of the programme of the Data Collection Regulation):https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94847Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','01/04/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for the Netherlands EEZ (not including Overseas Territories) was 3.06 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.08 since 1999, but an overall decrease of 0.08 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','Data above is for Netherlands EEZ, not including Overseas Territories.From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A4','A4_3','','Dutch Spatial Plan\'s provide for the establishment of a national Ecological Network (EHS, ecologische hoofdstructuur) by 2018. Part of this EHS will be or already is part of Natura 2000. The most recent evaluation of progress is the \'Rapportgae groot project EHS 2008\' (september 2009, in Dutch). In February or March 2009 a new report will be published, but as yet this is not publicly available. ','','','http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640321&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=42364','22/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A4','A4_4_1','','In the Netherlands regulation of tourism activities is part of the general legislation regarding nature and landscape protection (protection of biodiversity). Separate policies for the tourism sector are not developed. The yearly reports of the National Planning Agency (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving) do not show that there are specific problems regarding the development of the tourism sector in the Netherlands. ','','','','22/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Dutch direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 22.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','22/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The Netherlands has both general and specific legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). Article 124 of the Flora and Fauna Act (1998) prohibits the release of animal species into the wild and also the planting or sowing of certain plant species without permission. Additionally, two species are currently restricted in terms of possession, trade, import and/or export. Article 67 provides for the control of species for reasons of safety, to prevent economic damage or to prevent damage to native flora and fauna. With regards to specific legislation, certain alien species of mammals and birds can be controlled under Regulations adopted in 1995 under the Hunting Act (1954). Furthermore, the provinces have had, since 1986 the responsibility for controlling the muskrat populations in the Netherlands. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 49 are present in the Netherlands. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_1_2','','No strategy or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) has been developed in the Netherlands. However, according to reporting by the Member State, in 2007 a National IAS Policy (Beleidsnota Invasieve Exoten) was adopted by the Dutch parliament. This policy focuses on IAS threatening biodiversity. Amongst other things, the policy has resulted in the establishment of an Invasive Alien Species Team. This team co-ordinates the development and execution of IAS monitoring activities and the developments regarding early warning, risk assessments and communication. This team also advices the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the risks of IAS and possible management options. The annual budget for this team and the associated projects is 1 million EUR.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_1_3','','The Netherlands has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the Netherlands has implemented a national database and early warning initiative for IAS. The website Dutch Species Catalogue (hosted by Naturalis and co-financed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) contains a specific database on alien species that are present in The Netherlands for at least 10 years. Currently 925 alien species are registered in this database. The Invasive Alien Species Team has set up an initiative for an early warning system for (new) alien species in The Netherlands involving more than 10 organisations with several thousands of volunteers. The aim is to establish a long-term IAS early warning network at the national level. Furthermore, the Invasive Alien Species Team participates in a large (informal) network of experts on IAS. No formal procedure regarding rapid response mechanism is yet in place. However, in case of observations of new alien species, the Invasive Alien Species Team reacts promptly by carrying out risk assessments or other necessary actions.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.nederlandsesoorten.nl/exoten ','19/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A5','A5_2_2','','The Netherlands has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is the HPA Regulation on the coexistence of crops of the Commodity Board for Arable Farming. JBA. No 322.   According to the “GMO free Europe” initiative, the local government of Culemborg declared itself GMO-free. The municipality may not use GMO-crops and ban exists on the use of genetically manipulated crops and animals in agricultural areas.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming.“GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming; Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National report to the CBD was submitted to the CBD secretariat in April 2010.The “Biodiversity Policy Programme of the Netherlands 2008-2011” was published in 2008.The annual contributions to CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention were paid. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','22/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, the Netherlands spent EUR0.08m in 2006 for biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which amounts to nearly 0.00% of the total multilateral aid budget. The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by the Netherlands for 2007. However, the Netherlands have provided the following information:The data and narrative summary are not correct. Total biodiversity related multilateral aid in 2006: 3 m Euro. Percentage biodiversity related multilateral aid of total multilateral aid in 2006 0.3 % (total 931 m Euro).Total biodiversity related multilateral aid in 2007: 11.6 m Euro. Percentage of total multilateral aid in 2007 is 1 % (total multilateral ODA 1154 m Euro).Total biodiversity related multilateral aid in 2008: 8.4 m Euro; percentage of total multilateral aid in 2008:   0.68 % (total multilateral ODA 1243 m Euro).Part of the multilateral aid is attributed as it is included in partnerships (a.o. Netherlands World Bank Partnership Program - BNPP).','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, the Netherlands spent EUR6.4m for bilateral biodiversity-related aid in 2006, which amounts to 0.001% of the total bilateral aid budget. The OECD marker does not show any bilateral biodiversity-related aid spending by the Netherlands for 2007. However, the Netherlands have provided the following information: The data are not correct. Annual spending on biodiversity related bilateral aid: In 2006: 107.4 million Euro.  Percentage of total annual bilateral aid in 2006 2.86 % (of 3760 m Euro). In 2007: 65.8 million Euro is 1.79 % of total annual bilateral aid (3681 m Euro). In 2008: 64.9 million Euro or 1.71 % of the annual total bilateral aid (3805 m Euro). In the past few years more bilateral aid is allocated in the form of sectoral budget support. One third of sectoral budget support environment is attributed to biodiversity related activities.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009, 12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_1_4','','Netherlands contributed EUR80.42 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 3.3 % of the total replenishment. Netherlands contributed EUR89.38 million to the 4th replenishment which is 4.18 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_1_6','','','','','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_2_2','','Although no official SEA or EIA is mandatory, environmental impacts of all programmes and projects are assessed in the appraisal documents. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','26/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A7','A7_2_5','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A8','A8_1','','The Netherlands has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing.  Legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing or on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources does not exist nor have activities raising awareness of these two issues taken place. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is estimated at 13% for 2006 and 30% for 2008. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied; many items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The Netherlands does not have national legislation on implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. The Netherlands has not implemented any national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','The Netherlands provided financial support to the 6th meeting of the ABS Working Group in 2008.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','16/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The Netherlands does not have does national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. The Netherlands has not implemented any national activities that raise awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. ','','The Netherlands uses the SMTA for all PGRFA requested from the genebank.','Reference or title:Weblink:','16/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A8','A8_1_4','','The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is estimated at 13% for 2006 and 30% for 2008. The monitoring cycle is every 3 years. Next monitoring will be in 2011.It only addresses FSC and PEFC certified timber.Please note that our public procurement policy accepts FSC International, PEFC Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Finland and Germany as sustainably produced timber at the moment (March 2010).','','The figures for 2006 and 2008 are approximate and verifiable.','Reference or title:Weblink:','15/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 4139, 991 and 979, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 was 257, 53 and 29, respectively. The Netherlands made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens – 847 for 2007 and 761 for 2008, representing net decrease in the number of seizures of 86. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical and financial assistance and to Staff of the Management and Scientific Authorities and Staff of enforcement authorities, as well as traders and the public . The Netherlands has provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES as follows : to Argentina (financial support for the preparation of a species proposal (Bulnesia sarmeintoi) for CoP15, Malaysia (financial support for the workshop conservation of tree species in Kuala Lumpur, 2007), Georgia (financial support for the survey of Galanthus woronowii, 2008) and Croatia (Enforcement training and assistance for the MA in terms of legislation, policy and ICT). The Netherlands paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. In the context of being the host country to the fourteenth meeting of the Conference to the Parties to CITES the Netherlands paid half of the required budget for the sponsored delegates programme. This significant contribution, 0.5 million euros approximately, ensured participation of at least two representatives from developing countries to the CoP in The Hague.  Furthermore, the Netherlands has pledged the amount of USD 100,000 for the African Elephant Fund.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','A9','','','The importance of adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the Netherlands is acknowlegded on the national level and on the regional level. National and provincial adaptation strategies and action plans as well as the National Biodiversity Program however deal with adaptation of biodiversity, mostly in an integrated manner. The national  plans concern only main policy issues and state-supported regional pilots. Also there is investment in enlarging the knowledgebase of adaptation biodiversity to climate change. There is a broad concensus that the national nature policy, which focuses on strengthening ecological networks and improving the resilience of ecosystems by enlarging and connecting nature areas and reducing environmental stresses on nature areas, is a sound policy in view of the need of supporting adaptation to climate change and needs strengthening.   ','','','','19/03/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_4_1','','The importance of adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the Netherlands is acknowlegded on the national level and on the regional level. National and provincial adaptation strategies and action plans as well as the National Biodiversity Program however deal with adaptation of biodiversity, mostly in an integrated manner. The national  plans concern only main policy issues and state-supported regional pilots. Also there is investment in enlarging the knowledgebase of adaptation biodiversity to climate change. There is a broad concensus that the national nature policy, which focuses on strengthening ecological networks and improving the resilience of ecosystems by enlarging and connecting nature areas and reducing environmental stresses on nature areas, is a sound policy in view of the need of supporting adaptation to climate change and needs strengthening.   ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'19/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('Netherlands','A9','A9_4_3','','Studies have been undertaken to assess in what way species and conditions that are of vital importance for specific habitats or ecosystems are vulnerable to climate change in the Netherlands. The impacts of spatial fragmentation to migration patterns are also taken into account. These ecosystems and habitats especially vulnerable have been identified as well as the possible adaptation strategies to mitigate the risks. In these scientific studies, the vulnerability is often assessed relating to the relative amount of species with high respons to changing temperatures, the change of vital environmental conditions and the spatial fragmentation.Some ecosystems identified as most vulnerable are (high) moor peats, marshland, (small)brooks and brookforests. Finally, there is an ever growing database with species and their properties that are important to asses their respons to climate change. This database is especially used for the above mentioned assements.','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','19/03/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','07/04/10','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','A10_1','','Poland does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. Biodiversity research is not incorporated into other national programmes. ','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','A10_1_2','','Poland is not currently planning a follow up to the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','A10_1_8','','Poland does not currently have a national biodiversity platform. ','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','07/04/2010','','','na','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','A10_1_9','','Poland has been an Associate Member of GBIF since March 2001. The national ‘Participant node’ for Poland is the Polish Biodiversity Information Network (PolBIN). PolBIN was founded in 2003 in order to initiate cooperation of Polish research institutions with GBIF. Currently, PolBIN is the largest organisation collection biodiversity in Poland—with over 1.5million records containing information on biodiversity in Poland and globally. The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Museum and Institute of Zoology at the Polish Academy of Sciences participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 10:Generic analysis tools and data mining. The Faculty of Biology at the University of Warsaw participate as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats, 8 of the 11 (73%) forest habitats, 2 of the 3 (67%) heath and scrub habitats and 4 of the 7 (57%) rocky habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. All freshwater and bog, mire and fen habitats are in inadequate condition. Half of grassland habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, 2 of the 3 (67%) and 1 of the 3 (33%) coastal habitats are reported to be in favourable and unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively.In the Continental biogeographical region, half or more of all habitats with the exception of grasslands are reported to be in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. The condition of 1 of the 5 (20%) heath and scrub is favourable, 2 of the 2 (40%) is unfavourable-inadequate and the remaining 2 of the 5 (40) are in an unfavourable-bad. The condition of all sclerophyllous scrub habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 6 of the 11 (55%) grassland habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition.There is a slight uncertainty as the condition of 1 of the 7 (14%) rocky habitats in the Alpine biogeographical region, and 1 of the 9 (11%) Continental dunes habitats is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','07/04/2010','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Poland has designated 364 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 28,884 km², totalling 8.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 6 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 3600 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 141 with a total area of 55.118 km², totalling 15.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 4, with a marine area of 3,600 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update and further update from Poland)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Until the end of 2009 there were 38 management plans in preparation or prepared but the procedure of their establisment was not completed. Another circa 400 plans will be prepared between 2010 and 2013. ','','Currently, 100% of designated Natura 2000 sites have management bodies. Regarding to other planning instruments, until the end of 2009 there were also 55 \"plans of local cooperation\" concerning Natura 2000 sites (they will be used to prepare management plans for Natura 2000 sites in 2010). There are also management plans for other nature conservation forms such as national parks, nature reserves, etc. that correspond with the same nature conservation goals as lining up Natura 2000 sites but particular data is not available. ','','26/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','A1_2_3','','A system of ecological corridors is being developed.','','',':','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','A1_3','','Of the 291 regularly occurring bird species in Poland, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 6 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Poland, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 17 of the 33 (52%) mammals and 10 of the 20 (50%) plants was reported to be favourable. 9 of the 31 (29%) invertebrates and 6 of the 20 (30%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition while3 of the 12 (25%) fish and 2 of the 20 (10%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 14 (57%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 12 (33%) fish, 15 of 31 (48%) of invertebrates and 7 of the 33 (21%) mammals is unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, all mammals were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Continental biogeographical region, 11 of the 23 (48% fish and 15 of the 37 (41%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 4 of the 23 (17%) of fish and 12 of the 37 (32%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 9 of the 17 (53%) amphibians and reptiles, 23 of the 50 (46%) invertebrates and 21 of the 42 (50%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 5 of the 23 (21%) fish, 12 of the 50 (24%) invertebrates and 14 of the 42 (33%) of plants is regarded as unfavourable-bad. The condition of 6 of the 17 (35%) amphibians and reptiles and 7 of the 37 (19%) mammals is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: : Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 427%17%17%857%00%14Fish 433%18%325%433%00%12Invertebrates310%929%413%1548%.00%31Mammals1752%824%13%721%00%33Plants 1050%630%210%210%00%20Marine BalticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Continental Amphibians and reptiles 16%953%16%635%00%17Fish 1148%417%521%313%00%23Invertebrates1020%2346%1224%510%00%50Mammals1541%1232%38%719%00%37Plants 614%2150%1433%12%00%42','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Poland has one completed species action plan for mammals. In addition, the following action plans are in preparation: 2 for birds, 5 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 2 for invertebrates and 5 for plants. The level of bird populations or population trends serve as an indicator for Conservation Status. Red Data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','These are the national action plans: - action plan for Bison bonasus (2007)- projects of action plans for 10 animal species: Castor fiber, Tetrao tetrix, Tetrao urogallus, Phocoena phocoena, Rosalia alpina, Rhinolophus hipposideros, Euphydryas aurinia, Spermophilus citellus,  Triturus cristatus, Lutra lutra; and for 5 plant species: Adenophora liliifolia, Cypripedium calceolus, Pulsatilla patens, Serratula lycopifolia, Asplenium adulterinum','http://www.iop.krakow.pl/pckz/default.asp','26.02.2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','B1_1_1','','The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej - NFOŚiGW) is a pillar of the Polish environmental protection funding system. The key objective of the NFOŚiGW lately has been effective and efficient use of funding from the European Union allocated for development and modernization of environmental protection infrastructure in Poland. Nature and landscape protection and support given to forestry are its priorities. Other significant funding sources are the EcoFund Foundation and the Rural Development programme as well as cooperation programmes with Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Poland spent up to EUR1.364.277 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Poland spent up to EUR1.136.223 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. According to data passed by Beneficiaries of LIFE+, the support of the European Commission within LIFE projects in particular years was as follows: 2004 	0.00 EUR 2005 	272,432.00 EUR 2006 	2,272,765.50 EUR 2007 	204,324.00 EUR 2008 	200,493.00 EUR The whole amount of LIFE support from 2004 to 2008 is 2,950,014.50 EUR These data are based on transfer money into Beneficiaries\' accounts, not on expenditures per year. Additionally to the data presented above the NFOSiGW, from its funds, financed nature protection projects located mainly at NATURA 2000 sites, with the following amounts: 2004 – 17,208,000 PLN – 3,659,019 EUR*; 2005 – 19,277,000 PLN – 4,727,768 EUR*, 2006 – 15,502,000 PLN – 4,209,640 EUR*, 2007 – 18,732,000 PLN – 5,537,261 EUR*, 2008 – 21,553,000 PLN – 6,015,350 EUR*. The above funding was spent mainly on conservation activities and capacity building of institutions involved in managing of nature protection in Poland. *  amounts converted into Euro using exchange rate applied by the European Central Bank on the first working day in which the payment was done.More activities concern developing management systems for Natura 2000, developing a Monitoring Scheme for Conservation Status of species and habitats on Natura 2000 sites as well as outside the Natura 2000 network.','','The information on national programmes is taken from Poland’s 4th National Report to the CBD. The information on LIFE project refers to Poland’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','30/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','B1_1_4','','Poland’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR135.1m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR72.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR98.6m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','07/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','B1_1_8','','Information is not available','','','','07/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B2_4','','Poland updated its existing National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, Action Plan 2007 -2013 in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','30/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','B3_1_2','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships.','','Local development strategies implemented by local action groups are carried out under targets of Axis 3. Therefore there is no support for partnerships set on biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity under the Polish Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013. ','','','','','05/05/10',''),
	('Poland','A1','B3_1_5','','Poland recongised in its Fourth CBD National Report that nature protection requirements were being insufficiently included in the spatial planning system.  The Act on Spatial Planning and Development of 27 March 2003 is the main policy document. Poland does not currently have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: Poland CBD 4th National ReportWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','07/04/10','','','11/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','07/04/10','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','07/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds. ','','','','07/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.','','','','07/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Poland has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions have been made from Poland between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','07/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','C1_2','','Poland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 3 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Poland in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','07/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','C1_2_1','','Poland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 3 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Poland in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','07/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A1','C1_3_1','','As part of the National Environmental Monitoring, Poland is implementing a range of monitoring schemes for the major habitat types and species groups.','','','','07/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.There are additional standards for minimum soil cover, minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), arable stubble management, standards for crop rotations, appropriate machinery use, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and compliance with authorisation procedures where water is used for irrigation. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Poland total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 13398.93 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 17405.47 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 4446.8 million EUR, and 5557.11 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 33.19 and 31.93 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Poland was 1853 million EUR (2315.67 with co-financing) and amounted to 13.83 per cent of the EAFRD (13.3 with co-financing). There are no payments in Poland for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)154.3223192.9029Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species is promoted in the national biodiversity strategy and action plan. No further details are provided on measures to conserve genetic biodiversity. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','','25.02.2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Poland in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, the following instruments are applied as guidance for afforestation operations:Law on nature conservation- prohibition of alien species growing, breeding and introduction without proper permissions,- creation of list of plants, animals and fungi, which might be dangerous for native species when released to environment,-penalties for not exerting provisions.Law on forests:- includes notation of maintaining sustainable forestry with special regard to preservation of natural biodiversity   Regulation on forest reproduction material – determines the usage of several tree species in afforestation.Regulation on detailed conditions and procedures for granting financial assistance for the afforestation of agricultural land covered by plan for rural development – which permits financial assistance only for afforestation with native tree species. Decree on improvement of forest management on ecological grounds – which includes provisions about maintaining natural forest biodiversity and preserving and restoring the compatibility of forest biota, through inter alia maintaining natural species stand composition.National strategy for protection and moderate use of biological diversity – which defines the vision of nature conservation in Poland, and includes action plan that inter alia lists specific tasks for prevention, elimination, containment and control the spread of alien species in forests. State environmental policy in 2009-2012 – which points adaptation of stands species composition to natural state as one of the most important action in mentioned period. In addition, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. EIA  and SEA are limited to an area of equal or more than 20 ha for afforestation and 1 ha for deforestation.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Poland had a total certified forest area of approximately 7.0 million hectares out of a total forest area of 9.19 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Poland was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 76.11 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Poland amounted to 4.81 million ha, representing a share of 23.8 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','','','','',''),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.There are additional standards for minimum soil cover, minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), arable stubble management, standards for crop rotations, appropriate machinery use, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and compliance with authorisation procedures where water is used for irrigation. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Poland has 1870 trained advisers for agri-environment programmes, 474 forest advisers and 55 advisers that support the Leader Programme. Systematic training is also provided (mainly at provincial centres) for farmers on agri-environmental programmes.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_8','','The only mandatory biodiversity related indicator that is currently monitored is farmland bird population trends. A monitoring scheme is being set up for HNV farming (to be started in 2011). No monitoring is currently carried out or being developed for HNV forestry or tree species composition.According to reporting by the Member State, for the period 2000 and 2008, Poland\'s national farmland indicator has shown a general decrease until 2004 when it reached 89 per cent , an 11 per cent decrease according to the 2000 baseline. In 2006 it reached 93 per cent. By 2008 the indicator had reached a level of 101 percent, an 1 per sent increase from the 2000 baseline. The Common Breeding Bird Monitoring Scheme organized by the Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP) began in 2000 and finished in 2006. Since 2006 it has been carried out by OTOP ordered by the Chief Inspectorate of Environment Protection (CIEP). ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 169 million € has been added to Poland’s national Rural Development Programme The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Poland attributed € 10 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting 6 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all five occurrences of the alpine freshwater habitats in Poland have an unfavourable conservation status. 63 per cent of the continental freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 37 per cent is favourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131030077%23%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U15  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U14   U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Poland oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 4.34 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.95 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.46 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.56 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 2.00 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.86 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were slightly below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 10.9 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 8.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2002. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.126 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.140 mg P/l in 2005. Values were above the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Poland had a total number of 103 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 44.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Poland, more or less all biological assessment methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). No information was available or no method was implemented for phytoplankton assessment in rivers and macro-algae and angiosperm assessment in transitional waters.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 514 in Poland.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Poland had a total number of 2673 IPPC installations and issued 2366 permits. 307 permits were still outstanding. There were no permits that that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive.','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Poland already met its allocated ceilings under the NEC Directive for sulphur, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) and ammonia emissions. Compared to the previous year, NMVOC emissions have slightly increased. According to 2010 projections NMVOC emissions will also increase, but the country will be able to meet its 2010 NMVOC ceilings. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Poland the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 77 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 90,330 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 61 and 50 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 3 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction in 2010 and a reduction to 99 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 68 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Poland’s gross nitrogen balance was 48 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 2 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 2000 and 2006, Poland’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease up to 2004 where it reached 82.1 per cent, a 17.9 per cent decrease from the 2000 baseline. By 2006 the indicator had increased to 89 per cent, an 11 per cent decrease from the 2000 baseline. 23 species were assessed. No data are available on Poland’s national farmland bird indicators before the year 2000.For further information on the national farmland bird index, please consult A2.1.8.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage191720089%11%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8620075%25%0%0%U14  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1111000100%0%0%0%U15 U26       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage251690064%36%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11380027%73%0%0%U13  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage141310093%7%0%0%U18   U25       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3120033%67%0%0%U11  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5410080%20%0%0%U12   U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12000100%0%0%0%12            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U15  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U14   U23       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content     ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Poland found that of the three marine habitats assessed from the Marine Baltic region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (67%) and one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%). Seven coastal habitats were assessed in the Continental biogeographic region. Four of these had an ‘Inadequate’ status (57%), and three had a ‘Bad’ status (43%).Four marine species were assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all mammals. All four had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticMarine habitats267%133%00%00%00%3ContinentalCoastal habitats00%457%343%00%00%7Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%00%4100%00%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_1_4','','Poland reported that, in 2009, it had 16 surveillance stations and 7 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Poland has 11 coastal water bodies. Approximately 90% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It was developing methods for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates as well as assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae or angiosperm. ','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf   annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework ','01.03.2010','','','13/01/10','20/03/10'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_1_5','','An ICZM plan/strategy is being developed and will be included in a document entitled \"Guidelines for Maritime Policy 2020\" (being prepared by the Ministry of Infrastructure) that will integrate all relevant EU maritime plans and strategies ensuring coherence. In March 2010, the document was in its early stages and not further details were available.','','','','04/03/2010','','','20/03/10',''),
	('Poland','A3','A3_2','','In Poland, 91% of the total coastal bathing waters (81) met the mandatory standards for water quality in 2008. This is an increase of 10.1% compared to the previous year. The proportion of these waters reaching the stricter guideline standards for water quality has been relatively low in the past (38.6% in 2006 and 33.7% in 2007), but this increased to just over half (57.3%) in 2008. In terms of nutrient on concentrations in coastal waters off Poland there was no change found in recorded nitrogen or phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005. ','','-','','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_4','','Poland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €225,121,723 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity particularly in the cod sector and improving both gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€195,758,020) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and promotes environmental certification and organic production as well as the protection of N2000 sites. Axis 3 (€195,758,020) includes an aim to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources, and Axis 4 (€313,212,832) promotes eco-tourism and the protection of the coastal environment. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_73_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','07/04/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content     ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Poland had 884 vessels and 15% were involved in a serious infringement (129 vessels). A total of 129 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €688 and maximum fine of €6,410.','','2007 data not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','07/04/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_5_2','','The Polish Eel Management Plan (PEMP) will be implemented in two management units referred to as Eel Management Units (EMU). These are units delineated by the borders of the international basins of the Oder and Vistula rivers, which include the transboundary tributaries designated in the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC). Oder Eel Management Unit (EMU) covers: • the transboundary Oder River basin within Poland; • the Szczecin Lagoon with nearby Polish waters; • the coastal zone (to 12 miles) of ICES Sub-division 24 (Pomeranian Bay); • the coastal zone (to 12 miles) of ICES Sub-division 25; • the transboundary Elbe and Űcker river basins within Polish borders. Vistula Eel Management Unit (EMU) covers: • the Vistula River basin; • the transboundary Vistula River basin within Poland; • the inner Gulf of Gdańsk; • the coastal zone (to 12 miles) of ICES Sub-division 26; • the transboundary Jarft, Nemen, Pregoła, and Świeża river basins within Polish borders.Within these different units there are actions for the restoration of Eel populations:  1) Within the Vistula EMU there is an objective to improve passability of migration routes by 34%. The recommended stocking intensity for the Vistula EMU is 7 million individuals (2.33 tons).  2) Within the Oder EMU, the objective is to improve passability of migration routes by 29%. Recommended stocking is 6 million individuals (2 tons). Re-stocking of eel is therefore taking place within the Vistula and Oder EMU using farmed elvers measuring not more than 20 cm. Supplementary stocking is also likely to take place in other waters that are free of migratory barriers, including protected areas. Within the governmental program, Ministry of Agriculture also carries out stocking activities of such fish species as: sea trout, salmon, sturgeon and vimba, although these do not have specific restoration plans. There are a number of wider activities to support the recovery of eel populations. These include: Establishing closed seasons. According to the calculations, in order to reduce fishing mortality by 25% it is necessary to set a month-long closed season from 15.06 to 15.07 that applies to all Polish surface waters (marine and inland).Unifying minimum length. The minimum length for all catches of eel will be 50.0 cm.Improving fishing gear selectivity. Increasing the selectivity of the most common trap gear in use by installing selective sieves or increasing the mesh size in the last chamber to 20 mm (mesh size).Catch limits on recreational fishing to 2 eel per day. National regulations do not take into consideration daily recreational catches. This will counteract increasing mortality caused by recreational fishing that is above the level used in the population model.Limiting predatory pressure of black cormorants. Implementing a plan for protecting the eel through increasing the intensity and effectiveness of stocking and limiting actions that can lead to changes in feeding preferences of cormorants or an increase of predatory pressure on eel.Limiting illegal, undocumented, and unregulated catches. This will be accomplished through stricter monitoring.','','','http://bip.minrol.gov.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabOrgId=1772&LangId=0','07/04/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Poland','A3','A3_5_3','','Polish fishing capacity has shown a general decreasing trend from 2004 to 2008, although there was a very slight increase in fishing power between 2007 and 2008. However, overall the number of vessels has reduced from 1248 in 2004 to 832 in 2008 (33% reduction). Over the same period tonnage has reduced from 45,559 tons to 41,001 tons (10% reduction) and power from 147,081kW to 98,961kW (33% reduction). Following a very big reduction in the Baltic fleet during 2005 and 2006, a further but much smaller reduction took place in 2007; 24 vessels amounting to 700 GT and 2 600 kW were permanently withdrawn from this fleet with public aid.','','2008 data: 832 vessels; 41001 tons; 98961 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Poland had 884 active vessels. There were 55 type D breaches in this year and 55 penalties imposed with an average fine of €665. There have been some limited activities to reduce by catch for example in autumn 2008 the government purchased deterrent devices in order to minimise by-catch of harbour porpoise.','','2007 data is not currently available','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf  ','07/04/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_6_2','','The programme for monitoring of wintering seabirds is planned to start in 2011. The responsible unit will be Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection within the framework of the State Environmental Monitoring System.    ','','The University of Gdańsk has had a program for monitoring of wintering seabirds in the Gulf of Gdańsk since 1984.','','05.03.2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Poland','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','04/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Poland','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','If marine sites are calculated using the presence of the following habitats and species (see list below within clarifications), the total number of marine Natura 2000 sites is 30. However the EC/ETC-BD does not now consider habitat 1160 (Large shallow inlets and bays) to be ‘marine’ so the number of ‘marine sites’ is in fact less than this (12 according to national sources in Poland).  Poland has not specified any fisheries management measures for any of the sites within territorial waters or requested measures from the CFP on the site outside of territorial waters. Within the territorial waters, there is a need to discuss the details and proposals of management measures with the fisheries sector and all relevant stakeholders and (BS RAC), EC and other MS and in particular determine if the measures will apply to all vessels (including small vessels). Possible modification of fisheries management outside of territorial waters needs to be discussed more widely by the EU and Member States. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusTo quote national sources: ‘The number of Poland\'s marine SCIs [is] 9 (including 1 that is also a SPA). The EC insists that there are 4 marine SPAs in Poland and so the total number of Polish marine Natura 2000 sites is 12.’It is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 9Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 1 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','04/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A3','A3_7_1','','Poland has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. For the Appendix XIII ecosystem  indicators from 1-4, data collected during research surveys conducted in Baltic Sea in 2009 and 2010 will be used, specifically:  BITS1q, BIAS, and BITS4q. Indicators 5-7 will be summarised from VMS data, provided that the Sea Fisheries Institute has access to this data.  Discard indicators will use the biological sampling data from the segmented commercial fleet. Outside the DCF, Poland indicated that they have carried out monitoring of incidental catches of sea mammals during fishing operations according to the requirements of the Council Regulation (WE) 812/2004 since 2006. Since 2006, one grey seal and no small cetaceans were products of bycatch from vessels including in this monitoring programme. Pingers were purchased for fishermen to reduce by-catch of small cetaceans in ICES Zone 24. Additionally, some initial data collection was made for seabird products of bycatch in fishing nets (mainly set nets). This data was collected by Poland in 2007 and 2009, during the Program of Monitoring of accidental by-catch of marine mammals, according to Council Regulation (WE) 812/2004.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data source: Polish National Programme for the Collection of Fisheries Data 2009-2010Weblink: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94846 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','30/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Polish EEZ in 2004 was 3.27. This represents a decrease of 0.02 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.43 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down. ','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','30/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','19/03/2010'),
	('Poland','A4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Polish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 306.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','30/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The Nature Conservation Act (2004) regulates for the introduction of all alien species except fish species. Introduction and import of alien species that are potentially dangerous to native species has to be authorised by the Minister responsible for the environment. The Nature Conservation Act is currently under revision and is likely to include a legal basis for prohibiting the possession and trade of alien species that have the potential to pose a threat to native species. The Inland Fisheries Act of (1985) regulates for the introduction of alien fish species into freshwater. The Fisheries Act (2004) regulates for the introduction of alien species into seas; if a species is dangerous for the marine environment then permission will not be granted for its introduction from the Ministry of Agriculture. The Hunting Law Act contains provisions for the introduction of some alien species such as pheasant, an introduced game species. The Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment on the list of game species and close seasons for those animals (2001, as amended 2005) contains provisions for the control of alien game species already introduced and established in Poland. There is also a comprehensive organisational-legal system for phyto-sanitary and veterinary protection in Poland, reducing the adverse effects of alien species on native biodiversity.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  Member State to clarify whether the Nature Conservation Act is still under revision.     ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 58 are present in Poland. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A5','A5_1_2','','IAS are addressed in the National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity with the Action Plan for 2007-2013. The Action Plan provides for the implementation of the CBD Guiding Principles. The Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the Ministry of Environment in 2005 to develop a code of conduct for alien species in Poland. The code of conduct may form the basis for a future Polish Strategy on IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A5','A5_1_3','','Poland has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is in place. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is under development. According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, 16 Polish regions have passed declaration as GMO free.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','01.03.2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in April 2009. The 2nd version of the “National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity” (no date of publication given) was posted on the CBD website in June 2009.Poland has paid her annual contribution to the CBD, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. In 2008, there were still arrears of EUR25.378 for the contribution to the CMS Trust Fund for 2007, while the annual contribution for 2008 was paid. Poland is not a party to AEWA; hence no contribution has been made to the Agreement.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','25.02.2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Poland for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure on Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','07/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Poland for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','07/04/2010','','','07/01/201007/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A7','A7_1_4','','Poland has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','30/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory','','','','07/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A8','A8_1','','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing has been adopted nor have activities raising awareness of the Guidelines been undertaken.  While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, in the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute workshops on the ITPGR and MTA for interested experts and plant genetic resources collection curators were conducted. Data on the percentage of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources are not available. Poland has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no information on the number of applications denied; a number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing has been adopted nor have activities raising awareness of the Guidelines been undertaken.  ','','','','24/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Poland did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','30/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is national legislation implementing the SMTA. In the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute some workshops on the ITPGR and MTA for interested experts and plant genetic resources collection curators were conducted.','','','','24/02/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A8','A8_1_4','','Data not available; there is no information on the total national consumption of wood products derived from CITES timber species.','','','','25/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 757, 42 and 20, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008was not available. Poland made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens – 230 for 2007 and 183 for 2008, representing net decrease in the number of seizures of 47. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and training to Staff of enforcement authorities and the Management Authority. Poland has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Poland paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','07/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','A9','','','In Polish national forests, some projects on future forest tree composition in relation to various climate change scenarios are commencing.','','','','24/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A9','A9_3_2','','','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','A9','A9_4_1','','In Polish national forests, some projects on future forest tree composition in relation to various climate change scenarios are commencing.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Poland','A9','A9_4_3','','','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','','','The \"Business & Biodiversity\" initiative encourages the relationship between business and biodiversity, through long-term voluntary agreements, with the integration of biodiversity into business strategies and policies. By January 2010, 49 companies (28 in 2007, 17 in 2008 and four in 2009) of different sizes, sectors (some with great impact in the environmental area because of the nature of their business) and business areas had joined the Initiative. The first one to join was in May 2007. In addition to the international conference held during the Portuguese EU presidency (12-13, November 2007), Portugal organised five meetings in order to disseminate the \"Business & Biodiversity\"  Initiative  and discuss particular aspects of it, \"the commitment to biodiversity\" (May 21 2008, \"linear infrastructure\" (November 27, 2008), \"tourism\" (January 22, 2009),  \"outcomes and expections\" - May 27, 2009) and \"sharing experiences & finding solutions\" (September 25, 2009). Information was available through the portal for ICNB (Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity) publications as well as through memoranda, briefs, power point presentations, processing and compilation of information. Two brochures and a leaflet were published and several texts were added to various national and international reports. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Iniciativa \"Business & Biodiversity\"http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Iniciativa+Business+and++Biodiversity/','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','A10_1','','Portugal does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to biodiversity research; however, biodiversity research is incorporated into the research program of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) is the primary funding agency for research. FCT is an autonomous public institution under the aegis of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. FCT covers all areas of science, from the humanities, natural sciences, contributing to the improvement of capabilities and excellence in research. The research program of the FCT supports competitive research activities that, for assessment and management, are sub-grouped into thematic areas. Research on biodiversity is considered in the sub-programs \"Science and Technology of the Sea\", \"Environment and Climate Change”, “Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation” and “Agriculture and Environment\". In the Azores there is research support for biodiversity from the Regional Directorate for Science, Technology and Communications (DRCTC) under the Integrated Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (PICT) approved by Resolution No. 41/2008 of April 3, specifically in the following programs: Program 2 - ENCOURAGES - Support for projects of scientific and technological research of interest to the sustainable development of the Azores;Measure 2.1.2 - Proposed scientific and technological research in specific areas of the Integrated Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (PICT) - Legislative Order No. 64/2008 of 28 July; 3 FORMAC program - Support for advanced training Research grants competition resulting from the measures of PICT and developing studies in the area of biodiversity and / or the like. Program 5 - PRICE - Support for R & DI conducted in a business context: Measure 5.2.2 - Proposed RD & I in the business context, the Integrated Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (PICT) - Legislative Order No. 82/2008','','Original text provided: A Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) é a principal agência de financiamento orientado para a investigação. FCT é um instituto público autónomo sob a égide do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. FCT cobre todas as áreas científicas, desde as ciências naturais às humanísticas, contribuindo para o melhoramento das capacidades e para a excelência na investigação. O programa de investigação da FCT apoia actividades de investigação competitivas que, para fins de avaliação e gestão, se encontram sub-agrupados em áreas temáticas. A investigação em Biodiversidade é considerada no âmbito dos sub-programas “Ciências e Tecnologias do Mar”, “Ambiente e Alterações Climáticas”, “Biodiversidade, Ecologia e Conservação” e “Agricultura e Ambiente”.Na Região Autónoma dos Açores existem apoios da Direcção Regional da Ciência, Tecnologia e Comunicações (DRCTC), no âmbito do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) aprovado pela Resolução nº41/2008, de 3 de Abril, e especificamente nos programas:Programa 2 - INCITA - Apoio a projectos de investigação científica e tecnológica com interesse para o desenvolvimento sustentável dos AçoresMedida 2.1.2 - Projectos de investigação científica e tecnológica em domínios específicos, do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) - Despacho Normativo nº 64/2008, de 28 de Julho;Programa 3 FORMAC - Apoio à formação avançadaBolsas de investigação resultantes de concurso às medidas do PICTI e que desenvolvem estudos na área da Biodiversidade e/ou afins.Programa 5 - PRICE - Apoio a iniciativas de I&DI realizadas de contexto empresarial:Medida 5.2.2 - Projectos de ID&I em contexto empresarial, do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) - Despacho Normativo nº 82/2008','Research program of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): http://alfa.fct.mctes.pt/apoios/projectos/index.phtml.en ','21/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','A10_1_2','','Portugal has completed a follow up to the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The Portuguese Sub-Global Assessment was completed in 2009. A second assessment could be made if the MA has a second development. An economic evaluation of the value of ecosystem services in Portugal forest was conducted using a combination of several valuation techniques. The services evaluated include carbon sequestration, soil protection, and recreation (see the National Strategy for Forests, 2007, Lisbon, Directorate General of Forestry). Some other estimates of the economic value of ecosystem services in Portugal can be found in the final report of the Sub-Global Assessment for Portugal (Pereira, HM, T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença (Eds.). 2009. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Assessment for Portugal Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisbon, Portugal). The concept of ecosystem services is incorporated into the national legal system of biodiversity (Decree-Law No. 142/2008). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios have been considered and analyzed in the context of a new Land Use Plan of the Peneda-Geres.','','Original text provided: A Avaliação Sub-Global para Portugal foi concluída em 2009. Uma segunda avaliação poderá ter lugar se o MA 2 tiver desenvolvimento.Uma avaliação económica do valor dos serviços dos ecossistemas florestais em Portugal foi conduzida usando uma combinação de diversas técnicas de valoração. Os serviços avaliados incluem sequestro de carbono, protecção do solo, e lazer (see Estratégia Nacional para as Florestas, 2007, Lisboa, Direcção-Geral dos Recursos Florestais). Algumas outras estimativas do valor económico dos serviços dos ecossistemas em Portugal podem ser encontrados no relatório final da Avaliação Sub-Global para Portugal (Pereira, H. M., T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença (Eds.). 2009. Ecossistemas e Bem-Estar Humano: Avaliação para Portugal do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisboa, Portugal).    O conceito dos serviços dos ecosistemas está incorporado no regime jurídico nacional da biodiversidade (Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008). Os cenários do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment têm sido considerados e analisados no contexto de um novo Plano de Ordenamento do Parque Nacional da Peneda-Gerês.','Pereira, H. M., T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença (Eds.). 2009. Ecossistemas e Bem-Estar Humano: Avaliação para Portugal do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisboa, Portugal; Estratégia Nacional para as Florestas, 2007, Lisboa, Direcção-Geral dos Recursos Florestais http://ecossistemas.org/','21/04/2010','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','A10_1_8','','Portugal is represented in the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), yet is still in the design phase of the installation of a national biodiversity platform for strategic planning of research in biodiversity. Several steps were taken towards the establishment of a Biodiversity Platform in Portuguese. A meeting was organized in 2001 in Porto with 60 researchers from around the country and representatives of the Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ICNB) Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. Other contacts were made with ICNB, Foundation for Science and Technology and various research centres to implement this platform in Portugal.In 2007, under the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union, CIIMAR organised a meeting of EPBRS under the theme: Life on the Blue Planet: Biodiversity Research and the new European Marine Policies. Over the past 10 years Portugal has participated in all meetings of EPBRS and conferences that preceded them.','','Original text: Portugal está representado na EPBRS, contudo ainda se encontra em fase de concepção a instalação de uma plataforma nacional orientada para a reflexão e planeamento estratégico da investigação em biodiversidade.Vários passos foram dados para o estabelecimento de uma Plataforma em Biodiversidade portuguesa. Foi organizado um encontro em 2001, no Porto (http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/event/show/5) com 60 investigadores de todo o país e representantes do Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (ICNB), do Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território. Outros contactos foram realizados com o ICNB, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia e vários centros de investigação para implementação desta plataforma em Portugal.Em 2007, no âmbito da Presidência Portuguesa da União Europeia, o CIIMAR organizou uma reunião da EPBRS sob o tema: Life on the Blue Planet: Biodiversity Research and the new European Marine Policies. Nos últimos 10 anos Portugal participou em todas as reuniões da EPBRS e nas conferências que as antecederam.  ','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ; http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/event/show/5 ','22/04/2010','','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','A10_1_9','','Portugal has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since June 2001. Portugal host over 26,000 records on national biodiversity on GBIF.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Guia Marine Laboratory, Institute of Marine Research (IMAR) in Portugal is a non-profit private organisation with the aim of contributing the scientific basis of policy support through research. IMAR is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 11: Multi-lingual access to European Biodiversity sites.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','06/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of all coastal and rocky habitats in the Marine Atlantic is unknown.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 50% or more of all habitat types with the exception of rocky habitats are in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. The condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) rocky habitats is reported to be in favourable condition. 50% of Atlantic bog, mire and fen habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Macaronesian 14 of the 4 (100%) rocky habitats, and 2 of the 4 (50%) freshwater habitats and heath and scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. All sclerophyllous scrub and grassland habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 50% of freshwater habitats, heath and scrub habitats, forest habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats is also reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 1 of of 1 (100%) and 2 of the 4(50%) dune habitats and forests are in unfavourable-bad condition respectivelyIn the Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 1 (100%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) rocky habitats and coastal habitats are in favourable condition respectively. The condition of the remaining 31 of the 3(3%) coastal habitats is unknown.In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 3 of the 3 (60%) heath and scrub habitats, and 4 of the 8 (50%) of sclerophyllous scrub habitats, grassland habitats and rocky habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. Half or more of coastal habitats (8 of the 13 or 62%), dune habitats (9 of the 11 or 82%), sclerophyllous scrub habitats (50%), grassland habitats (4 of the 8 or 50%), and bog, mire and fen habitats (5 of the 10 or 50%) are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The remaining 1 of the 2 or 50% of bog, mire and fen habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats00%00%00%3100%00%3Rocky habitats00%00%00%1100%00%1 Coastal habitats00%788%00%113%00%8 Dunes habitats00%675%225%00%00%8AtlanticFreshwater habitats125%250%00%125%00%4Heath & scrub133%267%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands240%360%00%00%00%5Bogs, mires & fens00%150%150%00%00%2Rocky habitats267%00%00%133%00%3Forests240%360%00%00%00%5MacaronesianCoastal habitats229%229%229%114%00%7Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats250%250%00%00%00%4Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%1100%00%00%00%1Bogs, mires & fens125%250%125%00%00%4Rocky habitats4100%00%00%00%00%4Forests00%250%250%00%00%4Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats267%00%00%133%00%3Rocky habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats323%862%215%00%00%13Dunes habitats00%982%218%00%00%11Freshwater habitats542%433%18%217%00%12Heath & scrub360%240%00%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub450%450%00%00%00%8Grasslands550%550%00%00%00%10Bogs, mires & fens00%150%150%00%00%2Rocky habitats350%233%00%117%00%6Forests319%1169%00%213%00%16','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Portugal has designated 96 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 16.788 km², totalling 17.4% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 30 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 1173 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 59 with a total area of 10.475 km², totalling 10.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 10, with a marine area of 762 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','21/04/2010',' ','','07/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','51% of Natura 2000 sites have management plans completed, 3% of sites with have management plans and in preparation and 49% sites have no management plan completed or in preparation. Os valores de percentagens identificados na tabela acima têm em consideração o conjunto das áreas designadas no âmbito das Directivas Aves e Habitats, ou seja, um total de 155 áreas classificadas. No que respeita à gestão dos SIC e ZPE na área continental de Portugal, o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 (PSRN2000), aprovado pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008, de 21 de Julho, identifica um conjunto de linhas estratégicas a adoptar, conforme a seguir se enunciam: (1) Integração dos objectivos de conservação dos valores naturais nos instrumentos de gestão territorial, compatibilizando estes objectivos com um leque alargado de actividades, incluindo a urbanização, o turismo, a indústria extractiva, as infra-estruturas, as acessibilidades, o recreio e o lazer. Em conformidade com esta linha estratégica, os Planos de Ordenamento das Áreas Protegidas que incidem sobre cerca de 680 000 ha de área classificada no âmbito da Rede Natura, regulamentam os usos e ocupações de solo em função das exigências ecológicas dos diferentes valores naturais da área por eles abrangida, acautelando ao nível do ordenamento espacial e gestão os eventuais impactes desfavoráveis que os actos, acções e ou actividades possam gerar sobre o património natural. Desta forma, nos SIC ou ZPE coincidentes, no seu todo ou em parte, com os limites de áreas protegidas classificadas no âmbito da Rede Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (RNAP), os objectivos de conservação e de gestão identificados pelo PSRN2000 são proporcionalmente assegurados através dos planos de ordenamento das áreas protegidas, correspondendo a 34% dos 1 980 253 ha classificados como Rede Natura 2000 em Portugal continental, sob gestão directa do Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (ICNB)). Apesar do âmbito geográfico destes planos não abranger a totalidade das áreas classificadas como SIC ou ZPE mas apenas as áreas que são cumulativamente classificadas no âmbito da RNAP e Rede Natura 2000, existem outros mecanismos legais (por exemplo avaliação de impacte ambiental e avaliação ambiental estratégica), e de planeamento e ordenamento orientados para prevenir a destruição, degradação ou perturbação dos valores naturais. No remanescente do território classificado como Rede Natura 2000, não abrangido por áreas protegidas, os Planos Directores Municipais assumem um papel fundamental ao nível do ordenamento do território. A revisão destes planos, a efectivar até 2014 face às orientações estratégicas determinadas pelo PSRN2000, tem vindo a ser acompanhada pelo ICNB, no sentido de garantir a adopção das melhores opções de ordenamento com vista ao objectivo global de proteger ou manter num estado de conservação favorável os valores naturais protegidos que motivaram a classificação dos territórios por eles abrangidos. Interessa ainda referir a integração do PSRN2000 nas diferentes políticas sectoriais, já efectivada, designadamente, nas políticas de desenvolvimento regional, florestal e também na política de ordenamento do litoral. Os Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal constituem um primeiro passo para a concretização dessa política, tendo a sua elaboração considerado as orientações estratégicas determinadas pelo PSRN2000 para as áreas da Rede Natura 2000. A totalidade da Rede Natura 2000 é abrangida por estes planos regionais, que traçam o quadro de referência do desenvolvimento florestal, a operacionalizar através dos planos de gestão florestal a desenvolver a uma escala mais detalhada. Quando em áreas classificadas incluem um programa de gestão da biodiversidade, conforme estabelecido pelo regime jurídico dos instrumentos de gestão florestal. Ao nível do litoral encontram-se concluídos os planos de ordenamento da orla costeira para a totalidade do território alvo, constituindo-se como o principal instrumento operacional para o ordenamento do espaço (onde se inclui uma faixa marítima de protecção) na prossecução dos objectivos de protecção da integridade biofísica das áreas abrangidas, de valorização dos recursos existentes e de conservação dos valores ambientais e paisagísticos. (2) Promoção de uma gestão activa para a conservação dos SIC e ZPE, assente maioritariamente no estabelecimento de parcerias nos sectores agrícola, florestal e de pastorícia, na medida em que a manutenção num estado favorável de conservação de grande parte dos valores naturais que estão na origem da designação da Rede Natura 2000, são estreitamente dependentes deste tipo de actividades. Identifica-se como medida fundamental a disponibilização dos meios necessários à sua execução, integrando os objectivos de conservação da biodiversidade nas políticas agrícola e de desenvolvimento rural e das pescas. Deste modo, em SIC e ZPE cujos objectivos de conservação estão dependentes de uma gestão orientada para a manutenção ou fomento de determinadas práticas de natureza florestal, agrícola e pecuária, a elaboração de Intervenções Territoriais Integradas (ITI), no contexto do Plano de Desenvolvimento Rural – Continente (2008-2013), constitui a solução mais adequada e estruturante, assente num conjunto de medidas de natureza agro- e silvo-ambiental. Foi com o objectivo de identificar as possibilidades de integração de medidas necessárias à gestão das áreas classificadas da Rede Natura 2000 (Portugal continental) na programação da política de desenvolvimento rural a consubstanciar no PRODER, que o ICNB apresentou o relatório “Estudo sobre a Integração da Gestão da Rede Natura 2000 na Estratégia Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural 2007-2013”, de carácter estratégico, para a gestão agrícola e florestal na Rede Natura 2000, a implementar no contexto da programação da política de desenvolvimento rural, que se encontra agora em plena fase de execução. É demonstrada a relevância e dependência da gestão agrícola e florestal para o sucesso da Rede Natura 2000, sendo que em 90% da superfície total da Rede existe um elevado grau de associação entre os valores naturais a conservar e o tipo de gestão agrícola e florestal praticada. Deste modo, em 2008 o Regulamento de Aplicação das Componentes Agro-Ambientais e Silvo-Ambientais da Medida n.º 2.4 «Intervenções Territoriais Integradas», do Subprograma n.º 2 do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural do Continente (PRODER) aprovado pela Portaria nº 232-A/2008, constitui assim a 1ª Fase de ITI, que abrange 8 Intervenções Territoriais Integradas abrangendo 37% da área de Rede Natura 2000: (ITI) Peneda-Gerês, ITI Montesinho-Nogueira, ITI Douro Internacional, ITI Serra da Estrela, ITI Tejo Internacional, ITI Serras de Aire e Candeeiros, ITI Castro Verde e ITI Costa Sudoeste, abrangendo já.  Tendo por base o desenvolvimento conceptual anterior, foi concluída pelo ICNB em 2008 a preparação de um conjunto de Medidas de Gestão Agrícola e Florestal para as áreas classificadas da Rede Natura 2000 a incluir numa 2ª Fase de ITI, conforme previsto na programação da política de desenvolvimento rural para o período 2007-13.Tendo em conta os valores naturais, os principais factores de ameaça e as orientações de gestão relacionadas com a actividade agrícola e florestal identificados no PSRN2000 e fontes bibliográficas complementares, definiu-se o universo dos objectivos de conservação a atingir através das medidas a incluir nas ITI. Estes objectivos foram definidos tomando também em consideração os impactos potenciais da evolução agrícola e florestal de acordo com as principais tendências identificadas nos territórios em análise no horizonte temporal até 2013.Os objectivos de conservação identificados para cada ITI conjugados com os resultados das dinâmicas agro-florestais destes territórios, permitiram conceber as medidas necessárias à gestão dos valores naturais que estão na base da designação das áreas classificadas abrangidas por estas ITI (incluindo condições de acesso, compromissos e níveis de pagamento).O desenvolvimento destas medidas envolveu a aferição da sua aceitação e adequação às características e condições concretas das explorações agrícolas/florestais a que se dirigem, junto de agricultores e outros potenciais beneficiários. Procurou-se, deste modo, assegurar uma boa adesão às medidas, factor essencial para que os objectivos de conservação pretendidos possam ser, de facto, alcançados.Os resultados deste estudo são uma base técnica sólida para o desenvolvimento das ITI em referência, em articulação com a Autoridade de Gestão do PRODER, as entidades relevantes do Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas e com os parceiros relevantes, em particular as associações representativas dos agricultores, produtores florestais, entidades gestoras da caça, proprietários e organizações não governamentais de ambiente. O processo encontra-se actualmente em discussão e negociação tendo em vista o estabelecimento do novo pacote de ITI (2ª fase) em 2010. O reforço dos apoios destinados à Rede Natura 2000 previsto no PRODER será assim utilizado para assegurar o alargamento do instrumento ITI a todas as demais áreas classificadas para cujos objectivos de conservação é relevante uma gestão agro-florestal dirigida.(3) Enquadrar e promover a gestão dos valores associados às linhas de água e aos sistemas húmidos em estreita articulação entre as autoridades de conservação da biodiversidade e as entidades de tutela da gestão da água, designadamente através da implementação da Lei Quadro da Água, numa lógica de gestão integrada da bacia hidrográfica. Encontra-se assim prevista a intervenção das autoridades de conservação da biodiversidade na elaboração dos planos de bacia, e de ordenamento dos estuários, lagoas e albufeiras;(4) Elaborar planos de gestão que definam as medidas e acções de conservação, visando a compatibilização da conservação dos valores naturais com as actividades praticadas em Rede Natura 2000,se necessário, em face de uma avaliação dos instrumentos e mecanismos já existentes .A nível da integração da biodiversidade noutras políticas e actividades, merecem relevo os esforços dirigidos para o conhecimento e minimização dos impactes directos das infra-estruturas lineares nos valores naturais, sobretudo ao nível dos impactes na conectividade ecológica e na fragmentação que estas impõem ao território. Refiram-se a este propósito, os protocolos de colaboração estabelecidos entre as empresas de transporte e distribuição de energia eléctrica, o ICNB e ONGA, iniciados em 2003, e ao abrigo dos quais se desenvolveu um trabalho pioneiro de caracterização da situação actual dos impactes das linhas de transporte e de distribuição de energia eléctrica na avifauna e de compatibilização das linhas eléctricas com as protecção da avifauna, monitorizando a eficácia das medidas de correcção introduzidas, testando novas tipologias das estruturas minimizadoras dos impactos e de implementação de operações de correcção de linhas identificadas como perigosas para a avifauna. Foram ainda elaborados guias de análise de projectos, nomeadamente de projectos de instalação de linhas aéreas de distribuição e transporte de energia eléctrica, e de estradas e vias de comunicação, tendo em vista uniformizar as soluções propostas em sede de Avaliação de Incidências Ambientais ou em processos de licenciamento e garantir a eficácia destas soluções.Actividades passíveis de gerar impacte negativo sobre os SIC ou ZPE foram objecto de regulamentação e ou de legislação específica e de integração em outras políticas sectoriais:- Actividade cinegética: Como resultados mais relevantes ao nível deste sector, realça-se a promoção do ordenamento cinegético em todo o território nacional, implementando modelos de gestão sustentável para as espécies cinegéticas. Este objectivo, destinado a terminar com o regime cinegético não ordenado, foi bem sucedido, existindo actualmente nesta situação apenas cerca de 10% dos terrenos cinegéticos. Este novo regime permitiu ainda integrar na legislação cinegética procedimentos que contemplam a especificidade das áreas classificadas e respectivos valores naturais a preservar, designadamente ao nível da aprovação das zonas de caça e dos respectivos planos de ordenamento e gestão cinegética. Refira-se a título indicativo que a autoridade nacional de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade (ICNB) apoia e acompanha actualmente a gestão de cerca de 33% do total de Zonas de Caça existentes a nível nacional, correspondendo aproximadamente a 1300 Zonas de Caça. Ainda no mesmo âmbito, refira-se que os planos de ordenamento das áreas protegidas integram igualmente disposições destinadas a regular o exercício da caça nas mesmas.- Actividade florestal: Relativamente a esta actividade e constituindo igualmente um documento de carácter normativo, foi elaborado um “Manual de apoio à emissão de pareceres de âmbito florestal”, cujo conteúdo permite ainda orientar a elaboração de projectos florestais e a decisão face ao valor ecológico das áreas por eles abrangidas. - Pesca: A legislação que regulamenta esta actividade define, entre outros aspectos, para as espécies piscícolas os métodos de pesca interditos, a dimensão da malha no caso do uso de redes, os períodos de defeso, as dimensões mínimas dos espécimes a capturar, o método para a manutenção de exemplares vivos de qualquer dimensão durante uma competição, para devolução ao meio natural. - Observação de cetáceos: Foi regulamentada a actividade de observação de cetáceos nas águas de Portugal continental (Dec. Lei n.º 9/2006 de 6 de Janeiro). - Espécies não indígenas da fauna e flora: Encontra-se regulamentada desde 1999 a sua introdução na natureza (Dec. Lei n.º 565/99 de 21 de Dezembro), neste momento em fase de revisão.Na Região Autónoma da Madeira encontram-se já elaborados e publicados Planos e Programas de Medidas que abrangem a totalidade de SIC desta Região e as ZPE, na medida em que os limites por elas abrangidos são idênticos aos SIC correspondentes, sendo que a totalidade dos SIC e ZPE designados na Região Autónoma dos Açores se encontram munidos de planos de gestão desde 2004. ','','O ordenamento do território é reconhecidamente um instrumento fundamental para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, na medida em que disciplina a ocupação do espaço atendendo à distribuição geográfica dos valores naturais de modo a compatibilizar a sua salvaguarda, bem como a protecção da paisagem. A integração dos princípios de conservação e utilização sustentável da natureza e da biodiversidade nas políticas de ordenamento do território é efectivada, em particular, através de Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (IGT).Os instrumentos de gestão territorial aplicáveis aos SIC e ZPE devem assim garantir a conservação dos habitats e das populações das espécies em função dos quais as referidas zonas foram classificadas. No sentido de concretizar estes objectivos, o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 (PSRN2000), instrumento de concretização da política nacional de conservação da diversidade biológica, visa a salvaguarda e valorização integrada de áreas classificadas como SIC e ZPE, bem como a manutenção das espécies e habitats num estado de conservação favorável nestas áreas, identificando um conjunto de orientações de gestão estratégicas por área classificada a integrar nos instrumentos de gestão territorial (planos municipais de ordenamento do território/PMOT e nos planos especiais de ordenamento do território /PEOT) aplicáveis ao território do continente, no prazo máximo de seis anos após a sua aprovação. Nesta medida, a aplicação das orientações de gestão e das outras normas programáticas estabelecidas no PSRN2000 são da responsabilidade da administração central e local, a garantir por diversos instrumentos e mecanismos, sejam eles pela (1) criação ou revisão do quadro legislativo, (2) revisão ou alteração de outros instrumentos de gestão territorial, nomeadamente planos municipais, planos especiais de ordenamento do território e planos de génese sectorial ou regional, (3) elaboração de Planos de Gestão territoriais, (4) elaboração de Planos de Acção orientados para espécies ou habitats, (5) integração e orientação de medidas programáticas ou de política sectorial tais como, e a título de exemplo, as enquadradas no Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural Continente (2008-2013), na política da água ou de transportes ou nas políticas costeira e marinha, (6) elaboração de acordos, parcerias ou medidas contratuais (com actores públicos ou privados) e ainda através do estabelecimento de medidas de carácter administrativo.Transitoriamente e enquanto não se concretiza, na totalidade, a integração do PSRN2000, seja através da elaboração e/ou revisão dos diversos instrumentos de gestão territorial, seja através da adopção de outros mecanismos por ele previstos, em áreas de SIC e ZPE e em face dos resultados de uma avaliação prévia dos eventuais impactes negativos que possam ser resultantes da sua concretização, são sujeitos a autorização prévia por parte do ICNB enquanto autoridade de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, as seguintes acções, actos e actividades: - A realização de obras de construção civil fora dos perímetros urbanos- A alteração do uso actual do solo que abranja áreas contínuas superiores a 5 ha- As modificações de coberto vegetal resultantes da alteração entre tipos de uso agrícola e florestal, em áreas contínuas superiores a 5 ha - As alterações à morfologia do solo, com excepção das decorrentes das normais actividades agrícolas e florestais- A alteração do uso actual dos terrenos das zonas húmidas ou marinhas- A deposição de sucatas e de resíduos sólidos e líquidos- A abertura de novas vias de comunicação - A instalação de infra-estruturas de electricidade, telefónicas, telecomunicações, transporte de gás natural ou de outros combustíveis, saneamento básico e aproveitamento de energias renováveis ou similares fora dos perímetros urbanos- A prática de actividades motorizadas organizadas e competições desportivas fora dos perímetros urbanos- A prática de alpinismo, de escalada e de montanhismo- A reintrodução de espécies indígenas da fauna e da flora selvagens Por outro lado, a decisão sobre acções, planos ou projectos não directamente relacionados com a gestão de um SIC ou de uma ZPE e não necessários para essa gestão, mas susceptíveis de afectar essa zona de forma significativa, individualmente ou em conjugação com outras acções, planos ou projectos, está dependente das conclusões de um processo de avaliação de incidências ambientais no que se refere aos objectivos de conservação da referida zona, avaliação essa que pode assumir a figura de AIA (Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental) ou AincA (Análise de Incidências Ambientais).A totalidade do número de sítios Rede Natura 2000 designados em Portugal continental encontra-se sob gestão do ICNB.São também aplicáveis outros instrumentos de gestão e ordenamento à totalidade de sítios Rede Natura 2000 do continente.','Reference or title:Weblink:Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 – Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008 de 21 de Julho  Estudo sobre a Integração da Gestão da Rede Natura 2000 na Estratégia Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural 2007-2013 http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Plano+Sectorial+da+Rede+Natura+2000/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Planos+de+Ordenamento+das+Áreas+Protegidas+%28POAP%29/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Planos+de+Ordenamento+da+Orla+Costeira+%28POOC%29/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Infra-estruturas+Lineares+-+Manuais+de+Apoio/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Ordenamento+e+Gestão+Cinegética/http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/life/index.html http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/ogamp.html http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/index.html http://www.spea.pt/ms_priolo/pt/index.php?op=plano_gestao;http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/13901/0000200451.PDFhttp://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Rede+Natura+2000/Medidas+Rede+Natura+2000+PRODER.htm','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_2_3','','Portugal has tools in place to support ecological connectivity.O Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho, estabelece o regime jurídico da conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade. Consolida a natureza jurídica da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza (RFCN – estabelecida pela Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade em 2001), a qual é composta pelas áreas nucleares de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade integradas no Sistema Nacional de Áreas Classificadas (SNAC) e pelas áreas da Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN), da Reserva Agrícola Nacional (RAN) e do Domínio Público Hídrico (DPH), enquanto áreas que estabelecem ou salvaguardam a ligação e o intercâmbio genético de populações de espécies selvagens entre as diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, contribuindo para uma adequada protecção dos recursos naturais e para a promoção da continuidade espacial, da coerência ecológica das áreas classificadas e da conectividade das componentes da biodiversidade em todo o território, bem como para uma adequada integração e desenvolvimento das actividades humanas.O Decreto-Lei n.º 140/99, de 24 de Abril (transpõe para o direito interno as Directivas Aves e Habitats), republicado pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 49/05, de 24 de Fevereiro, preconiza que os instrumentos das políticas de ordenamento do território e de desenvolvimento devem manter e, se possível, desenvolver os elementos paisagísticos de importância fundamental para a fauna e flora selvagens, tendo em vista a melhoria da coerência ecológica da Rede Natura 2000, incluindo através de incentivos à sua gestão adequada, considerando-se elementos paisagísticos de importância fundamental para a fauna e a flora selvagens os elementos que, pela sua estrutura linear e contínua, como os rios, ribeiras e respectivas margens ou os sistemas tradicionais de delimitação dos campos, ou pelo seu papel de espaço de ligação, como os lagos, lagoas ou matas, são essenciais à migração, à distribuição geográfica e ao intercâmbio genético de espécies selvagens.O desenvolvimento e concretização destes objectivos, a promover nos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (IGT) de acordo com o Decreto-Lei nº. 46/2009, de 20 de Fevereiroatravés da identificação da estrutura ecológica (integrando as áreas, valores e sistemas fundamentais para a protecção e valorização ambiental dos espaços rurais e urbanos), foi já consubstanciada no Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território (PNPOT) e nosplanos regionais (através da definição da Estrutura Regional de Protecção e Valorização Ambiental (ERPVA) que inclui as áreas e as ligações ecológicas fundamentais ao nível das respectivas Regiões). Embora a escalas distintas, os planos intermunicipais de ordenamento do território e os planos sectoriais relevantes definirão os princípios, as directrizes e as medidas de forma a concretizar as orientações políticas relativas às áreas de protecção e valorização ambiental que garantam a salvaguarda dos ecossistemas e a intensificação dos processos biofísicos.Tendo por base o enquadramento acima, a autoridade de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade assegurou a sua representação no contexto da elaboração dos IGT (PROF, PROT e PDM), fornecendo a informação necessária à definição e salvaguarda de corredores ecológicos, com base, designadamente, nas orientações estratégicas constantes do PSRN2000.No caso particular dos territórios insulares, a Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA) atendendo à diversidade de situações resultantes da implementação da Rede Natura 2000 e à necessidade de adoptar um modelo assente em critérios de gestão que uniformizem a diversidade de designações das áreas classificadas como protegidas e concentrem competências numa unidade territorial de ilha enquanto unidade base de gestão, procedeu a uma reformulação do regime jurídico da classificação, gestão e administração das Áreas Protegidas (Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 15/2007/A, de 25 de Junho). Este Diploma contempla Áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza que correspondem às áreas mais importantes sob o ponto de vista da conservação e da biodiversidade de recursos e Áreas ecológicas complementares, que correspondem às principais estruturas biofísicas presentes no território que permitem assegurar a continuidade dos processos ecológicos entre as áreas nucleares e os territórios mais interiores e litorais, assumindo especial relevo o sistema hídrico nas suas componentes superficial e subterrânea;Os Parques Naturais de Ilha (actualmente 6 já publicados e 3 em fase de publicação) e o Parque Marinho do Arquipélago dos Açores, obrigatoriamente, dotados de um plano de ordenamento com a natureza de plano especial de ordenamento do território, constituem a unidade de gestão de base da Rede Regional de Áreas Protegidas da RAA. Por outro lado, tendo em vista a adequação legal da REN às especificidades desta Região, será criada e delimitada a Reserva Ecológica Regional (RER) contribuindo para o desenvolvimento sustentável dos seus valores e recursos endógenos.Na RAA, já após a fase de participação pública, encontra-se em 2010 na Assembleia Legislativa da Região Autónoma dos Açores a aguardar aprovação, a proposta do Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território para a Região (PROTA), onde, entre outras, estão contempladas as Áreas ecológicas complementares, que correspondem às principais estruturas biofísicas presentes no território que permitem assegurar a continuidade dos processos ecológicos entre as áreas nucleares e entre os territórios mais interiores e litorais.A Região Autónoma da Madeira, aquando do delineamento e criação das suas áreas protegidas, sejam elas Parque Natural da Madeira (PNM), Reservas Naturais Parciais e Integrais, ou ainda Sítios de Importância Comunitária, procurou que estes incluíssem todos os habitats, flora e fauna de importância biológica. Estas áreas protegidas encontram-se desde o litoral (englobando zonas com elevada densidade demográfica) até ao interior das ilhas (onde ocorrem as áreas de floresta Laurissilva e os maciços montanhosos). Os Parques e reservas criados possuem um papel importante na protecção da biodiversidade e dos ecossistemas, garantido a conectividade ecológica, uma vez que os 49.443 ha de área total protegida da RAM permitem o fluxo de fauna e flora através de corredores ecológicos que facilitam a ligação entre o litoral o interior das ilhas, contribuindo igualmente para a preservação de recursos naturais essenciais.','','Refira-se a Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN) que visa contribuir para a ocupação e o uso sustentáveis do território, constituindo um contributo fundamental para a conectividade e a coerência ecológica da RFCN e para a sua integração nos Planos Directores Municipais (PDM), na medida em que tratando-se de uma restrição de utilidade pública a que se aplica um regime territorial especial, estabelece condicionamentos à ocupação, uso e transformação do solo, identificando também os usos e as acções compatíveis com os objectivos desse regime para os vários tipos de áreas que a integram e que prevalece sobre os regimes de uso, ocupação e transformação do solo estabelecidos em Planos Municipais de Ordenamento do Território, que vinculam particulares. Ao nível sectorial importa destacar a figura dos Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal (PROF), que estabelecem um conceito de «Corredor ecológico» enquanto faixas que promovem a conexão entre áreas florestais dispersas, favorecendo o intercâmbio genético, essencial para a manutenção da biodiversidade. Estes corredores devem ser objecto de tratamento específico no âmbito dos Planos de Gestão Florestal (PGF), servindo para consubstanciar as diversas redes e estruturas ecológicas. Assim, cada PROF define a sua componente da rede nacional de corredores ecológicos florestais e um conjunto de orientações para a delimitação, em cada região e por cada plano de gestão florestal, a aplicar às unidades de gestão, das áreas destinadas à função de conservação de habitats, da fauna e da flora, ou seja a contribuição dos espaços florestais para a manutenção da diversidade biológica e genética. Englobam-se neste contexto as seguintes subfunções principais: a conservação de habitats classificados, a conservação de espécies da flora e da fauna protegida, a conservação de geomonumentos e a conservação dos recursos genéticos.    Considera-se em particular que: 1 - Os corredores ecológicos contribuem para a formação de meta-populações de comunidades da fauna e da flora, tendo como objectivo conectar populações, núcleos ou elementos isolados, e integram os principais eixos de conexão, delimitados na carta síntese de cada PROF, com a largura máxima de 3 km; 2 - As normas a aplicar no âmbito do planeamento florestal para os corredores ecológicos são as consideradas para as funções de protecção e de conservação, nomeadamente a subfunção de protecção da rede hidrográfica, com objectivos de gestão e intervenções florestais ao nível da condução e restauração de povoamentos nas galerias ripícolas, bem como a subfunção de conservação de recursos genéticos, com objectivos de gestão da manutenção da diversidade genética dos povoamentos florestais e manutenção e fomento dos próprios corredores ecológicos. 3 - Os corredores ecológicos devem contribuir para a definição da estrutura ecológica municipal no âmbito dos PMOT e ser objecto de tratamento específico no âmbito dos planos de gestão florestal aplicados às unidades de gestão, públicas ou privadas. 4 - Estes corredores devem ser compatibilizados com as redes regionais de defesa da floresta contra os incêndios, sendo estas de carácter prioritário.  A um nível de maior detalhe, destaca-se a implementação da figura de reservas de caça (locais onde não se caça) enquanto contributo para a concretização da conectividade ecológica, com vista à salvaguarda dos principais corredores migratórios de forma a permitir manter os fluxos populacionais das espécies, cinegéticas ou não, nas suas migrações. Acresce a interdição de caçar nos principais locais de concentração de efectivos migratórios, de modo a garantir a tranquilidade necessária ao sucesso desta estratégia comportamental.','Regime Jurídico da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade Regime Jurídico da Reserva Ecológica Nacional; Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal; http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/14200/0459604611.PDF; http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/08/16200/0586505884.PDF; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/gestao-florestal/; http://www.azores.gov.pt/','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_3','','Of the 308 regularly occurring bird species in Portugal, 13 are globally Near-threatened and 8 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Portugal, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 4 of the 16 (25%) amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-favourable condition. 12 of the 16 (75%) amphibians and reptile, 4 of the 9 (44%) fish and 4 of the 7 (57%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 5 of the 9 (56%) fish were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 19 of the 25 (76%) mammals is unknown and the status of all plants was not reported. In the Macaronesian biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles and 36 of the 84 (43%) plants are in a favourable condition. 28 of the 84 (33%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 13 (46%) invertebrates, 15 of the 84 (18%) plants and all mammals (4 of 4) of Community interest are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles and 5 of the 13 (38%) invertebrates is unknown. 1 of the 3 (8%) and 4 of the 84 (5%) invertebrates and plants were not reported, respectively. Of the species in the Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 5 of the 5 (100%) amphibians and reptiles and 3 of the 29 (10%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 1 of 1 (100%) invertebrates and 23 of the 29 (79%) mammals and 1 of 1 (100%) invertebrates is unknown. 105 of mammals were not reported. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 4 of the 19 (21%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 14 (29%) invertebrates and 6 of the 36 (17%) mammals are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 15 of the 19 (79%) amphibians and reptiles, 7 of the 21 (33%) fish and 10 of the 36 (28%) mammals was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 14 of the 21 (67%) fish and 505 of invertebrates are in a bad condition. The conservation status of 10 of the 36 (28%) mammals is unknown. The conservation status of all plants was not reported. The following additional information has been provided by Portugal: ´ \"O Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal\" atribui o estatuto de ameaça das espécies de vertebrados (incluindo o grupo das aves), tendo por base o mais recente sistema da União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (UICN) (categorias e critérios). Foram avaliadas 362 entidades (correspondendo a 334 espécies de aves que ocorrem regularmente em Portugal). Destas, 48% recaem na categoria LC (Least Concern), 8% na NT (Near Threatened) e 35% encontram-se ameaçadas´. Não consideramos que as classes de estatuto de ameaça da IUCN sejam directamente transponíveis para as classes verde, amarelo e vermelho similares às utilizadas no relatório do Artigo 17 da Directiva Habitats e consideramos abusiva a sua aplicação à avifauna e o seu uso no contexto da Directiva Aves.Decorrente dos comentários acima os valores da tabela correspondente devem ser eliminados e o texto constante da caixa \"Additional clarifications\" deve ser adaptado em conformidade com a informação que acima comunicamos.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%4100%00%4Fish 00%00%00%00%5100%5Invertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Mammals313%28%00%1979%00%24Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 425%1275%00%00%00%16Fish 00%444%556%00%00%9Invertebrates00%457%114%229%00%7Mammals14%520%00%1976%00%25Plants 00%00%00%00%26100%26MacaronesianAmphibians and reptiles 150%00%00%150%00%2Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%18%646%538%18%13Mammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Plants 3643%2833%1518%11%45%84Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%5100%00%00%00%5Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Mammals00%310%00%2379%310%29Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 421%1579%00%00%00%19Fish 00%733%1467%00%00%21Invertebrates429%321%750%00%00%14Mammals617%1028%925%1028%13%36Plants 00%00%00%00%123100%123','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html; http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/Valores+Naturais/Livro+Vermelho+dos+Vertebrados/?res=800x600 ','21/04/2010','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','O Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal foi publicado em 2005 após uma avaliação de 551 entidades (espécies e populações particulares de aves e peixes). Esta avaliação cobriu o Continente e as Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira e utilizou os critérios IUCN para a classificação do risco de extinção e o programa RAMAS Red List. Os resultados em termos de taxa foram os seguintes:-	Mamíferos: 108 entidades avaliadas, 11 Criticamente em Perigo, 7 Em Perigo; 13 Vulnerável; 1 Quase Ameaçado; 42 Pouco Preocupante; 33 Informação Insuficiente; 1 Regionalmente Extinto-	Aves: 362 entidades avaliadas; 20 Criticamente em Perigo; 30 Em Perigo; 61 Vulnerável; 29 Quase Ameaçado; 174 Pouco Preocupante; 31 Informação Insuficiente; 17 Regionalmente Extinto-	Peixes Dulciaquícolas e Migradores: 35 entidades avaliadas; 8 Criticamente em Perigo; 10 Em Perigo; 4 Vulnerável; 2 Quase Ameaçado; 8 Pouco Preocupante; 2 Informação Insuficiente; 1 Regionalmente Extinto-	Répteis: 32 entidades avaliadas; 4 Em Perigo; 6 Vulnerável; 2 Quase Ameaçado; 20 Pouco Preocupante-	Anfíbios: 16 entidades avaliadas; 2 Vulnerável; 1 Quase Ameaçado; 13 Pouco PreocupanteEm relação à tabela acima, interessa referir que o livro vermelho para os peixes assinalado refere-se apenas a peixes dulciaquícolas e migradores e que para Portugal continental a lista vermelha de plantas é apenas referente aos briófitos.A lista de referência da flora de Portugal (Continente, Açores e Madeira) que servirá também como base para a avaliação do estatuto de ameaça das espécies da flora (excepto briófitos) de Portugal foi recentemente finalizada. As listas vermelhas de invertebrados são limitadas às Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da MadeiraPara além da consideração das Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira no Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal, interessa referir que estas Regiões no âmbito da elaboração do “TOP 100 - As cem espécies ameaçadas prioritárias em termos de gestão na região europeia biogeográfica da Macaronésia”, elaboraram a sua própria lista TOP 100.No caso da Região Autónoma dos Açores a maioria das espécies prioritárias para a conservação que integram a listagem Top 100 Açores é endémica do arquipélago. O número de espécies desta listagem está assim distribuído pelos grupos taxonómicos analisados: plantas vasculares incluem mais de um terço do total das espécies (37%), artrópodes cerca de um quarto (24%) e restantes grupos apresentam valores próximos dos 10%. A análise dos habitats ocupados por estas 100 espécies nos Açores evidencia que o habitat mais importante para a manutenção da maioria das espécies é a floresta natural.A Região Autónoma da Madeira, que designou igualmente as suas 100 espécies prioritárias ao nível da conservação, numa lista que integra plantas vasculares e não-vasculares, mamíferos, invertebrados e aves, efectou também, ao abrigo do Projecto Centinella, um levantamento das espécies endémicas ameaçadas de vertebrados e de flora vascular (Faria, B. et al. (2006)).','','Plano de Acção para a Conservação do Lince-ibérico (Lynx pardinus) em Portugal (Despacho n.º 12697/2008, de 6 de Maio), em implementação em articulação com Espanha, e no âmbito do  Memorando de Entendimento entre Portugal e Espanha de 2004  do Acordo de cooperação entre ambos os países relativo ao programa de reintrodução em cativeiro do lince-ibérico assinado em Agosto de 2007 Plano de Acção para a Salvaguarda e Monitorização da População de Roazes (Tursiops truncatus) do Estuário do Sado (Despacho n.º 21997/2009, de 2 de Outubro), em implementação. Está em preparação o Plano de Acção para o Saramugo (Anaecypris hispanica), Plano de acção para Rapa-saias-do-barrocal (Picris willkommii) (2009), encontrando-se em implementação algumas acções propostas. Para além destes planos até 2005 foram elaborados documentos estratégicos, visando as seguintes espécies:-	Aves estepárias (Grus grus, Otis tarda, Tetrax tetrax, Falco naumanni, Pterocles orientalis, pygargus)- Ciconia nigra- Ardea purpurea - Porphyrio porphyrio- Milvus milvus Em 2010 será concluída uma Estratégia Nacional para a Conservação das Aves Necrófagas. Estratégia ibérica para a águia-imperial (Aquila adalberti), em preparação no âmbito do memorando de entendimento estabelecido em 2004 entre Portugal e Espanha, havendo já a implementação de acções conjuntas de monitorização, vigilância e gestão. Estratégia de conservação do lobo-ibérico (Canis lupus), aprovada em 2000 Medidas de Conservação e Gestão de Asphodelus bento-rainhae (LIFE B4-3200/98/518)\"–.Plano de conservação de Asplenium hemionitis (LIFE04NAT/PT/000212) . Plano de Gestão da ZPE Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme (Região Autónoma dos Açores) para a conservação do Priolo (Pyrrula murina), e revisão do Plano de Acção para o Priolo (Pyrrula murina), que será em breve submetida a aprovação política e foi já comunicada à Unidade Natura 2000/Comissão Europeia.Na Região Autónoma da Madeira (RAM) foram estabelecidos os seguintes planos de acção:Aves:-	Freira da Madeira (Pterodroma madeira)-	Freira do Bugio (Pterodroma feae) Mamíferos:-	Foca Monge (Monachus monachus)-	Physeter macrocephalus, Globicephala macrorhynchus, Tursiops truncatus, Delphinus delphis e Stenella Nota: No âmbito do Projecto LIFE Natureza CETÁCEOS MADEIRA, foram revistos os estatutos de conservação das espécies de cetáceos, através de inventários, índices de abundância e de distribuição das espécies migradoras, tendo sido elaborada para o Governo Regional uma proposta de medidas de conservação para minimizar ou eliminar as ameaças identificadas e quantificadas. Determinou-se ainda o impacto qualitativo nas populações de cetáceos das actividades de “whale-watching” e “dolphin-watching” desenvolvidas pelas embarcações marítimo-turísticas e da pesca desportiva na RAM. Estabeleceu-se um plano de monitorização permanente, prático e viável a médio e longo prazo, das populações de cetáceos no arquipélago da Madeira, incluindo a monitorização das actividades de “whale-watching” e “dolphin-watching”. Foi efectuada uma proposta de regulamentação mandatória/plano de gestão para estas actividades, com base na experiência adquirida com o regulamento voluntário. Invertebrados:- Plano estratégico para a conservação- Plano de acção para os moluscos terrestres das ilhas Desertas, em preparação (Projecto SOST-MAC no âmbito PCT-MAC (2007-2013)). ','Cabral, M.J., Almeida, J., Almeida, P.R., Dellinger, T., Ferrand, N., Oliveria, M.E., Palmeirin, J.M., Queiroz, A.I., Rogado, L. & Santos-Reis, M. (eds.) (2005). Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. Lisboa. 660 pp. J. L Martín, M. Arechavaleta, P.A.V. Borges & B. Faria, (eds.) (2008). TOP 100 - As cem espécies ameaçadas prioritárias em termos de gestão na região europeia biogeográfica da Macaronésia. Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial, Gobierno de Canárias, 500 pp. Faria, B., Jardim, R., Madeira, A., Silva, N., Fernandes, F. & Carvalho, J.A. (2006). Fauna e Flora da Madeira: espécies endémicas ameaçadas vertebrados e flora vascular. Projecto Centinela, Governo Regional da Madeira, 144 pp. Sérgio C, Brugués M, Cros RM, Casas C & Garcia C (2006). The 2006 Red List and an updated checklist of bryophytes of the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal, Spain and Andorra). Lindbergia 31: 109-125. http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/Valores+Naturais/Livro+Vermelho+dos+Vertebrados/; http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/publicacoes.php?tipo=18','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','B1_1_1','','Beyond the Governmental Budget there are programmes financed by the EU, such as the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Fund for Fisheries, and the Financial Instrument for the Environment. Some fiscal exemptions exist for the inhabitants of the National Park of Peneda-Gerês as a compensatory measure for the existence of the protected area. Other tax exemptions are being studied to encourage financial support to biodiversity. In the preparation of the financial framework of EU 2007-2013, Portugal is reviewing her monetary policies, namely CAP, CFP and Cohesion Policy, to increase support for the financing of the Natura 2000 network.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Portugal spent up to EUR2,065,565 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Portugal’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Portugal’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','B1_1_4','','Portugal’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR47m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR119.5m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR48.3m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','06/05/2010','','','07/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','B1_1_8','','The information is not available since the accountability is not oriented to biodiversity alone. A Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) é a principal agência de financiamento orientado para a investigação. FCT é um instituto público autónomo sob a égide do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. FCT cobre todas as áreas científicas, desde as ciências naturais às humanísticas, contribuindo para o melhoramento das capacidades e para a excelência na investigação. O programa de investigação da FCT apoia actividades de investigação competitivas que, para fins de avaliação e gestão, se encontram sub-agrupados em áreas temáticas. A investigação em Biodiversidade é considerada no âmbito dos sub-programas “Ciências e Tecnologias do Mar”, “Ambiente e Alterações Climáticas”, “Biodiversidade, Ecologia e Conservação” e “Agricultura e Ambiente”. Como não existe um orçamento específico para a investigação em Biodiversidade foi considerado o valor concedido aos projectos de investigação. YearAmount (EUR)20065.872.6622007290.42020083.654.859200950.000Na Região Autónoma dos Açores, os apoios da Direcção Regional da Ciência, Tecnologia e Comunicações, no âmbito do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) aprovado pela Resolução nº41/2008, de 3 de Abril, são os seguintes: YearAmount (EUR)200627697.502007207 827.752008242 058.002009202 248.75Ainda no âmbito do Plano de Investimentos da Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar através do programa 40.21-Gestão e Conservação da Natureza, Project 4 - Conservação da Natureza, Acção A -  Conservação da Natureza e Biodiversidade:YearAmount (EUR)2006368 000.002007540 769.002008661 685.002009833 329.00','','','','06/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B2_4','','Portugal has created a new strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The Decree-Law No. 142/2008 of 24 July, establishes the legal regime of nature conservation and biodiversity and the effect creates a Fundamental Network of Nature Conservation (RFCN), which consists of the core areas nature conservation and biodiversity integrated in the National System of areas rated (SNAC) and the areas of national ecological reserve, reserve and national agricultural and public water areas while continuing to provide or safeguard the connection and exchange of genetic populations wildlife between the different core areas of conservation, contributing to the adequate protection of natural resources and the promotion of spatial continuity of the ecological coherence of hazardous and connectivity of components of biodiversity throughout the country as well as for proper integration and development of human activities.This present Decree-Law defines strategic guidelines and its own instruments, targeting the following objectives:i) ensure the conservation of natural values and promote their recovery and sustainable use;ii) promoting nature conservation and biodiversity as a fundamental dimension of sustainable development, particularly through the integration of the policy of nature conservation and biodiversity in policy planning and the various sectoral policies;iii) include criteria for nature conservation and biodiversity in social systems, business and economics;iv) define and delimit a basic infrastructure for nature conservation, the aforesaid RFCN;v) Contribute to the achievement of the objectives of international cooperation in conservation of nature, particularly those defined in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted in Rio de Janeiro on June 5, 1992;vi) to promote scientific research and knowledge about the natural heritage as well as monitoring species, habitats, ecosystems and geosites;vii) Promote education and training of civil society in nature conservation and biodiversity and provide information, awareness and public participation by encouraging visitation, communication, contact between the public interest and with nature;viii) To promote recognition by society of its assets, inter-generational, economic and social components of biodiversity and geological heritage.A new economic regime and financial conservation of nature and biodiversity has also been created, which is an essential component of this Decree given the importance that this scheme takes for reversing the cycle of deterioration and lack of investment in nature conservation and biodiversity in recent years. The establishment of the Fund for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity is designed to support nature conservation, particularly in the areas that comprise the RFCN, by allocating resources to projects and investments needed and appropriate management of basic infrastructure needed.It should also be noted that on 11 October 2001, the Resolution of Council of Ministers No. 152/2001 National Strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ENCNB) was adopted. The ENCNB is a strategic tool of the utmost relevance at the national level, notably to achieve the commitment by 2010 to stop biodiversity loss. This strategy is in force between 2001 and 2010 and is due for review in the near future, based on an evaluation process and public discussion.','','Original text: O Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho, estabelece o regime jurídico da conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade e para o efeito cria a Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza (RFCN), a qual é composta pelas áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade integradas no Sistema Nacional de áreas Classificadas (SNAC) e pelas áreas de reserva ecológica nacional, de reserva agrícola nacional e do domínio público hídrico enquanto áreas de continuidade que estabelecem ou salvaguardam a ligação e o intercâmbio genético de populações de espécies selvagens entre as diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, contribuindo para uma adequada protecção dos recursos naturais e para a promoção da continuidade espacial, da coerência ecológica das áreas classificadas e da conectividade das componentes da biodiversidade em todo o território, bem como para uma adequada integração e desenvolvimento das actividades humanas.Estrutura ainda o SNAC, constituído pela Rede Nacional de áreas Protegidas (RNAP), pelas áreas classificadas que integram a Rede Natura 2000 e pelas demais áreas classificadas ao abrigo de compromissos internacionais assumidos pelo Estado Português, assegurando a integração e a regulamentação harmoniosa dessas áreas já sujeitas a estatutos ambientais de protecção. Ao nível da RNAP, com o objectivo de clarificar e actualizar o regime actual, o presente Decreto-Lei dispõe sobre as categorias e tipologias de áreas protegidas — prevendo no nosso ordenamento jurídico, expressamente, a possibilidade da existência de parques nacionais nas Regiões Autónomas —, os respectivos regimes de gestão e estrutura orgânica e ainda sobre os objectivos e os procedimentos conducentes à sua classificação.Por outro lado, com o objectivo de simplificar e adaptar o regime vigente às características específicas das reservas naturais, das paisagens protegidas e dos monumentos naturais de âmbito nacional, bem como das áreas protegidas de âmbito regional ou local, é introduzida, com carácter inovatório, a ponderação casuística da necessidade de existência de planos de ordenamento para as duas primeiras tipologias — aquando da respectiva classificação — e a dispensa de elaboração de tais instrumentos de gestão territorial no caso dos monumentos naturais e das áreas protegidas de âmbito regional ou local.Quanto às áreas classificadas ao abrigo de compromissos internacionais assumidos pelo Estado Português, destaca -se a criação da figura dos espaços naturais protegidos de carácter transfronteiriço, designados «áreas protegidas transfronteiriças», e a consagração legal das áreas abrangidas por designações de conservação de carácter supranacional.Ao nível da organização da informação, destaca-se a consagração do Sistema de Informação sobre o Património Natural (SIPNAT) e a criação do Cadastro Nacional dos Valores Naturais Classificados. Resumidamente, o SIPNAT é constituído pelo inventário da biodiversidade e dos geossítios presentes no território nacional e nas águas sob jurisdição nacional, enquanto que o Cadastro Nacional dos Valores Naturais Classificados — instrumento mais operacional —, é um arquivo de informação sobre os valores naturais classificados ou considerados sob ameaça pela autoridade nacional.Face aos compromissos assumidos internacionalmente pelo Estado Português, são reforçados os mecanismos que permitam a Portugal cumprir as obrigações assumidas quer no âmbito da União Europeia quer no âmbito da Organização das Nações Unidas — suster a perda de biodiversidade até 2010 e para além —, de acordo com um conceito dinâmico de conservação da biodiversidade, na relação desta última com as alterações climáticas, no combate à desertificação e erradicação da pobreza, no seu papel transversal ao desenvolvimento sustentável, na necessidade de alargar o reconhecimento público da biodiversidade, integrando -a no sistema económico e empresarial, e no reconhecimento de cada cidadão como directa e simultaneamente beneficiário e implicado na gestão da biodiversidade.Na verdade, com uma dimensão e complexidade crescentes nas sociedades modernas, a política de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade enfrenta o desafio de se assumir como um serviço público que garanta a gestão ambiental do território, num quadro de valorização do património natural e de adequado usufruto do espaço e dos recursos. Por outro lado, a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade constitui também um motor de desenvolvimento local e regional, associado à identificação de caracteres próprios e distintivos que urge valorizar, através de uma actividade de gestão e aproveitamento sustentável dos recursos naturais, com o envolvimento e participação de toda a sociedade, numa lógica de benefício comum.Neste contexto, o presente Decreto-Lei define orientações estratégicas e instrumentos próprios, visando os seguintes objectivos essenciais:i) Garantir a conservação dos valores naturais e promover a sua valorização e uso sustentável;ii) Promover a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade como dimensão fundamental do desenvolvimento sustentável, nomeadamente pela integração da política de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade na política de ordenamento do território e nas diferentes políticas sectoriais;iii) Integrar critérios de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade nos sistemas sociais,  empresariais e económicos;iv) Definir e delimitar uma infra -estrutura básica de conservação da natureza, a citada RFCN;v) Contribuir para a prossecução dos objectivos fixados no âmbito da cooperação internacional na área da conservação da natureza, em especial os definidos na Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre a Diversidade Biológica, adoptada no Rio de Janeiro em 5 de Junho de 1992;vi) Promover a investigação científica e o conhecimento sobre o património natural, bem como a monitorização de espécies, habitats, ecossistemas e geossítios;vii) Promover a educação e a formação da sociedade civil em matéria de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade e assegurar a informação, sensibilização e participação do público, incentivando a visitação, a comunicação, o interesse e o contacto dos cidadãos com a natureza;viii) Promover o reconhecimento pela sociedade do valor patrimonial, intergeracional, económico e social da biodiversidade e do património geológico.Especial destaque merece o novo regime económico e financeiro da conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, que constitui uma componente essencial do presente Decreto-Lei, dada a importância que tal regime reveste para a inversão do ciclo de degradação e desinvestimento na política de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade verificado nos últimos anos. Assim, a este nível, cumpre assinalar a constituição do Fundo para a Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, que terá como objectivo apoiar, através da afectação de recursos a projectos e investimentos necessários e adequados, a gestão da infra -estrutura básica de suporte à conservação da natureza, designadamente das áreas que compõem a RFCN.É ainda de referir que a 11 de Outubro de 2001, foi adoptada pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 152/2001, a Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (ENCNB), a qual é uma ferramenta estratégica da maior relevância, a nível nacional, nomeadamente para se alcançar o compromisso de, até 2010, parar a perda da biodiversidade. Esta Estratégia vigora entre 2001 e 2010, estando prevista a sua revisão, no futuro próximo, com base num processo de avaliação e discussão pública.','Regime Jurídico da conservação da natureza - Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/14200/0459604611.pdf Estratégia Nacional da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade - Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 152/2001, de 11 de Outubro http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2001/10/236B00/64256451.pdf Fundo para a Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade.- Decreto-Lei 171/2009 de 3 de Agosto http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2009/08/14800/0499104993.pdf','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','07/05/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up for biodiversity and planning partnerships at  the local, regional or national levels','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','22/04/2010','','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','B3_1_6','','The \"Business & Biodiversity\" initiative encourages the relationship between business and biodiversity, through long-term voluntary agreements, with the integration of biodiversity into business strategies and policies. By January 2010, 49 companies (28 in 2007, 17 in 2008 and four in 2009) of different sizes, sectors (some with great impact in the environmental area because of the nature of their business) and business areas had joined the Initiative. The first one to join was in May 2007. In addition to the international conference held during the Portuguese EU presidency (12-13, November 2007), Portugal organised five meetings in order to disseminate the \"Business & Biodiversity\"  Initiative  and discuss particular aspects of it, \"the commitment to biodiversity\" (May 21 2008, \"linear infrastructure\" (November 27, 2008), \"tourism\" (January 22, 2009),  \"outcomes and expections\" - May 27, 2009) and \"sharing experiences & finding solutions\" (September 25, 2009). Information was available through the portal for ICNB (Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity) publications as well as through memoranda, briefs, power point presentations, processing and compilation of information. Two brochures and a leaflet were published and several texts were added to various national and international reports. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Iniciativa \"Business & Biodiversity\"http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Iniciativa+Business+and++Biodiversity/','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Portugal','A1','B3_1_7','','The Business & Biodiversity Initiative (see Action B.3.1.6) enhances the relationship between companies (which include the financial sector) and biodiversity issues. Long-term voluntary agreements are used to promote integration of biodiversity needs into the strategies and policies of these companies. By January 2010, one company in the financial sector had joined the Business & Biodiversity Initiative (in May 2007). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Iniciativa \"Business & Biodiversity\"http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Iniciativa+Business+and++Biodiversity/','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B3_1_8','','Although the \"Akwe-Kon Guidelines\" are not specifically applied, the general objectives contained within the CBD guidelines are generally adhered to by the Ajuda Pública ao Desenvolvimento (the Portuguese Development Agency). ','','','www.ipad.mne.gov.pt','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','B4_1_1','','No national communications campaign has been specifically developed concerning the EU Biodiversity Action Plan.However, the website of the Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (redesigned in November 2007) has served to support the dissemination of information concerning many of the BAP objectives, targets and actions and products related to biodiversity which are integrated into the Action Plan: briefing Natura 2000 network, Business and Biodiversity, Ecotourism, Environmental Education, etc.','','','http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/Homepage.htm','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A1','B4_1_2','','The Portuguese Ministry for the Environment  \"Ministerio do Ambiente, Ordenamento do Territorio e Desenvolvimento Regional\" (01/10/2005) and the National Park \"Parque Biologico de Gaia\" (26/12/2006)  both made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initiative. Some activities they have committed to include promoting Countdown 2010 in the Parque Biologico de Gaia journal. No funding contributions appear to have been made between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','Portugal tem mais 26 parceiros na rede Countdown 20101.	AmBioDIV2.	Bio3 - Estudos e Projectos em Biologia e Valorização dos Recursos Naturais, LDA3.	Biodesign4.	Cascais Natura5.	Finagra, SA - Herdade do Esporão6.	Herdade da Barroca7.	Herdade de Cadoucos8.	Novadelta, Comércio e Indústria9.	Planeta Vivo - Centro de Investigação Ambiental, Lda.10.	Portucel Soporcel Grupo11.	Quinta do Valle do Riacho, Sociedade AgroTurística, Lda.12.	Silvatec Portugal13.	Sociedade Agricola do Freixo do Meio14.	Sotão Das Artes 15.	Terra e Tudo- Consultoria e Gestão de Recursos Naturais16.	Thing Pink17.	A Rocha - Portugal18.	Associação Pedro Bernardo19.	Associação de Defesa do Património de Mértola20.	Federação dos Produtores Florestais de Portugal – Conselho Nacional da Floresta21.	Forum Florestal22.	Liga para a Protecao da Natureza23.	Portuguese Society for the Development of Environmental Education and Eco-Tourism (SETA)24.	Quercus25.	Sociedade Portuguesa de Ecologia (SPECO)26.	Clube da Cienca da Escola E.B. 2/3 Maria Lamashttp://www.countdown2010.net/partners','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','22/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','C1_2','','Esta resposta deve substituir o texto da Comissão. O trabalho de consolidação da bateria de indicadores foi iniciado, de forma coordenada, no último trimestre de 2009. Apesar de Portugal ter vindo a contribuir com informação para diferentes indicadores, no âmbito de diferentes processos, não se encontra ainda consolidada uma bateria nacional de indicadores de biodiversidade, estando em curso trabalho nesse sentido. É ainda de referir que individualmente alguns dos indicadores incluidos na bateria SEBI 2010, ou semelhantes, são actualmente utilizados em Portugal.','','Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: Weblink:','22/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','C1_2_1','','No Projecto DesertWatch, promovido pela Agência Espacial Europeia (ESA), as cartas Land Cover são uma das camadas intermédias mais relevantes usadas na cadeia de processamento. Foi gerada através de um procedimento semi-automático que explora a informação EO Landsat  e o Corine Land Cover como fonte de calibragem da informação. Um estado preliminar é a definição da legenda da ocupação do solo. Tomando em consideração a filosofia do projecto, é necessário definir uma legenda que equilibre os seguintes pontos:•	A legenda deve ser suficientemente detalhada para representar todas as classes de ocupação do solo necessárias para as análises subsequentes;•	A função de processamento do land cover deve ser tão automática quanto possível e requer um input mínimo de informação EO data (i.e. 2 Landsat frames ao ano) e dados de campo de confirmação;•	A precisão temática do mapa final deve estar entre os 80 e 90 %.Da carta da ocupação do solo vários indicadores são avaliados por extracção directa da classe de ocupação do solo:•	Áreas florestais (simplesmente agregando as classes de vegetação de interesse, i.e. Floresta Caduca, Floresta de Coníferas)•	Impermeabilização do solo (igual à classe de Áreas Artificializadas)•	Terras de regadio (igual à classe de Área Irrigada)Outros indicadors são avaliados através de análise espacial específica:•	Fragmentação da Floresta (definida em Hurd et al., 2002): estima a qualidade da floresta numa area que é geralmente coincidente com um limite administrativo, em termos de densidade florestal (quantidade de área florestal sobre a área total) e continuidade (número de mosaicos/pixels adjacentes a um área florestada).•	Áreas Re-naturalizadas: estima a alteração de ocupação do solo de agricultura a classes de vegetação natural e relaciona-a com as alterações demográficas. Onde ocorre uma alteração de agricultura a vegetação natural numa dada area em simultâneo a uma redução da população (estimada por informação auxiliar, como censos), a área sofre uma re-naturalização.Na Região Autónoma dos Açores são também utilizados os seguintes indicadores:•	Estado Trófico das Lagoas (Concentração de Fósforo Total; Média anual da concentração de clorofila; Penetração da Luz)•	Qualidade das massas de água (concentração de CBO5; Fósforo e Azoto). Indicadores efectuados pela Direcção Regional do Ordenamento do Território e dos Recursos Hídricos•	Análise ao solo obrigatória (Fósforo, Potássio, pH, Matéria Orgânica) e apresentadas pelos agricultores à Direcção Regional do Desenvolvimento Agrário no âmbito das medidas agro-ambientais•	Área natural preservada (hectares) ao abrigo de projectos elegíveis no Âmbito da aplicação de medidas agro-ambientais•	Número médio de participantes em acções de participação pública (Rede Regional de Áreas Protegidas; Planos de Gestão de áreas Rede Natura 2000).','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: ACS, EEZA, ENEA, NRD, RIKS & UTRIER (2008) – DesertWatch Final Report, Rep. / ESA EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/ http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/life/index.html  http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/ogamp.html  http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/index.htm','22/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A1','C1_3_1','','Não foram ainda desenvolvidos esquemas de monitorização integrada relativamente aos tipos de habitats e espécies da flora e fauna protegidas pelas Directivas Aves e Habitats. A autoridade nacional para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade (ICNB) encontra-se neste momento a desenvolver uma metodologia-tipo tendo em vista a monitorização integrada dos valores protegidos pelas Directivas Aves e Habitats da Região Norte de Portugal, que será posta em prática, a título experimental, durante o ano de 2010, no sentido de afinar eventuais detalhes de modo a estender a referida metodologia, com as devidas adaptações, a todo o território continental.Têm vindo no entanto a ser monitorizadas regularmente a nível nacional algumas espécies da fauna, com um peso maior sobre o grupo avifaunístico. Os morcegos cavernícolas estão entre as espécies de morcegos mais ameaçadas em Portugal continental. A fragilidade destas espécies torna-as vulneráveis à possibilidade de um rápido declínio que deverá ser identificado e revertido atempadamente. Acompanhar a tendência destas espécies é assim o principal objectivo do Programa de Monitorização dos Abrigos Subterrâneos mais importantes. Este Programa permite, no entanto, também identificar factores que podem condicionar o uso da cavidade subterrânea como abrigo de morcegos (p. ex. obstrução de acessos pela vegetação ou derrocadas, excesso de visitação ou acumulação de lixo).O Programa de Monitorização de Abrigos Subterrâneos foi iniciado formalmente no Verão de 1987, tendo tido continuidade até à data. Consiste na visitação dos abrigos nas épocas mais críticas para os morcegos – hibernação (Janeiro e Fevereiro) e criação (Abril e Maio para Myotis myotis e Junho e Julho para as restantes espécies cavernícolas). Em cada visita é obtida uma estimativa do nº de indivíduos de cada espécie presente no abrigo, seja por contagem directa, estimativa da área da colónia ou, a posteriori, através da análise de fotografias das colónias.Apesar das limitações inerentes a este tipo de monitorização (p. ex. a irregularidade na utilização dos abrigos em anos distintos ou a pouca precisão de algumas das estimativas), o acompanhamento contínuo de um número elevado de abrigos durante um longo período de anos permite já a definição da evolução e tendência das populações de muitas das espécies cavernícolas. Esta informação tem sido fundamental para a definição de estatutos e de estratégias para a conservação destas espécies.A Abetarda (Otis tarda) é uma espécie dependente dos meios agrícolas que devido ao estatuto de conservação desfavorável e elevada vulnerabilidade a alterações do habitat é considerada como uma espécie prioritária em termos de conservação na Europa. Apesar das pseudo-estepes ou estepes cerealíferas constituírem uma das paisagens dominantes do nosso país, é considerado um dos ecossistemas mais ameaçados, devido à rapidez com que o homem os transforma e destrói. Tratando-se de sistemas agrícolas economicamente marginais, verifica-se, por um lado, a intensificação agrícola nos solos mais produtivos e, por outro, o abandono ou a florestação nos menos produtivos. O Programa de Monitorização da Abetarda foi iniciado na primavera de 1980, tendo tido continuidade até à data. Para além da monitorização anual, de cinco em cinco anos são prospectadas as áreas onde há registos anteriores de reprodução mas cujos núcleos entretanto se extinguiram. Este trabalho, tendo como objectivo detectar casos de reocupação, está previsto ser efectuado em 2010. A monitorização consiste na visitação das áreas de parada nupcial na altura em que o maior número de fêmeas está reunida aos machos e antes destas, após a cópula, se dispersarem para os locais de nidificação. Este período, de cerca de quinze dias, pode variar entre a última década de Março e a primeira quinzena de Abril, mediante as condições atmosféricas, nomeadamente temperatura, pluviosidade, vento e luminosidade. As áreas são percorridas em veículo todo-o-terreno de forma sistemática com paragens para observação de forma a cobrir visualmente todo a extensão e evitando duplicação de contagens. Nestas contagens directas é feita a distinção entre machos e fêmeas e ainda registadas as crias macho do ano anterior. O acompanhamento contínuo da área de distribuição da Abetarda em Portugal durante um longo período de anos permite a definição da evolução e tendência da população, tendo sido fundamental para a definição de estatuto e de estratégias para a conservação desta espécie, bem como para a escolha de áreas designadas como Zonas de Protecção Especial.Outro esquema de monitorização, desenvolvido no âmbito do “Memorando de entendimento entre o Ministério do Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território (MAOT) e o Ministério da Agricultura, Pescas e Florestas (MAPF) da República Portuguesa e o Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Reino de Espanha para a cooperação sobre a águia-imperial e o lince”, processo coordenado pelo ICNB e pela Dirección General para la Biodiversidad do Ministério del Medio Ambiente foi muito recentemente desencadeado, incidindo sobre toda a actual área de distribuição de águia-imperial. Efectuam-se anualmente desde 1976 censos de aves aquáticas em Portugal continental. Actualmente as contagens são realizadas no âmbito do Programa Nacional de Monitorização de Aves Aquáticas Invernantes, coordenado pelo ICNB e realizadas regularmente nas zonas húmidas mais importantes para estas espécies, em particular estuários, pauis, açudes e albufeiras. Este programa inclui ainda contagens de Anseriformes e Gruiformes no período entre Outubro e Março de cada ano.Acções de monitorização de passeriformes em Portugal continental são realizadas no âmbito do Projecto de Estações de Esforço Constante (PEEC), que tem como principal objectivo a obtenção de informação que possibilite analisar as alterações verificadas nas populações destas aves, através de um programa de capturas regulares durante a época de reprodução, em locais e habitats específicos. Actualmente encontram-se em funcionamento 17 estações no continente. Esta acção insere-se no projecto à escala europeia EURO-CES “Constant effort ringing in Europe” promovido pela EURING, baseado no método CES (Constant Effort Sites), e tem como objectivo principal monitorizar as populações das espécies de aves mais comuns, fornecendo ainda informação adicional para outros projectos, quer a nível internacional quer nacional, tais como atlas das Aves Nidificantes, actualização do Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados e gestão da Rede Natura 2000.O Índice de Aves Comuns (IAC) fornece informação sobre as variações populacionais da generalidade das espécies de aves nidificantes em Portugal, indicando a variação da abundância relativamente ao ano inicial do censo, 2004 (este programa é coordenado pela Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves e contribui anualmente para o Esquema Pan-Europeu de Monitorização de Aves Comuns (PECBMS) coordenado pela BirdLife International e pelo European Bird Census Council).Com incidência geográfica variada mas circunscrita a territórios muito localizados, têm vindo a ser monitorizados outros valores da avifauna conforme referido na tabela acima, alguns deles com o envolvimento estreito de diversas entidades. Estes esquemas de monitorização, alguns deles iniciados muito recentemente, abrangem variadas espécies, desde aves marinhas, estepárias, rupícolas e necrófagas a passeriformes florestais e paludícolas.Outros esquemas de monitorização que se encontram actualmente em curso, mas não desenhados de forma a responderem com rigor às necessidades de informação relativa à avaliação do estado de conservação do património natural protegido, virão mais tarde a incluir necessariamente um programa global de monitorização integrada dos valores das Directivas Aves e Habitats.A título de exemplo, identificam-se adiante projectos de monitorização da responsabilidade da autoridade florestal nacional cujos resultados poderão vir a contribuir de uma forma significativa para a avaliação global do estado de conservação dos valores naturais.I – Esquemas de monitorização - Peixes:(i)	Projecto AquariportAo abrigo deste projecto foram desenvolvidos uma rede de monitorização a nível nacional com 320 estações de amostragem e um índice de avaliação de qualidade ecológica com base em mananciais de peixe. A filosofia do projecto e as metodologias desenvolvidas estão descritas no livro:Oliveira, J.M. (coord.), J.M. Santos, A. Teixeira, M.T. Ferreira, P.J. Pinheiro, A. Geraldes e J. Bochechas (2007) Projecto Aquariport: Programa Nacional de Monitorização de Recursos Piscícolas e de Avaliação da Qualidade Ecológica de Rios, Ed. Direcção Geral dos Recursos Florestais, Lisboa, 96 pp.O livro está disponível para descarga em http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/gestao-de-recursos-aquicolas/proj-aquariportDurante 2010 será publicado um novo livro com a descrição do índice desenvolvido e sua implementação.(ii)	Carta Piscícola Nacional (CPN)A CPN é produzida pela Autoridade Florestal Nacional (AFN). O principla objectivo deste website é disponibilizar ao público toda a informação científica sobre os peixes de água doce de Portugal. A informação apresentada foi mantida inalterada em relação ao conteúdo de cerca de 700 referências bibliográficas (maioritariamente artigos científicos e relatórios técnicos). Informação sobre a biologia de cada espécie de peixe pode ser encontrada sob o campo “Espécies” e pode ser localizada pelo nome científico ou comum. Sob o campo “localidades” podem procurar-se as espécies que ocorrem em determinado curso de água e verificar o seu grau de abundância nessa comunidade, com base na informação publicada. O campo “Referências” dá acesso à referência bibliográfica completa e também à localização (biblioteca) onde pode ser consultada uma cópia em papel. A CPN deve ser citada como: Ribeiro, F., Beldade, R., Dix, M. & Bochechas, J. 2007 Carta Piscícola Nacional, Ed. Direcção Geral dos Recursos Florestais - Fluviatilis, Lda. Electronic publication (version 11/2008).A CPN também inclui informação sobre os progamas da AFN de monitorização de peixes e mostra a distribuição das espécies de peixe no país, incluindo, quando possível, a sua abundância relativa por espécie em cada localidade.Disponível em: http://www.cartapiscicola.org ou http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/carta-piscicola-nacional(iii)	Projecto Ecosurvey O desenvolvimento de eco-survey como um método para a caracterização de populações de peixes em lagos e albufeiras estratificadas monomíticas do centro e sul quentes de Portugal, permitirá um acréscimo significativo na capacidade actual de monitorização de populações de peixes destas massas de águas. Esta monitorização é essencial para a implementação e avaliação de projectos e medidas para melhoria da qualidade ecológica destas massas de águas, em particular no querespeita à protecção das espécies autóctones (barbo-comum e boga-comum), que aí desenvolvem parte do seu ciclo de vida, especialmente quando adultos. Relatório ainda não disponível.O teste, desenvolvimento e avaliação de método hidro-acústico decorre em 3 albufeiras: Montargil Maranhão e Monte Novo, representando albufeiras monomíticas do centro e sul quentes de Portugal, tanto com respeito a estas populações de peixe, como a outras características influentes no desempenho do método hidro-acústico. O teste em curso incluíu echo-sounding vertical e horizontal, de dia e de noite e num corpo estratificado ou não, para além da intersecção da informação hidro-acústica com a caracterização da poluação de peixe obtida através da deposição de redes.IV – Esquemas de monitorização - Invertebrados:Em Portugal ocorria apenas uma espécie europeia, o lagostim-de-patas-brancas, Austropotamobius pallipes. Durante as últimas décadas, deu-se uma acentuada regressão destas populações e presentemente é considerado extinto em Portugal.Vindas de Espanha, duas espécies americanas invadiram os cursos de água de Portugal. O lagostim vermelho da Louisiana, Procambarus clarkii, uma espécie sub-tropical, extremente resistente a condições climáticas severas, ocorre actualmente em quase todas as águas interiores. O lagostim-sinal, Pacifastacus leniusculus, um lagostim de água fria, chegado recentemente aos cursos de água do nordeste de Portugal.Desde 2000 estas duas espécies exóticas são amostradas anualmente para a avaliar a sua progressão no Rio Maçãs. Os lagostins são colectados através de armadilhas iscadas com peixe.II – Esquemas de monitorização / Aves e Mamíferos:Decorrem em 4370 zonas de caça e estão orientados para espécies cinegéticas:Aves: Alectoris rufa, Phasianus colchicus, Columba livia, Garrulus glandarius, Pica pica, Corvus corone, Turdus merula, Anas platyrhynchos, Anas strepera, Anas crecca, Anas clypeata, Anas querquedula, Anas acuta, Anas penelope, Aythya ferina, Aythya fuligula, Gallinula chloropus, Fulica atra, Pluvialis apricaria, Scolopax rusticola, Streptopelia turtur, Cotornix coturnix, Columba oenas, Columba palumbus, Turdus pilaris, Turdus philomelos, Turdus iliacus, turdus viscivorus, Sturnus vulgaris, Gallinago gallinago, Lymnocryptes minimusMamíferos: Oryctolagus cuniculus, Lepus granatesis, Vulpes vulpes, Herpestes ichneumon, Sus scrofa, Cervus dama, Cervus elaphus, Capreolus capreolus, Ovis ammonAs áreas com esquemas de monitorização ocupam cerca de 7.081.760 ha, o que representa 79,6% da área de Portugal continental com aptidão cinegética.Os resultados anuais da exploração de espécies cinegéticas são relatados pelos gestores de cada zona de caça.Foram desenvolvidas diversas acções preparatórias e estruturantes necessárias ao desenvolvimento e prossecução de um programa para a monitorização do estado de conservação das espécies e habitats com estatuto de protecção: - Publicados os Atlas dos Anfíbios e Répteis, dos Bivalves Dulciaquícolas, das Aves Nidificantes em Portugal tendo ainda sido dado Início aos trabalhos preparatórios para a elaboração da Lista Vermelha da Flora;- Elaboração do documento de referência “Manual de Interpretação dos Habitats naturais e semi-naturais”, que uniformiza as interpretações nacionais das definições constantes do Manual de Interpretação do Anexo I da Directiva Habitats e das eventuais variantes regionais desses tipos de habitat, identificando ameaças, objectivos de conservação e orientações para a sua gestão- Elaboração do documento de referência “Fichas de caracterização ecológica e de gestão de todas as espécies do anexo B-II da Directiva Habitats”, à excepção dos briófitos, identificando ameaças, objectivos de conservação e orientações para a sua gestão- Implementação do sistema de monitorização de lobos mortos (com vista à obtenção de um melhor conhecimento das causas de morte e patologias e à recolha de material para estudos de genética) - Avaliação do número e localização de prejuízos causados pelo lobo- Análise dos arrojamentos de mamíferos marinhos ao longo da costa continental portuguesa- Análise clínica e epidemiológica das populações de coelho-bravo em território nacional (com especial relevo nas áreas prioritárias para o lince-ibérico) e montantes envolvidos','','','Ribeiro, F., Beldade, R., Dix, M. & Bochechas, J. – The Portuguese freshwater fish database, an example of sucess for fisheries management and outreach. XII European Congress of Ichthyology, Catvat, Croatia, 9 -13 September 2007; “Freshwater crayfish in Portugal: a new Astacidae, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana), and less perspectives for the rehabilitation of the native Austropotamobius pallipes”. Actas do 2º Congresso Nacional de Conservação da Natureza - “Conservação e utilização sustentável da diversidade biológica”. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. Lisboa, 2 a 5 de Outubro de 2001. “Progressão de dois lagostins exóticos no Nordeste de Portugal: Pacifastacus leniusculus e Procambarus clarkii”. V  Congreso Ibérico de Limnologia. XIII Congreso de la Asociación Española de Limnologia. Barcelona, 2 a 7 de Julho de 2006. Colonization of Rio Maçãs (North Portugal) by two exotic crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii”. World Conference on Biological Invasions and Ecosystem Functioning (BIOLIEF). Porto, 27 a 30 de Outubro de 2009. NFI 1995-98: http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ifn/ifn-acesso-aos-dados-de-base-de-1995-98; NFI 2005-2006; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ifn/ifn-apresentacao-de-resultados; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ifn/manual-de-campo-inventario-florestal-nacional; http://www.esac.pt/cernas/cfn5/docs/T2-53.pdf; FRA 2010: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/gestao-de-recursos-aquicolas/proj-aquariport; http://www.cartapiscicola.org; http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','22/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in lines, in groups or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address requirements for minimum soil cover, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and arable stubble management. The national GAEC legislation also includes rules for reducing impacts on bird life, and recent measures on landscape elements and resource protection, particularly with regard to the maintenance of riparian galleries, thickets and trees.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Portugal total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 4035.02 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 5117.04 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1641.23 million EUR, and 2005.62 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 40.79 and 39.38 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Portugal was 433.23 million EUR (528.93 with co-financing) and amounted to 10.74 per cent of the EAFRD (10.34 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 1 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.02 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.18 million EUR of public expenditure (0.02 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 1.04 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.03 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.23 million EUR of public expenditure (0.02 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 11.68 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.29 per cent of EAFRD) and 14.33 million EUR of public expenditure (0.28 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)152.5621154.8944Forest environment payments (225)0.116380.11638','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, in situ conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds is promoted in the national biodiversity strategy. In situ conservation projects are also underway, covering 3 crop varieties (with a value of 276486 Euro), 3 livestock breeds (380610 Euro) and 2 varieties of commercial tree (178198 Euro). Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Portugal approved 52 applications in this regard, amounting to € 8.98 million of EAFRD funding and total expenditure, representing respectively 5.88* and 5.75 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008. *NB. Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.Further details are provided in Portuguese but not English.A Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade determina o objectivo de prosseguir, sob a coordenação das autoridades nacionais de Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas, o desenvolvimento de acções de conservação in situ e ex situ dos recursos genéticos agrícolas e aquícolas, nomeadamente das espécies e variedades vegetais e das raças autóctones, bem como dos ecossistemas em que os mesmos se tenham desenvolvido.Em relação ao processo de selecção das espécies e dos povoamentos florestais a serem certificados para comercialização, as regras de produção com vista à comercialização e a comercialização de material de reprodução florestal na Comunidade estão estabelecidas pela Directiva 1999/105/EC, de 22 de Dezembro de 1999, que foi transposta para o direito nacional pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 205/2003, de 12 de Setembro. Apenas as espécies florestais com valor para florestação na Comunidade foram consideradas. A Autoridade Florestal Nacional mantém uma base de dados de árvores autóctones e não autóctones, escolhidas segundo os critérios da Directiva 1999/105/CE. Portugal é um importante reservatório de recursos genéticos animais, estando oficialmente reconhecidas 45 Raças Autóctones, sendo 15 raças da espécie Bovina, 15 raças de Ovinos, 5 raças de Caprinos, 3 raças de Suínos, 4 raças de Equídeos e 3 raças de Galináceos. O financiamento nacional visando o apoio às raças locais/autóctones, desenvolve-se em duas vertentes constantes do Plano de Desenvolvimento Rural (2007 - 2013) para o Continente: •	Financiamento directamente aos Agricultores, subvencionando a manutenção ”in-situ” dos efectivos autóctones (Acção 2.2.2. Protecção da Biodiversidade Doméstica);•	Financiamento às Associações de Criadores detentoras da gestão de Livros Genealógicos/Registos Zootécnicos, visando suportar os custos com o seu funcionamento (preservação) e os custos com as acções de melhoramento animal (Acção 2.2.3. Conservação e Melhoramento de Recursos Genéticos).Através destas medidas, no âmbito da manutenção e melhoramento genético de raças autóctones são apoiadas 34 Associações de criadores de Raças Autóctones. As estruturas apoiadas são detentoras dos Livros Genealógicos e são responsáveis pela operacionalização dum Programa de Conservação ou Melhoramento Genético plurianual.Com o objectivo de preservar a raça bovina Ramo Grande é autóctone da Região Autónoma dos Açores, e após definido o respectivo padrão, foi estabelecido em 1996 o seu Registo Zootécnico. No âmbito do PRORURAL foram criadas medidas visando a preservação do património genético animal e cultural através da manutenção da raça bovina autóctone Ramo Grande e das práticas culturais associadas.No âmbito do PRORURAL é ainda contemplada a Conservação de Pomares Tradicionais dos Açores com os seguintes objectivos: preservação do património genético vegetal, através da conservação de espécies tradicionais; Potenciação de actividades alternativas; Manutenção de paisagens rurais de elevado valor natural e Preservação da paisagem tradicional.Portugal participou no projecto “European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum” (2002-2005), financiado pelo Quinto Programa Quadro da UE. O projecto pretendeu estabelecer as condições necessárias à conservação a longo prazo e sensibilizar para a necessidade de incrementar a utilização dos recursos genéticos vegetais na Europa.No âmbito dos Regulamentos do Conselho Europeu (EC) Nº 1467/94 e Nº 870/2004, dirigidos para a conservação de recursos genéticos vegetais, Portugal participa em projectos de conservação de recursos genéticos de diversas espécies de interesse agrícola (meloeiro, videira, couve, milho e arroz), e ainda no projecto AEGRO que tem por objectivo o estabelecimento de princípios gerais de gestão in situ (nas reservas genéticas e no campo dos agricultores) dos recursos genéticos vegetais. A vinha é importante por todo o país, onde 340 variedades são oficialmente autorizadas para produção de vinho. Para além destas, outras 10 são importantes como uvas de mesa. Durante a década de 90 foi estabelecida uma colecção nacional orientada para a conservação das variedades. De forma a manter a variabilidade genética (variabilidade dos clones) foram estabelecidas no campo outras 70 colecções.A oliveira é cultivada em 9% da área agrícola (INE, 2008), incluindo várias variedades autóctones, caso da Galega e Cordovil de Serpa. Algumas grandes prorpiedades no Alentejo e no Ribatejo possuem programas de conservação das variedades tradicionais portuguesas.Existe ainda uma grande diversidade de variedades autóctones de maçãs e pêras, sobretudo nas áreas rurais do norte de Portugal, sendo as variedades mais protegidas as com alto valor comercial. Mais de uma centena de variedades tradicionais de fruteiras foram inventariadas, nomeadamente pereira, macieira, figueira, cerejeira, amendoeira, castanheiro e alfarrobeira.Têm vindo a ser realizados desenvolvidos inventários de variedades tradicionais, por exemplo de fruteiras, feijão, centeio e milho, e de plantas medicinais e aromáticas, incluindo conhecimento tradicional associado.Também nas Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira foi realizado um inventário das cultivares tradicionais. A ONG “Colher para Semear Rede Portuguesa de Variedades Tradicionais” criada em Março de 2006, está orientada opara a inventariação e conservação das cultivares tradicionais. Publica anualmente para os seus membros uma lista de 350 variedades de 22 espéciesProjectos científicos orientados para o conhecimento das espécies cultivares:- M. A Pinheiro de Carvalho, Universidade da Madeira - Projecto AEGRO que tem por objectivo o estabelecimento de princípios gerais de gestão in situ (nas reservas genéticas e no campo dos agricultores) dos recursos genéticos vegetais (2007-2010)- Teresa Maria Santana Barreto Soares David - Espécies lenhosas Mediterrânicas dos montados: sobrevivência à secura (POCI/AGR/59152/2004)- Eliseu Betencourt - Projecto PGR Forum - European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum (Quinto Programa Quadro da EU): estabelecer as condições necessárias à conservação a longo prazo e sensibilizar para a necessidade de incrementar a utilização dos recursos genéticos vegetais na Europa (2003-2005)- Helena Maria da Conceição Cotrim - Caracterização de genótipos das populações de Cynara cardunculus L. var. altilis DC usadas como cardo na produção de queijos DOP Portugueses (POCI/BIA-BDE/55681/2004)Durante os últimos 3 concursos abertos para financiamento ao abrigo do programa R&D da Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (2004, 2006 e 2008), foram aprovados os seguintes projectos relativos a conservação in-situ:Variedades cultivares1.	“The wild relatives of Beta: genetic diversity assessment and biochemical studies” 2.	“Genotype characterisation of populations of Cynara cardunculus L. var. altilis DC used as a milk clotting plant for Portuguese PDO cheese”3.	“Assessment of the variability of dye plants and comparative analysis of their natural compounds for industrial use”4.	“Molecular approaches in the identification local crop varieties and evaluation of their seed quality”Raças autóctones de gado1.	“Genetic Diversity, Conservation and Phylogenetic History of the African Wild Ass (Equus africanus): A Non-invasive molecular Approach.”2.	“Genome-wide approach to Detect Adaptative Molecular Variation in Domestic Ungulates” 3.	“How genetically different is a domestic pig from a wild boar? Detecting molecular signatures of differential selection in candidate genes involved in domestication process and molecular adaptation in domestic and wild pig.”Árvores para comercialização1.	 “The added value of non-matrix habitat fragments to the biodiversity of cork oak landscapes: conservation and management implications”2.	“Mediterranean woody species of montados: surviving the drought”3.	“Isolation and characterization of ESTs from Quercus Suber”','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 152/2001, de 11 de Outubro)http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Documentos+de+referência/Estratégia+Nacional+da+Conservação+da+Natureza+e+da+Biodiversidade/estrategia+conservacao++e+biodiv.htm  http://prorural.azores.gov.pt/ \"Second Portuguese National Report on Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture\" http://www.pgrfa.org/gpa/prt/Portugal2.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Portugal approved 52 applications in this regard, amounting to € 8.98 million of EAFRD funding and total expenditure, representing respectively 5.88 and 5.75 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_12','','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2010 in Portugal’s outermost regions total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 449.46 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 528.84 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 166.146 million EUR, and 195.464 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 36.96 and 36.96 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in France’s outermost regions was 54.74 million EUR (64.39 with co-financing) and amounted to 12.8 per cent of the EAFRD (12.18 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 1 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.22 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.18 million EUR of public expenditure (0.22 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) amounted to 1.04 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.23 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.226 million EUR of public expenditure (0.23 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.18 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.04 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.212 million EUR of public expenditure (0.04 per cent of public expenditure).','','The amounts refer to the sum of the values contained in the Rural Development Programmes of the Azores and the Autonomous Region of Madeira.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://prorural.azores.gov.pt/  http://prorural.azores.gov.pt/documentacao/default.aspx?id=2 http://www.sra.pt/PRODERAM/ ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used for plans, programmes and projects related to deforestation and afforestation operations. In addition, biodiversity surveys are undertaken for deforestation operations, and Forest Management Plans covering hazardous areas are required to integrate a Management Programme for Biodiversity. This includes a set of silvi-cultural measures to ensure the sustainable use of habitats and protected species and, where possible, improve their conservation status.Further details are provided below, in Portuguese only.Afforestation- Estratégias Florestais para Portugal Continental e Região Autónoma dos Açores- Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000, que define orientações estratégicas e de gestão para Sítios de Importância Comunitária, Zonas de Protecção Especial, espécies e habitats protegidos no âmbito das Directivas Habitats e Aves, abordando as acções de florestação e desflorestação na perspectiva da conservação dos valores naturais classificados. Segundo a legislação em vigor, estas orientações estratégicas têm que ser obrigatoriamente vertidas nos instrumentos hierarquicamente inferiores, nomeadamente os Planos Directores Municipais, na parte regulamentável;- Legislação que regula a introdução na natureza de espécies não indígenas (1999, em revisão);- Legislação que condiciona a florestação e reflorestação com eucalipto;- Regulamentos dos Planos de Ordenamento das Áreas Protegidas que condicionam ou interditam as acções de florestação e reflorestação com espécies não indígenas.- Planos de Ordenamento das Albufeiras contemplam condicionamentos à alteração do coberto vegetal nalgumas áreas consideradas mais sensíveis do ponto de vista da conservação da natureza.- “Manual de apoio a análise de projectos de âmbito florestal” em áreas classificadas para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, que contempla um conjunto de orientações para garantir que as actividades de exploração florestal, nomeadamente as operações de florestação e reflorestação, minimizam os impactos sobre a fauna, a flora e os habitats, e contribuir para que constituam um factor positivo para a conservação da natureza.Deforestation:- Estratégias Florestais para Portugal Continental e Região Autónoma dos Açores- Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000, que define orientações estratégicas e de gestão para Sítios de Importância Comunitária, Zonas de Protecção Especial, espécies e habitats protegidos no âmbito das Directivas Habitats e Aves, abordando as acções de florestação e desflorestação na perspectiva da conservação dos valores naturais classificados. Segundo a legislação em vigor, estas orientações estratégicas têm que ser obrigatoriamente vertidas nos instrumentos hierarquicamente inferiores, nomeadamente os Planos Directores Municipais, na parte regulamentável;- Legislação que regula a introdução na natureza de espécies não indígenas (1999, em revisão);- Legislação que condiciona a florestação e reflorestação com eucalipto;- Regulamentos dos Planos de Ordenamento das Áreas Protegidas que condicionam ou interditam as acções de florestação e reflorestação com espécies não indígenas.- “Manual de apoio a análise de projectos de âmbito florestal” em áreas classificadas para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, que contempla um conjunto de orientações para garantir que as actividades de exploração florestal, nomeadamente as operações de florestação e reflorestação, minimizam os impactos sobre a fauna, a flora e os habitats, e contribuir para que constituam um factor positivo para a conservação da natureza.- Legislação que proíbe o abate de povoamentos ou ou espécimes de sobreiro Quercus suber e azinheira Quercus ilex, a qual inclui medidas compensatórias para algumas situações. - Legislação que proíbe a corte ou arranque do azevinho Ilex aquifolium.- Planos de Ordenamento das Albufeiras contemplam condicionamentos à alteração do coberto vegetal nalgumas áreas consideradas mais sensíveis do ponto de vista da conservação da natureza.ToolsO regime de Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental (Decreto-Lei n. 69/2000, de 3 de Maio e Decreto-Lei n. 232/2007, de 15 de Junho) condiciona a florestação e reflorestação apenas para espécies de rápido crescimento. Condiciona também a desflorestação quando destinada à conversão para outro tipo de utilização das terras.Tipo de projectos:Florestação e reflorestação, desde que indique a substituição de espécies preexistentes, em áreas isoladas ou contínuas, com espécies de rápido crescimento e desflorestação destinada à conversão para outro tipo de utilização das terras.Caso geral:Florestação/ reflorestação com uma área ≥ 350 ha, ou 140 ha, se, em conjunto com povoamentos preexistentes das mesmas espécies, distando entre si menos de 1 km, der origem a uma área florestada superior a 350 ha. Desflorestação ≥ 50 ha.Áreas sensíveis:Florestação/ reflorestação com uma área ≥ 70 ha, ou 30 ha, se, em conjunto com povoamentos preexistentes das mesmas espécies, distando entre si menos de 1 km, der origem a uma área florestada superior a 70 ha. São consideradas Áreas sensíveis: i) Áreas Protegidas, classificadas ao abrigo do Decreto-Lei nº 19/93, de 23 de Janeiro, com as alterações introduzidas pelo Decreto-Lei nº 227/98, de 17 de Julho; ii) Áreas da Rede Natura 2000 classificadas nos termos do Decreto-Lei nº 140/99, de 24 de Abril, no âmbito das Directivas nº 79/409/CEE e 92/43/CEE; iii) Áreas de protecção dos monumentos nacionais e dos imóveis de interesse público definidas nos termos da Lei nº 13/85, de 6 de Julho;Os Planos de Gestão Florestal que abranjam áreas classificadas têm obrigatoriamente de integrar um Programa de Gestão da Biodiversidade, o qual “inclui um conjunto de medidas silvícolas que assegurem a perenidade dos habitats e espécies protegidas e, sempre que possível, melhorem o seu estado de conservação”.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Decreto-Lei n.º 69/2000. DR 102 SÉRIE I-A de 2000-05-03;Dec.-Lei n.º 175/88, de 17 de Maio, e legislação complementar), a que acresce ainda o regime de protecção ao relevo natural e ao revestimento vegetal (Dec.-Lei n.º 139/89, de 28 de Abril) - espécies de rápido crescimento (em revisão);Estatuto especial de protecção para algumas espécies – sobreiro, azinheira e azevinho espontâneo encontram-se protegidas por legislação própria (em revisão).Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008, de 21 de Julho (Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000)Dec.-Lei n.º 565/99, de 23 de Dezembro (em revisão) (Introdução de espécies não indígenas na Natureza)Dec.-Lei n.º 175/88, de 17 de Maio e Portaria nº 528/89, de 11 de Julho (arborização e rearborização com espécies de rápido crescimento)Dec.-Lei n.º 139/89, de 28 de Abril (regime de protecção ao relevo natural e ao revestimento vegetal)Decreto-Lei nº 169/2001, de 25 de Maio, com as alterações introduzidas pelo Decreto-Lei nº 155/2004, de 30 de Junho (protecção de sobro e azinho)Decreto-Lei nº 423/89, de 4 de Dezembro (protecção do azevinho)Links: www.dre.pt www.afn.min-agricultura.pt www.icnb.pt www.afn.min-agricultura.pt ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Portugal had a total certified forest area of 361,005 hectares out of a total forest area of 3.78 million hectares. 192,819 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 168,186 hectares were certified. In total, 9.54 per cent of the forest area in Portugal was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Portugal amounted to 2.90 million ha, representing a share of 57.6 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','Thus, the text referring to Action A.2.1.3., Inserted in the boxes above, must be eliminated.','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.According to the Member State, Portugal has not adopted the methodology proposed by the Joint Research Cnter (or alternative) for the definition of HNV farming and forestry. Within the framework of the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development, the European Commission proposed an alternative methodology for these indicators, which is still under development in Member States.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in lines, in groups or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address requirements for minimum soil cover, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and arable stubble management. The national GAEC legislation also includes rules for reducing impacts on bird life, and recent measures on landscape elements and resource protection, particularly with regard to the maintenance of riparian galleries, thickets and trees.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','21/04/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Further details are provided in Portuguese below.O sistema de aconselhamento agrícola reconhece entidades que apresentem uma estratégia e capacidade técnica de apoio aos agricultores no âmbito da Condicionalidade (Requisitos legais de gestão (RQL) e Boas Condições Agrícolas e Ambientais (BCAA), de acordo com o Regulamento (CE) n.º 73/2009, de 19 de Janeiro) e no âmbito da Segurança no Trabalho. Um dos domínios dos RQL é o domínio ambiente que contempla, entre outras, a Directiva 79/409/CEE do Conselho relativa à conservação das aves selvagens e a Directiva 92/43/CEE do Conselho relativa à preservação dos habitats naturais e da fauna e da flora selvagens.O PRODER (Programa Desenvolvimento Rural para o Continente) promove o serviço de aconselhamento agrícola de duas formas:•	pelo lado da oferta, porque apoia as entidades que estão reconhecidas para efectuar o serviço de aconselhamento agrícola (acção 4.3.2 – Serviços de apoio às empresas);•	do lado da procura, porque comparticipa aos agricultores o custo de aquisição deste serviço (Acção 4.3.1- Serviços de aconselhamento agrícola).Por outro lado, o Decreto-Lei n.º 256/2009 estabelece o quadro regulamentar relativo à Produção Integrada e Modo de Produção Biológico enquanto Modos de Produção Agrícola. Um dos objectivos destes modos de produção é o fomento da biodiversidade através da escolha fundamentada de práticas de preservação dos recursos naturais, nomeadamente do solo, da água e da biodiversidade. Este Decreto-lei, atribui a competência de apoio técnico a agricultores, no âmbito destes modos de produção, a técnicos que estejam reconhecidos para esse efeito. A adesão de agricultores a estes Modos de Produção é promovida pelo PRODER (eixo II) no âmbito da acção 2.2.1- “Alteração dos Modo de Produção”O PRODER contempla ainda, no âmbito da medida 2.4 - Intervenções Territoriais Integradas, que constituem o principal instrumento financeiro para a gestão da Rede Natura 2000, a acção 2.4.1 – Apoio à Gestão das ITI. Esta acção destina-se a apoiar as Estruturas Locais de Apoio, que têm como funções a preparação de uma estratégia para sensibilização da população alvo da intervenção para o ambiente e objectivos da intervenção, a emissão de normas subsidiárias e de pareceres sobre os investimentos não produtivos a executar nos respectivos territórios de intervenção, a preparação de informação e documentação relevante à boa execução da operação, o acompanhamento técnico dos beneficiários e a monitorização de impactos da operação, no âmbito dos compromissos agro-silvo-ambientais contratados.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire,Weblink: http://www.proder.pt/PresentationLayer/conteudo.aspx?menuid=366   ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_8','','National / regional monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	Tree species composition.Indicators are also being developed for HNV farming and forestry.Further details are provided in Portuguese below.O Índice de Aves Comuns é um indicador adoptado por Portugal no âmbito do Sistema de Indicadores de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, integrado ainda como indicador de desempenho ambiental no Relatório Nacional do Estado do Ambiente. O Índice de Aves comuns de zonas agrícolas é um dos indicadores do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural 2007-2013, constituindo-se ainda como um dos indicadores agro-ambientais de avaliação de tendências das interacções mais significativas entre a agricultura e o meio ambiente”Para o indicador HNV agrícola e florestal Portugal não adoptou a metodologia proposta pelo JRC (ou outra alternativa). Este facto foi comunicado à Agência Europeia do Ambiente e ao JRC aquando da consolidação metodológica deste indicador. No âmbito do Quadro Comum de Acompanhamento e Avaliação do Desenvolvimento Rural a Comissão Europeia propôs uma metodologia alternativa para este indicador, que ainda se encontra em desenvolvimento.Estão já disponíveis indicadores adicionais de biodiversidade específicos das medidas agro-ambientais e silvo-ambientais integradas em algumas das Intervenções Territoriais Integradas (ITI) do PRODERc 2007-2013 (aves estepárias e aves rupícolas) e serão desenvolvidos indicadores complementares de biodiversidade específicos para todas as ITI.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.apambiente.pt/Instrumentos/sids/Paginas/default.aspx http://www.proder.pt/Handlers/FileHandler.ashx?id=23&menuid=366 http://www.apambiente.pt/divulgacao/Publicacoes/REA/Documents/REA%202008_Final.pdf http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes http://sigsraf.azores.gov.pt/ ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 102 million € has been added to the Portuguese national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Portugal attributed € 1 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 1 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.Table below provides an overview of resources generated for France’s ‘outermost regions’: Total million €Biodiversity million €PercentageAzores2000Madeira     No information on Madeira was available.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','21/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory. The National Forest Inventory (IFN) 1995/98 included information on the coverage of lichens and mosses, traces of grazing and litter for all plots sampled. IFN 2005/2006 considered the same parameters.Further details are available below, in Portuguese only.O Inventário Florestal Nacional (IFN) 1995/98 inclui informação sobre aspectos específicos sobre cada parcela amostrada referentes à existência (ou não) de cobertura de líquenes e musgos, vestígios de pastoreio e manta morta. O IFN 2005/2006 considera também os mesmos parâmetros para cada parcela amostrada. A percentagem de coberto da manta morta deve ser estimada para o conjunto da parcela, fazendo uso da \"ficha auxiliar para avaliação das percentagens de cobertura \". A profundidade da manta morta, medida com o auxílio de uma régua, deve resultar da média de cinco leituras ao acaso. No IFN 05/06 repetem-se as recolhas relativas a manta morta, desta vez abarcando a percentagem de coberto na parcela e a espessura, indistintamente da camada de folhada e da camada de decomposição.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Ferreira, Conceição, Josefa Carvalho & Manuela Baptista et al. (2009) Instruções para o trabalho de campo do Inventário Florestal – IFN 2005 / 2006, Ed. AFN, Lisboa.www.afn.min-agricultura ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 50 per cent of both the Atlantic and Macaronesian fresh water habitats in Portugal have an unfavourable status. 42 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have an unfavourable status. 25 per cent of the Atlantic fresh water habitats have a favourable conservation status, a further 25 per cent have an unknown status. 50 per cent of Macaronesian and 42 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have a favourable status. The remaining 17 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage983045%40%15%0%20            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4211050%25%25%0%U12  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4220050%50%0%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12552042%42%17%0%U14  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Portugal.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2000 to 2003, amounting to 19.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 36.3 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2005.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Portugal had a total number of 41 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 42.3 per cent of all inland bathing waters. There is no clear trend compared to previous years, as the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has increased and decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive, in Portugal, all biological assessment methods for transitional and coastal waters were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). However, the country developed three out of four biological assessment methods for rivers, with only phytoplankton assessment missing. The latter was implemented for the biological assessment of lakes. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives.','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_4_1','','',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.       ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/pt/eu/ippc/envskoua/ippc-q2-template_PT1.xls/manage_document ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 ammonia, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides emissions in Portugal were below the 2010 ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions were still above the 2010 ceilings, and Portugal does not expect to be able to bring NMVOC emissions below its ceiling level in 2010. It is expected that Portugal will comply with all other targets set by the NEC Directive in2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Portugal the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 8 and 97 per cent respectively, considering an area of 31,121 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 3 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 83 per cent in 2010 and 69 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 6 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Portugal’s gross nitrogen balance was 47 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 13 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 2004 and 2006, Portugal’s national farmland bird indicator has increased to 5.9 per cent from the 2004 baseline. 21 species were assessed. No data are available on Portugal’s national farmland bird indicators before the year 2004.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Macaronesian grassland habitats in Portugal have an unfavourable conservation status as do 60 per cent of the Atlantic grassland habitats and 50 per cent of the Mediterranean grassland habitats. The remaining Atlantic and Mediterranean grassland habitats have a favourable conservation status. All 4 occurrences of the Macaronesian forest habitat have an unfavourable conservation status as do 60 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats and 69 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats. 40 per cent of the Atlantic and 19 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats have a favourable conservation status; the status of the remaining Atlantic and Mediterranean forest habitats is unknown. Of the heath and scrub habitats in Portugal, 33 per cent of the Atlantic, 50 per cent of the Macaronesian and 60 per cent of the Mediterranean habitats have a favourable conservation status; the remainder has an unfavourable status. All of the Atlantic and Mediterranean peat land habitats in Portugal have an unfavourable conservation status. 75 per cent of the Macaronesian peat land habitats have an unfavourable status; the remaining 25 per cent has a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','',' A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage16970056%44%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%U13  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U11  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10550050%50%0%0%U15  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1852072%20%8%0%25            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%U13  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%U12  U22       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage161132069%19%13%0%U111  U20       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10550050%50%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3210067%33%0%0%U12  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U12  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage710088%13%0%0%8            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11  U21       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4310075%25%0%0%U12  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Portugal showed that four out of four marine habitats in the Marine Atlantic region had an ‘Unknown’ status. Four marine habitats were also assessed in the Marine Atlantic/Macaronesian region—of these, three had a ‘Favourable’ status (75%)  and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%). Eight coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—of these, seven had an ‘Inadequate’ status (88%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (12%). Seven coastal habitats were assessed in the Macaronesian biogeographic region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (29%), two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (29%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (29%), and the remaining one had an ‘Unknown’ status (14%). Thirteen coastal habitats were assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region—three had a ‘Favourable’ status (23%), eight had an ‘Inadequate’ status (62%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (15%). A total of 34 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, including reptiles, fish, invertebrates and mammals. Of the e4, three had a ‘Favourable’ status (9%), two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (6%), 24 had an ‘Unknown’ status (71%) and five were ‘Not reported’ (21%). A total of 36 marine species were assessed in the Marine Macaronesian/Atlantic region—eight had an ‘Inadequate’ status (22%), 25 had an ‘Unknown’ status (69%) and three were ‘Not Reported’ (8%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine Atlantic/MacaronesianMarine habitats375%00%00%125%00%4AtlanticCoastal habitats00%787.5%00%112.5%00%8MacaronesianCoastal habitats228.6%228.6%228.6%114.3%00%7MediterraneanCoastal habitats323.1%861.5%215.4%00%00%13Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%5100%5Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine AtlanticMammals313%28%00%1979%00%24Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL39%26%00%2471%521%34Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%5100%00%00%00%5Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticMammals00%310%00%2480%310%30Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticTOTAL00%822%00%2569%38%36The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','06/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_1_4','','Portugal reported that, in 2009, it had 49 surveillance stations and 3 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Portugal has 63 coastal water bodies. Approximately 22% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates and for monitoring macroalgae or angiosperm were under development. A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD was being developed.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','25/04/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_1_5','','The National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy (ENGIZC) was adopted on September 8 2009 (by Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 82/2009), and is consistent with other strategies, policies and programmes. These include the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. No 109/2007 of 20 August), the National Planning Policy (Act No. 58/2007 of 4 September), the National Strategy for the Sea, the National Strategy for Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity, the National Strategy for Energy (the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 169/2005 of 24 October), the Guidelines for the maritime and port sectors (2006), the National Strategic Plan for Fisheries (2007 -2013), the National Strategic Plan for Tourism (Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 57/2007 of 4 April), the National Ecotourism Programme (Council of Ministers Resolution No. 112/98, of August 25), Perspectives on the Sustainability of the Azores, the Plan for Tourism in the Azores, the Plan for Tourism in Madeira and the Land Use Plans for the coast. The ENGIZC reaffirms the national objectives currently implemented in the present legal framework, reinforcing the need for integrated coastal zone management and the need for coordinated planning and management of maritime area and marine conservation. Fulfilling the EU guidelines, the ENGIZC sets out a vision for a period of 20 years, with the potential for re-evaluation and revision if required, ensuring a long term and strategic approach. The vision embraces principles defined in the document \"Principles for the integrated management of national coastal zone”, which incorporate the guidelines and values reflected in the national territorial management instruments: sustainability and intergenerational solidarity, cohesion and social equity, prevention and precaution; systemic approach, scientific and technical knowledge, subsidiarity, participation, shared responsibility, operability. Considering the framework adopted and the vision and principles laid down, a set of policy options was established, consistent with the results of strategic environmental assessment. In the Azores Autonomous Region there are six approved coastal plans. These focus on the coastal and inland waters, seabeds and banks, with boundaries set within each plan, specifically the \"terrestrial protection zone\", with a maximum width of 500m from the high tide level, and the \"maritime protection zone”, up to the 30m isobath. In the Autonomous Region of Madeira four coastal spatial plans are being drafted in Funchal - Ponta de S. Lawrence, Câmara de Lobos - Ponta do Pargo, North Coast and Porto Santo. ','','','http://www.inag.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202:engizc; http://www.azores.gov.pt/ 2006 ICZM evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ evaluation_iczm_report.pdf','21/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_2','',' There are 436 coastal bathing areas in Portugal and the majority of these (98.6%) reached mandatory standards on water quality in 2008. One coastal bathing area had to be closed during the season compared to two bathing waters in 2007. Compliance with the stricter guideline standards has been consistently over 80% but has varied year on year: 90.3% in 2006; 86.7% in 2007 and 89.4% in 2008. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as Portugal has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years.','','','','23/4/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_4','','Portugal’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €66,966,211 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and improving selectivity of fishing gear. Axis 2 (€105,073,320) encourages the use of environmentally friendly and innovate aquaculture techniques as well as the use of marine spatial planning for site selection of aquaculture production. Axis 3 (€118,585,284) ensures the protection of aquatic flora and fauna and Axis 4 (€23,935,917) allows for the diversification of activity away from fishing. ','','There is a slight difference in numbers between the amounts of EC funds as reported within the text of the Operational Programme and the figures provided by DG Mare. Portugal advised that the data in the table should be updated according to Commission Decision CCI: 2007PT14 FPO 001, March 13, 2009. However it was not possible to find the details of this decision. Can the Commission provide this when verifying the profiles? For information, the figures of EFF allocations to Portugal provided by DG Mare are as follows: Axis 1: 62,865,134Axis 2: 74,187,067Axis 3: 83,407,876Axis 4: 17,403,406Total (Axis 1 – 4) = 237,863,483 Euros ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_04_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Portugal had 8,715 vessels and 16% were involved in a serious infringement (1,352 vessels). A total of 829 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €851 and maximum fine of €7,650.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','24/4/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_5_2','','There are no management plans for migratory species except eel, which has been submitted to the EC for approval. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September, Member states are required to develop eel management plans tailored to regional and local conditions. Portugal created aninterministerial working group to prepare the Eel Management Plan (EMP). The first version of the plan was provided at the request of the European Commission in May 2009 with a view to its consideration by ICES. It was then reviewed in October 2009, following the ICES assessment, and is currently pending the Commission\'s final decision. Following approval of the plan implementation of the plan will begin. The sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) was considered \"Regionally Extinct\" in Portugal and it has not been caught in the country since the early 1980s (Almaça & Elvira, 2000). In relation to actions to remove barriers to fish migration, a survey was carried out of these barriers with a detailed characterisation of the type of obstacles. A methodology for assessing the existing arrangements for fish passes was developed (Santo, M, 2005). In order to increase populations of migratory species, the following activities should be noted: • The ex-situ conservation of Lampetra fluviatilis, to provide a genetic repository for restocking areas;• Restocking of Petromyzon marinus under the recovery plan for the migratory fish community of the River Douro basin. Under the extension of Natura 2000 in the marine environment, the enlargement of already-designated Natura 2000 sites are planned, to include the mouths of several rivers (Minho, Lima, Vouga, Ancora, Mira and Guadiana). This will allow greater protection for diadromous fish species, through better management of barriers and the consequent increase in continuity needed for migration. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:•	Almaça C & Elvira B (2000) Past and present distribution of Acipenser sturio L., 1758 on the Iberian Peninsula. Boletín Instituto Español de Oceanografia 16 (1-4): 11-16.•	Santos, J.M., M.T.Ferreira, A. N. Pinheiro & J. Bochechas (2006) – Effects of small hydropower plants on fish assemblages in médium-sized streams of central and northern Portugal. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 373 – 388(2006).•	Bochechas, J. (2006) – Overview of fish passage and fish migration in Portugal. An analysis of the main problems concerning fish passage facilities. Simposium “From Sea to source” Program INTERREG IIIC, project “Community Rivers”, Groningen, Nederlands, 8 to 10 November 2006.•	Bochechas, J. (2006) – Overview of the situation of potential salmon habitats in Portugal. Conferência \"The actions of land managers and anglers in favour of the protection of the aquatic habitats in Europe\". Brussels, Belgium, 20 and 21 November.•	Bochechas, J. & M. Santo (2006) – Overview of fish pass facilities in Portugal. In Kroes M.J., Gough P., Schollema P.P. & Wanningen H., 2006. From sea to source. Practical guidance for the restoration of fish migration in European Rivers;•	Bochechas, J. & M. Santo (2007) – Overview of fish passage and fish migration in Portugal. An analysis of the main problems concerning fish passage facilities. 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, Christchurch, New Zealand, 18 – 23 February.•	Santos, J.M., P. J. Pinheiro, M. T. Ferreira & J. Bochechas (2007) – Monitoring fish passes using infrared beaming: a case study in an Iberian river. J.Appl.Ichthyol. (2007), 1-5.•	Oliveira, J.M., M. T. Ferreira, A. N. Pinheiro & J. Bochechas (2002) – Assessment of minimal flows required for spawning activities of sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus using the wetted usable area. EIFAC Symposium on Inland Fisheries and the Aquatic Environment. Windermere, UK, 11-15 June 2002.•	Santos, J.M., F. N. Godinho, M. T. Ferreira & J. Bochechas (2002) – Performance of Fish Lift Recently Built at the Touvedo Dam on the Lima River, Portugal.  J.Appl.Ichthyol. 18(2002), 118-123.•	Silva, A., T. Ferreira, J. Santos, A. Pinheiro, J. Melo & J. Bochechas (2004) – Development of a pool-type fishway facility for iberian cyprinids. 5th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. Aquatic Habitats: Analysis & Restoration. Madrid, 12 to 17 September 2004. •	Santos, J.M., M. T. Ferreira, F. N Godinho & J. Bochechas (2005) - Efficacy of a nature-like bypass channel in portuguese lowland river. J.Appl.Ichthyol. 21(5), 381-388, 2005;•	Santo, Marta, Dispositivos de passagens para peixes em Portugal, DGRF, 2005.http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/passagens-para-peixes/dispositivos-de-passagens-para-peixes-em-portugalPLANO DE GESTÃO DA ENGUIA 2009-2012: Resposta do Estado Português ao Regulamento (CE) nº 1100/2007, de 18 de Setembro, Dezembro de 2008 (Revisão - Março 2010) Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas','21/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_5_3','','Portugal’s fishing capacity (in terms of number of vessels) reduced fairly rapidly to 2006 but has then remained relatively level between 2006 and 2008. Overall the number of fishing vessels has reduced from 10,807 in 1999 to 8,585 in 2008 (21% reduction). Tonnage reduced from 118,667 to 106,596 (10% reduction). However fishing power has only reduced by 2% 393,762 to 384,210kW. ','','2008 data: 8585 vessels; 106596 tons; 384210 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en','24/4/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Portugal had 8,715 active vessels. There were 978 type D breaches in this year and 654 penalties imposed with an average fine of €862. Portugal has undertaken a number of actions to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos which has focussed on reducing the use of damaging fishing methods (e.g. deep water gears in the coastal zone; freezing number of bottom trawlers) and complying with NEAFC and NAFO no fishing zones to protect seamounts, corals and sponges. Madeira also produces a report on by-catch from its offshore fleet and recommendations to reduce this. ','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/4/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_6_2','','Portugal has monitoring programmes for both sharks and seabirds. Shark monitoring The monitoring program for deep-sea sharks has been in place since 2003 and since 2005 for surface sharks, based in the Department of Fisheries Resources, Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research (IPIMAR) and is expected to continue until 2013. Monthly sampling is carried out of landings of two of the most important species of deep sea shark: Centroscymnus coelolepis and Centrophorus squamosus. Data on the landings of the Portuguese commercial long-line vessels operating off Sesimbra (center of mainland Portugal) are routinely collected. The information collected for each specimen includes the total length (TL in cm), total weight (TW kg), gonad weight (GW g), sex and stage of sexual maturity. Additionally in females, information on the width of the uterus (mm), oviducal gland size (mm), and the number and diameter of mature, immature and degenerate oocytes are also collected. The amount and length of embryos, when present in the uterus, are also recorded. The same information is collected for surface sharks: Prionace glauca and Isurus oxyrhynchus. Additional information on discards is also collected, including other species in accordance with Decision 2010/93/UE. In the Autonomous Region of Madeira monitoring of sharks is partially carried out under the National Fisheries Data Collection programme. Data on fisheries by-catch – supplemented with those from surveys at auctions – allows a partial idea of the fitness of this group of fauna. Pelagic sharks are also monitored through a project to monitor the sport fishing fleet, which includes observers on fishing vessels. Related projects in Madeira include: Project: ‘Deepwater Fisheries Resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic (PESCPROF - 1 and 2)’ monitors communities of cartilaginous fish, particularly shark species in the archipelago of Madeira. Data from these projects can be found at http://www.pescprof.org/. Project: PCT ‘MARPROF: Basis for the Management and Market Acceptability of Deep-water Species of Macaronesia’, aims at understanding the biology of these species and monitors deep-sea sharks using research cruises. Project: ‘Visual Censuses of coastal fish in the Madeira Archipelago’ in collaboration with the APEC (Portuguese Association for the Study and Conservation of Elasmobranchs), monitors all cartilaginous fishes, including rays and sharks. Seabird monitoring For seabirds, the following projects for mainland Portugal are worth mentioning: - Marine Censuses I: since 2004, beginning within the project LIFE-Nature Marine IBAs, censuses have been conducted aboard marine vessels. Despite the end of the project in 2008, censuses have continued regularly, with one or two annual campaigns, lasting about one month each. - Coastal Censuses I: since September 2008 coastal monitoring has been conducted off the Portuguese coast, between Cape Carvoeiro (Peniche) and Sagres, once or twice a month, following the methodology used in RAM (Marine birds and mammals monitoring network held throughout the Iberian coast). - During the winter 2008/09, the project Arenaria also took place, which allowed for the first time a complete census of the birds wintering in the Portuguese continental coast. This project could be replicated in future winters to compare inter-annual data. - Census (marine and coastal) II. Monitoring of seabirds in the coastal area of central Portugal: Since 2002, the NGO Portuguese Society of Wildlife, in cooperation with the University of Minho and University of Aveiro, has maintained a monitoring program for seabirds. This monitoring program collects data through: censuses from coastal high points; censuses from vessels during the summer period; monitoring of coastal strandings (dead and alive). This project also involves the collection and rehabilitation of injured seabirds; storage of tissue in a tissue bank of marine animals; assessment of exposure to pollutants (heavy metals and POPs); assessment of parasite load, trophic ecology, and evaluation of incidental catches. The purpose of this interdisciplinary monitoring program is to gain an understanding of the factors that influence the distribution / abundance of seabirds, and relate this information with aspects of animal health. The Azores Autonomous Region signed a cooperation protocol between the Regional Secretariat for the Environment and the Sea and the Sea Institute (IMAR) for the ‘integrated monitoring of priority species of seabirds in the Azores – Moniaves’. Of importance is the project INTERREG MARMAC (2006-2008) (Knowledge, Promotion and Enhancement for Sustainable Use of Marine Protected Areas of Macaronesia), co-funded by INTERREG III-B/FEDER and the Department of Environment and Marine and coordinated by the Centre of IMAR / Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of the Azores. Within this project the pelagic ecology of cagarros in the Azores archipelago was studied through satellite telemetry, oceanographic characterization of the feeding areas and population census of seabirds that nest in the archipelago. Other important projects related to seabirds in Madeira include: Project LIFE-Nature ‘Conservation of Zino\'s Petrel Pterodroma madeira’ (2001-2006), enabled the recovery of the entire habitat of Zino\'s Petrel which is endemic to the island of Madeira and was previously threatened with extinction (see Annex I of Birds Directive and Annex II of the Bern Convention.) More information http://www.pnm.pt/ Project ‘LIFE - SOS Freira do Bugio ‘(Pterodroma feae), since 2006, which intends to monitor the status of Pterodroma feae populations, as well as restoring the entire ecosystem of Bugio Island. In 2007 and 2008 and under other projects (Project LIFE-Nature Marine IBAs), compass- and GPS-loggers were placed in Shearwater adults (Calonectris diomedea borealis), for later retrieval and analysis, from the colonies of the Desert Islands and Savage Islands. Monitoring and ringing also took place of Shearwater, Calonectris diomedea borealis, Bulwer\'s Petrel, Bulwer bulwerii, Chick, Puffinus assimilis, Roque-de-castro, Oceanodroma castro, Oceanodroma monorrhis and of colonies from Great Wild, Wild Islands (2007).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Ramirez I, P. Geraldes, A. Meirinho, P. Amorim e V. Paiva (2008). Áreas Marinhas  Importantes para as Aves em Portugal. Projecto LIFE 04NAT/PT/000213-SPEA.LisboaRibeiro AR, Eira C, Torres J, Mendes P, Miquel J, Soares AMVM and Vingada J (2009). Toxic element concentrations in the razorbill Alca torda (Charadriiformes, Alcidae) in Portugal. Arch Env Contam Toxicol, 56:588–595. doi: 10.1007/s00244-008-9215-5.Mendes P, Eira C, Torres J, Soares AM, Melo P, Vingada J. (2008). Toxic element concentration in the Atlantic gannet Morus bassanus (Pelecaniformes, Sulidae) in Portugal. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 55(3): 503-509. Doi: 10.1007/s00244-008-9134-5.Petronilho J, Vingada, J., Ferreira, M., Paulino, N., Eira, C., Costa, R. and Tenreiro, P. 2004. Seabird census along the Figueira da Foz-Aveiro coastline (Portugal) during August/September 2002. Airo 14: 94-100.http://lifeibasmarinhas.spea.pt/y-book/ibasmarinhas/http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/marmac.htmlhttp://www.pescprof.org/.http://www.pnm.pt/http://www.sosfreiradobugio.com','21/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','',' http://www.azores.gov.pt/','21/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Portugal has 60 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However there are different ways of defining marine sites, and according to national sources Portugal has designated 27 marine Natura 2000 sites in territorial waters (<12nm) and three Natura 2000 offshore sites, making the total number of sites 30.A number of fisheries measures have been adopted or modified within 12 marine Natura 2000 sites in territorial waters. In Portugal: Within the Arrábida / Espinhel SCI, fishing with dredges and other trawl gear is prohibited in order to protect the phanerogams grasslands (Habitat 1110). In marine areas subject to full protection, fishing is totally forbidden, and areas of partial protection are closed to commercial fishing except fishing with traps, angling with jigging lines at distances not less than 200m from shore and recreational fishing in all its forms. However, this exception does not apply to the area of partial protection Portinho Arrábida. In the SPA Berlengas Islands, the following fishing activities are prohibited: - Commercial fishing from unregistered boats; - Trawling, fishing with gill nets and fishing by traps, and retention on board of such gears; - Manual commercial fishing, including molluscs and crustaceans, except the manual capture of pilado (Polybius henslowi) and the exploitation of the barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) and grouper (Epinephelus marginatus), regulated by specific legislation; In marine areas subject to type I partial protection the following are still prohibited: - Angling by longline gear in excess of 200 hooks per unit or where the opening of hooks is less than 9 mm. - Angling with longline gear deployed less than 50m from land, regardless of overall length of vessels; - Commercial fishing with seines or traps; In marine areas subject to type II partial protection fishing with longline gear with over 200 hooks per unit or where the opening of hooks is less than 9 mm is forbidden. Commercial fishing is prohibited in a large percentage of the North Coast SCI for vessels fishing both inshore and offshore.In the Southwest Coast SCI recreational fishing is regulated, with prohibited zones corresponding to ecologically important rocky areas which constitute important areas for spawning and juvenile growth; refuge; protection from predators; and food for countless marine species. Within this area, recreational fishing is restricted to four days a week; there is a time limit on the catch, closed seasons and a list of species that can be harvested. There is also a system of positive discrimination to give priority of harvesting to natives and residents. In areas of the marine environment, the implementation of aquaculture is subject to authorization. In the Azores, the Natura 2000 network has been integrated within the arrangements for Island Natural Parks, for which rules have been defined to acheive effective fisheries management in these locations. For example: In the Ilheus das Formigas and Dollabarat reef SAC integrated in the Natural Reserve of Ilheus das Formigas, fishing is prohibited except commercial fishing with hand line or pole and line targeting tuna which use the continuous monitoring system of fishing activities (MONICAP). This is subject to the prior binding opinion of the Regional Inspectorate of Fisheries. In the Caloura-Ponta da Galera SAC integrated in the Protected Area for the Management of habitats or species from the islet of Vila Franca do Campo, any type of fishing is forbidden, including recreational fishing and spear fishing. In the Monte da Guia SAC integrated in the Caldeirinhas Natural Reserve, fishing and spearfishing are prohibited. In the Morro de Castelo Branco SAC, integrated into the Protected Area for Resource Management of Castelo Branco and Ilheu de Baixo - Restinga, unregulated fishing activity is not permitted. In the Costa and Caldeirao Corvo SAC, integrated in the Protected Area for resource management of Costa do Corvo, bottom and surface longline fishing is forbidden, as well as explosives, chemical agents, trawls, seines and deep-water gill nets and vessels over 10 m length, except for live bait fishing for tuna and vocational training. Aquaculture activity, commercial fishing, tourism, sports and underwater fishing and shellfish harvesting are regulated. In the Autonomous Region of Madeira, in the Ilhas Desertas and Ilhas Selvagens SAC, special measures for fishery management were defined and enshrined in the Regional Legislative Decree. Decree-Law No. 458/71/M of 29 October (which establishes the creation of the Natural Reserve of the Ilhas Selvagens), in conjunction with the Regional Legislative Decree No. 9/95/M, of May 20 (lays the creation of the Ilhas Desertas Nature Reserve), define the limits of fishing within these marine Natura2000 sites.  In the case of Ilhas Desertas, fishing can be carried out only beyond the 100 meters isobath, and only north of Deserta Grande and Ilheu Chão. In the Ilhas Desertas, capture of limpet (Patella patella) is permitted through a system of quota and licenses, outside the Integral Reserve area. As regards the Ilhas Selvagens, fishing is restricted to the 200 meters isobath.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 21Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 5 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A3','A3_7_1','','Portugal includes sampling design for collecting ecosystem data to assist with assessing the impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem in the \"Portuguese Data Collection Programme 2011-2013, Module V\" submitted to the European Commission in March 2010.The Data Collection Framework for continental Portugal (BANP Program / Project Collection of data) highlights the following activities as most important in assessing the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems: i) Sampling by observers aboard commercial fishing vessels: allows the estimation of unaccounted mortality of fish and collection of biological information on discarded fish and marine invertebrates (both in fisheries and fishing accessory, including species of no commercial value ); ii) campaigns annual trawl: estimates of abundance and recruitment, distribution and biomass for the main target species of demersal fish and crustaceans, as well as monitoring the structure and functioning of communities of demersal fishes on the continental shelf and continental slope of Portugal(state and pressure indicators); iii) Annual acoustic surveys: allow estimates of recruitment abundance, distribution and biomass for the main target species of pelagic fish, as well as monitoring community structure of pelagic fish on the Portuguese continental shelf (in addition to the DCF since 2005 informal collaborations and research projects with other research organizations and NGOs have also allowed the simultaneous monitoring of top marine predators - birds and mammals – by the observation platforms); iv) Pilot study of glass eels (eels, glass eels [(from 2011)]: Additional monitoring and retrieval of existing information will permit the use of relative abundance and distribution area of eels in selected Portuguese rivers as an indicator of efficiency of the European eel management plan and (indirectly) the status of transitional waters and riparian habitats.','','The Commission Decision on the \"Portuguese Data Collection Programme for 2011-2013)\" will take place only in late 2010. Currently the \"Data Collection Programme for 2009-2010\" is in effect.Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.Original text of narrative above in Portuguese: Do planeamento actual do Data Collection Framework para Portugal continental (Programa PNAB/ Projecto Recolha de dados) são de destacar as seguintes actividades seguintes como as mais relevantes na avaliação dos impactos da pesca nos ecossistemas marinhos:i)	Amostragem por observador a bordo de embarcações de pesca comercial: permite a estimativa da mortalidade de peixe não contabilizada e a recolha de informação biológica sobre as devoluções de peixe e invertebrados marinhos (tanto de pesca dirigida como de pesca acessória, incluindo espécies sem valor comercial);ii)	Campanhas anuais de arrasto: permitem a estimativa da abundância do recrutamento, distribuição e biomassa para as principais espécies alvo de peixes e crustáceos demersais, assim como a monitorização da estrutura e do funcionamento das comunidades de peixes demersais na plataforma continental e na vertente continental superior portuguesas (indicadores de estado e pressão);iii)	Campanhas acústicas anuais: permitem a estimativa da abundância do recrutamento, distribuição e biomassa para as principais espécies alvo de peixes pelágicos, assim como a monitorização da estrutura das comunidades de peixes pelágicos na plataforma continental portuguesa (como um extra à DCF, desde 2005 colaborações informais e projectos de investigação com outras organizações de investigação e ONGs também têm permitido a monitorização simultânea de predadores marinhos de topo – aves e mamíferos – pelas plataformas de observação);iv)	Estudo piloto do meixão (angula; enguia-de-vidro) (a partir de 2011): nova monitorização e recuperação de informação existente permitirá o uso da abundância relativa e da área de distribuição do meixão em rios portugueses seleccionados como um indicador da eficiência do plano de gestão europeu para a enguia e (indirectamente) do estado das águas de transição e e dos habitats ribeirinhos.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDFCommission Decision C (2009) 6816 final of 14.09.2009','22/04/2010','na','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for EEZ waters of Portugal (not including Overseas Territories) was 3.35 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.07 since 1999, but an overall increase of 0.27 since 1984.  ','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','06/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A4','A4_3','','A obrigatoriedade da consideração das redes ecológicas no planeamento é anterior a 2006. Desde 1999 que a lei nacional define o regime legal aplicável a instrumentos de gestão territorial, estabelecendo o conceito de estrutura ecológica ou rede ecológica, implicando que a revisão ou a publicação de novos planos de ordenamento devem identificar áreas, valores e sistemas cruciais para a protecção ambiental e para benificiação das paisagens rural e urbana. A tradução espacial deste conceito é, a nível sub-nacional, a definição de uma estrutura para proteger e beneficiar os valores ecológicos e a rede ecológica regional, que define e orienta a aplicação à escala local da rede ecológica local, estrutura que é definida e regulamentada por planos municipais de gestão territorial (através de diploma legal). Contudo, após 2006, foram aprovados diversos documentos enquadradores e legislação que reforçam o papel das “redes” e “corredores ecológicos” no planeamento, nomeadamente o Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território (Lei n.º 58/2007, de 4 de Setembro), o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008, de 31 de Julho), o Regime Jurídico da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Dec.-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho), a alteração ao Regime Jurídico dos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (Dec.-Lei n.º 46/2009, de 20 de Fevereiro), alteração ao regime jurídico da Reserva Ecológica Nacional (Dec.-Lei n.º 166/2008, de 22 de Agosto), alteração ao regime jurídico da Reserva Agrícola Nacional (Dec.-Lei n.º 73/2009, de 31 de Março) e, ainda, a Avaliação Ambiental de Planos e Programas (Dec.-Lei n.º 232/2007, de 15 de Junho). O Decreto-Lei n.º 46/2009, de 20 de Fevereiro, revê e desenvolve as bases da política de ordenamento do território e de urbanismo adoptadas em 1999, definindo o regime de coordenação dos âmbitos nacional, regional e municipal do sistema de gestão territorial. Engloba também, o regime geral de uso do solo e o regime de elaboração, aprovação, execução e avaliação dos instrumentos de gestão territorial (IGT). Os IGT devem identificar a estrutura ecológica, designadamente as áreas de reserva ecológica. Os IGT devem obrigatoriamente identificar as condicionantes legais, sendo que as redes ecológicas compostas pelas áreas protegidas e pela reserva ecológica estão incorporadas nessas mesmas condicionantes.No contexto da rede ecológica a Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN) assume uma importância decisiva. Sendo uma das componentes da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza, favorece a conectividade entre as áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade integradas no Sistema Nacional de Áreas Classificadas. Articula-se com o quadro estratégico e normativo estabelecido no Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território, nos planos regionais de ordenamento do território e nos planos sectoriais relevantes. A REN é uma estrutura biofísica que integra o conjunto das áreas que, pelo valor e sensibilidade ecológicos ou pela exposição e susceptibilidade perante riscos naturais, são objecto de protecção especial, e visa contribuir para a ocupação e o uso sustentáveis do território e tem por objectivos:a) Proteger os recursos naturais água e solo, bem como salvaguardar sistemas e processos biofísicos associados ao litoral e ao ciclo hidrológico terrestre, que asseguram bens e serviços ambientais indispensáveis ao desenvolvimento das actividades humanas;b) Prevenir e reduzir os efeitos da degradação da recarga de aquíferos, dos riscos de inundação marítima, de cheias, de erosão hídrica do solo e de movimentos de massa em vertentes, contribuindo para a adaptação aos efeitos das alterações climáticas e acautelando a sustentabilidade ambiental e a segurança de pessoas e bens;c) Contribuir para a conectividade e a coerência ecológica da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza;d) Contribuir para a concretização, a nível nacional, das prioridades da Agenda Territorial da União Europeia nos domínios ecológico e da gestão transeuropeia de riscos naturais.Não existe um mecanismo formal específico para uma monitorização sistemática da eficácia destas medidas, sendo a monitorização executada com recurso à verificação da identificação, delimitação e/ou transposição, nos instrumentos de gestão territorial (IGT) da rede fundamental de conservação da natureza (RFCN), composta pelas áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade integradas no sistema nacional de áreas classificadas e pelas áreas de reserva ecológica nacional, de reserva agrícola nacional e do domínio público hídrico enquanto áreas de continuidade que estabelecem ou salvaguardam a ligação e o intercâmbio entre as diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, contribuindo para uma adequada protecção dos recursos naturais e para a promoção da continuidade espacial e também pela verificação da adequação das normas de uso e de ocupação do solo e/ou de níveis de protecção estabelecidos, bem como da transposição de normas de gestão específicas para habitats e/ou espécies. Compete às entidades com competências sobre as componentes da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza pronunciarem-se se os Planos têm em consideração as redes ecológicas: i) Comissões de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional e Comissão Nacional da Reserva Ecológica Nacional no caso da REN, sendo que compete à Comissão Nacional da REN monitorizar a aplicação das orientações estratégicas a nível municipal; ii) Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade no caso da Rede Natura 2000 e áreas protegidas; iii) INAG no caso do Domínio Hídrico, e iv) Direcções Regionais de Agricultura e Pescas, no caso da Reserva Agrícola Nacional. Não existe um único relatório abrangente, alvo de elaboração regular, que analise a eficácia da aplicação da legislação quanto à consideração das redes ecológicas no Planeamento Territorial. Todavia, os diversos IGT, de iniciativa municipal ou da administração central, recentemente elaborados ou revistos, identificam indicadores que permitirão aferir da eficácia das medidas tomadas, nomeadamente no âmbito da respectiva avaliação ambiental estratégica (AAE).Os Relatórios de Estado do Ordenamento do Território (REOT) (Decreto-Lei n.º 46/2009) são elaborados de dois em dois anos traduzindo o balanço da execução dos IGT objecto de avaliação, bem como dos níveis de coordenação interna e externa obtidos, fundamentando uma eventual necessidade de revisão do IGT. Pela sua periodicidade, esta aferição comporta em si mesma um elemento de monitorização. Outro exemplo: no caso da REN, a Comissão Nacional da REN elabora, de dois em dois anos, um relatório de avaliação. Como mecanismo de coordenação interministerial funciona a Comissão de Coordenação Interministerial que tem entre uma das suas incumbências a promoção da integração dos princípios de conservação e utilização sustentável da biodiversidade nas diferentes políticas sectoriais (Resolução de Conselho de Ministros n.º 41/99, de 17 de Maio), incluindo-se aqui considerações relativas à rede ecológica no planeamento. Funcionam ainda Comissões de Acompanhamento de planos especiais e de planos municipais de ordenamento do território, compostas por representantes dos diversos sectores da administração directa e indirecta do Estado, que deverão reflectir a natureza dos interesses a salvaguardar.As Comissões de Acompanhamento dos processos de revisão dos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial, que integram representantes de diversos organismos públicos, são um mecanismo de coordenação interministerial que se debruça sobre a inclusão das considerações da rede ecológica no ordenamento do território.No caso da REN, a CNREN é composta por representantes de diferentes ministérios. Na Região Autónoma dos Açores o mecanismo de coordenação entre departamentos do Governo Regional assenta nas comissões mistas de coordenação e/ou comissões de acompanhamento dos IGT, as quais abrangem a inclusão de considerações da rede ecológica no ordenamento do território. Não se considera que a rede ecológica esteja completa. Se bem que as áreas classificadas estejam estabilizadas e para todo o território e estejam delimitadas a Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN), a Reserva Agrícola Nacional (RAN) e o Domínio Hídrico, entende-se que será necessário apurar a delimitação da REN segundo as novas orientações, integrar os corredores ecológicos definidos nos Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal (PROF) e, eventualmente, considerar outras áreas que se revelem essenciais à conectividade, por exemplo, para determinadas espécies prioritárias.Essa rede de conectividade terá de ser incorporada e estabelecida nos planos especiais e municipais de ordenamento do território, dado que são aqueles que vinculam directamente os utilizadores do solo. ','','Tendo em consideração os contextos de participação e contribuição directa e indirecta das Comissões de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional na concretização das “redes” e “corredores” ecológicos, considera-se de realçar, a título de exemplo,:- Acompanhamento da elaboração e revisão dos IGT (Planos Directores Municipais, Planos de Pormenor, Planos de Urbanização e Planos Especiais de Ordenamento do Território), no qual se acautela sistematicamente a conformidade com os planos sectoriais de ordenamento do território, designadamente o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 e os Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal, e a articulação com os Planos Especiais de Ordenamento do Território.- Execução do procedimento de Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica de Planos, permitindo uma integração das questões ambientais no decurso do processo de planeamento, influenciando as opções a tomar.- Elaboração de guias orientadores sobre o Ordenamento das Áreas Classificadas e o Ordenamento dos Espaços Florestais para a revisão dos Planos Directores Municipais.- A elaboração dos Planos Regionais de Ordenamento do Território, designadamente na definição da Estrutura Regional de Protecção e Valorização Ambiental (ERPVA) que integra componentes da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza, normas orientadoras - regulação dos usos compatíveis com os objectivos de salvaguarda de recursos e funcionamento dos sistemas, indicações para a transposição para os IGT. A ERPVA tem como objectivo garantir a manutenção, a funcionalidade e a sustentabilidade dos sistemas biofísicos (ciclos da água, do carbono, do azoto), assegurando, desta forma, a qualidade e a diversidade das espécies, dos habitats, dos ecossistemas e das paisagens. Contribui assim para o estabelecimento de conexões funcionais e estruturais entre as áreas consideradas nucleares do ponto de vista da conservação dos recursos para, desta forma, contrariar e prevenir os efeitos da fragmentação e artificialização dos sistemas ecológicos e garantir a continuidade dos serviços providenciados pelos mesmos: aprovisionamento (água, alimento), regulação (clima, qualidade do ar), culturais (recreio, educação) e suporte (fotossíntese, formação de solo). Neste sentido, a ERPVA é o garante da existência de uma rede de conectividade entre os ecossistemas, contribuindo para uma maior resiliência dos habitats e das espécies face às previsíveis alterações climáticas, e possibilitando as adaptações necessárias aos sistemas biológicos para o assegurar das suas funções. É constituída por áreas de mais valia ambiental e corredores ecológicos. Nas áreas de mais valia ambiental distinguem-se as áreas classificadas (Rede Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Rede Natura 2000 e outras derivadas de convenções internacionais), e as que abrangem áreas que possuem valor para a conservação da natureza (biótopos naturais de valor) como sejam as áreas agro-florestais, as Importante Bird Areas e outros sistemas biogeográficos, não classificados. Consideram-se dois tipos de corredores ecológicos: os corredores ecológicos estruturantes, que assentam nas principais linhas de água e na zona costeira; os corredores identificados nos Planos de Ordenamento Florestal que constituem os Corredores Ecológicos Secundários. Estes corredores assumem uma extrema importância, na medida em que salvaguardam a ligação e os intercâmbios genéticos entre diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, promovendo a continuidade espacial e a conectividade das componentes da biodiversidade em toda a Região A Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA) adaptou o Regime Jurídico dos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (RJIGT) Decreto-Lei n.º 380/99, de 22 de Setembro e respectivas actualizações através do Decreto Legislativo Regional nº 14/2000/A, de 23 de Maio. Este DLR sofreu posteriores revisões constituindo o Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 43/2008/A, de 8 de Outubro a mais recente. Esta Região está a a preparar um regime jurídico dedicado às áreas afectas à reserva ecológica.Está igualmente em curso um desenvolvimento legislativo, no âmbito do Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 15/2007/A, de 25 de Junho, que procedeu a uma reformulação do regime jurídico da classificação, gestão e administração das áreas protegidas dos Açores. Classifica e reclassifica as áreas protegidas, assente num modelo de gestão fundamentado em tipologias de classificação e categorias de acordo com os critérios da IUCN, surgindo assim os Parques Naturais de Ilha, nos quais se encontram identificadas as áreas ecologicamente sensíveis. A Região Autónoma da Madeira, aquando do delineamento e criação das suas áreas protegidas, sejam elas o Parque Natural da Madeira (PNM), Reservas Naturais Parciais e Integrais, ou ainda Sítios de Importância Comunitária, procurou que estes englobassem todos os habitats, flora e fauna de importância biológica. Estas áreas protegidas encontram-se desde o litoral (englobando zonas com elevada densidade demográfica) até ao interior das ilhas (onde ocorrem as áreas de floresta Laurissilva e os maciços montanhosos). Os Parques e reservas criados possuem um papel importante na protecção da biodiversidade e dos ecossistemas, garantido a conectividade ecológica, uma vez que os 49.443 ha de área total protegida da RAM permitem o fluxo de fauna e flora através de corredores ecológicos que facilitam a ligação entre o litoral o interior das ilhas, contribuindo igualmente para a preservação de recursos naturais essenciais.','Duarte, Zulmira Ferreira “Instrumentos de Suporte ao Ordenamento do Território e Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica (em elaboração)”, Dezembro 2009, CCDRCProposta de Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território da Região Centro – Dezembro de 2009, CCDRC. Decreto-Lei n.º166/2008Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 152/2001Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º41/99Decreto-Lei n.º73/2009Relatório Nacional de Avaliação Intercalar da Execução da ENCNBwww.arhtejohttp://protc.ccdrc.pt/equipa-elaboracao/proposta-de-plano/proposta-de-plano/Proposta%20%20PROT-Centro.docwww.arhalgarve.pt/ www.dqa.inag.pt/http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/gestao-florestal/http://www.iambiente.pt/portal/page?_pageid=73,408080&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&actualmenu=10141060&docs=10138691&cboui=10138691&menu_childmenu=10141008http://www.azores.gov.pt/www.parques-azores.org','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A4','A4_4_1','','Portugal não fez a implementação das Linhas Orientadoras sobre Turismo Sustentável da CDB, não existindo disposições legais que obriguem à sua consideração no planeamento do desenvolvimento turístico. Não é por isso produzido qualquer relatório sobre a utilização destas linhas orientadoras.Todavia existem acções que concorrem para objectivos preconizados pelas Linhas Orientadoras, caso do Programa Nacional de Turismo de Natureza e das Cartas de Desporto de Natureza.Turismo de NaturezaA íntima relação existente entre o suporte natural e as actividades turísticas e a importância que em tal relação adquire a noção de “uso sustentável” estão na origem do Programa Nacional de Turismo de Natureza (Resolução de Conselho de Ministros nº 112/98, de 25 de Agosto) que resultou de uma parceria pioneira em Portugal entre as Secretarias de Estado do Ambiente e do Turismo. Este programa integra-se num conjunto de orientações políticas internacionais direccionadas para o desenvolvimento sustentável das Áreas Protegidas visando a recuperação e conservação do património natural e cultural com base na conservação da natureza, desenvolvimento local, qualificação e diversificação da oferta turística.O quadro legal foi entretanto alterado (Portaria n.º 261/2009, de 12 de Março) redefinindo-se a noção de Turismo de Natureza que, das Áreas Protegidas, se alargou às áreas classificadas ou outras com evidente valor natural. Por outro lado, o reconhecimento da actividade turística como Turismo de Natureza passou a estar baseada na implementação e adesão a um conjunto de requisitos e critérios de boas práticas ambientais e na participação em, pelo menos, um projecto de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade.Finalmente, destaque-se a publicação da Portaria n.º 651/2009, de 12 de Junho, que define um Código de Conduta (responsabilidade empresarial e boas práticas ambientais) a adoptar pelas empresas dedicadas ao turismo de natureza que pretendam obter o reconhecimento oficial da sua actividade.Cartas de Desporto de Natureza A partir de 1999 (Dec. Reg. nº 18/99, de 27 de Agosto) a animação ambiental, interpretação ambiental e desporto de natureza nas Áreas Protegidas bem como o processo de licenciamento das iniciativas e projectos de actividades, serviços e instalações de animação ambiental passaram a estar regulamentados. Cada Área Protegida deveria possuir uma Carta de Desporto de Natureza e respectivo regulamento contendo as regras e orientações relativas a cada modalidade desportiva.Recentemente, o Dec-Lei nº 108/2009, de 15 de Maio regulamentou as condições de acesso e de exercício de actividade das empresas de animação turística e dos operadores marítimo-turísticos listando as actividades desportivas permitidas em Áreas Protegidas.Encontram-se publicadas as Cartas de Desporto de Natureza dos:•	Parque Natural das Serras de Aire e Candeiros, em 2004 (com revisão prevista para 2010); •	Parque Natural de Sintra-Cascais e respectivo regulamento Encontram-se em fase final de elaboração as Cartas de Desporto de Natureza de: •	Parque Natural Litoral Norte; •	Parque Natural Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina•	Reserva Natural do Estuário do Tejo•	Reserva Natural das Lagoas de Santo André e da Sancha•	Reserva Natural do Estuário do Sado•	Reserva Natural do Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Santo António•	Paisagem Protegida da Arriba Fóssil da Costa da CaparicaNa Região Autónoma dos Açores o Plano de Ordenamento Turístico (POTRAA) tem como grandes objectivos a diversificação, a melhoria da competitividade, a compatibilização do Plano com as diversas políticas regionais de ocupação do território e o desenvolvimento de produtos turísticos de acordo com as características naturais e humanas das diversas ilha. Estabelece ainda parâmetros para o crescimento do sector, ao mesmo tempo que potencia Vocações Turísticas por ilha e estabelece Espaços Específicos de Vocação Turística.O Governo Regional decidiu relançar a elaboração do Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território dos Açores (PROTA), em resultado da necessidade de o adequar aos objectivos estratégicos de desenvolvimento da Região e obter um instrumento de desenvolvimento territorial de natureza estratégica, que traduza em termos espaciais, os grandes objectivos de desenvolvimento económico e social sustentável e que equacione as medidas tendentes à atenuação das assimetrias de desenvolvimento intra-regionais, procedendo igualmente a um correcto aproveitamento das aptidões naturais e potencialidades de cada ilha.O Plano de Ordenamento Turístico da Região Autónoma dos Açores (POTRAA), aprovado pelo Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 38/2008/A, de 11 de Agosto, assumiu na sua elaboração medidas relativas à protecção de reservas naturais, biótopos, zonas de protecção especial, sítios de interesse comunitário, etc. Essas áreas, referidas no POTRAA como \"Espaços ecológicos de maior sensibilidade\" são definidas no respectivo artº 12º como áreas de aptidão muito limitada para a utilização turística e fortes condicionamentos à edificabilidade, pelo que apenas é permitida a instalação de unidades de alojamento nos termos dos regimes de protecção próprios deste espaços.A Região Autónoma da Madeira (RAM), enquanto região turística, sempre teve uma profunda preocupação na promoção de um turismo sustentável com respeito pela riquíssima biodiversidade que o arquipélago encerra. Deste modo, através do Plano de Ordenamento Turístico (POT), em conjugação com o Plano Regional da Política do Ambiente (PRPA) e o Plano Ordenamento do Território da RAM (POTRAM), foram traçadas linhas mestras de forma a atingir um desenvolvimento sustentável. A manutenção dos elementos paisagísticos, bem como da fauna e flora no seu estado clímax como é o caso da Floresta Laurissilva (Património Mundial Natural da UNESCO desde 1999), são disso exemplo.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Programa Nacional De Turismo De NaturezaPlano de Ordenamento Turístico da Região Autónoma dos Açores (POTRAA)http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Turismo+de+Natureza/http://www.azores.gov.pt/http://www.dre.pt/util/getpdf.asp?s=dip&serie=1&iddr=2008.154&iddip=20082221','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A4','A4_5_1','','Nas duas Regiões Autónomas Portuguesas (Madeira e Açores) são aplicadas, com as necessárias adaptações regionais, a legislação e políticas nacionais que prevêem a integração da biodiversidade nas actividades, projectos e programas de desenvolvimento territorial, designadamente: (i)	os regimes de planeamento e gestão territorial (planos sectoriais, especiais – áreas protegidas e orla costeira - e municipais de ordenamento do território); (ii)	a avaliação de impacto ambiental; (iii)	a avaliação ambiental estratégica; (iv)	o regime da Rede Natura 2000; (v)	o regime jurídico de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade; (vi)	o regime jurídico relativo ao comércio externo de espécies ameaçadas; (vii)	o regime relativo introdução na natureza, detenção e comércio de espécies exóticas.Do mesmo modo as medidas de política e financiamento público associadas ao desenvolvimento regional, à agricultura, florestas e pescas têm em consideração os aspectos de biodiversidade decorrentes do Programas de Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas e do Quadro de Referência Estratégico aprovados para cada uma das regiões.','','','http://www.azores.gov.pt/http://www.climaat.angra.uac.pt/http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/marmac.htmlhttp://www.spea.pt/ http://www.dre.pt/util/getpdf.asp?s=dip&serie=1&iddr=2008.154&iddip=20082221','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Portuguese spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 21.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Portugal has general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). The Portuguese Framework Environment Act (Lei de Bases do Ambiente (Law 11/87 of 7 April 1987) provides for the development of legislation regarding the introduction and control of alien plant and animal species into Portugal. In addition, nature conservation and biodiversity legislation also addresses IAS. Specific legislation that includes Decree Law No. 565/99 of 21 December 1999 which regulates the introduction and possession of IAS (except for scientific and educational purposes) and the purchase, sale, offer for sale and transport of IAS. It does not currently have any provisions regarding the export of IAS. The Decree Law underwent a revision at the beginning of September 2008. In Portugal’s two autonomous regions (Madeira and the Azores), Regional Decree No. 27/99/M regulates for the keeping, import and dissemination of exotic animal species into Madeira and Resolution No. 148/98 of June 1998 aims to minimise the possibility of IAS dissemination by escape of specimens in the Azores. A regional Decree for the regulation of import, detention and introduction of non-native species in the Azores region is currently awaiting approval.Further details are presented below by the Member State, in Portuguese only.Portugal possui legislação geral que confirma a importância das espécies exóticas no quadro da conservação da diversidade biológica autóctone: a Lei de Bases do Ambiente (Lei n.º 11/97 de 7 de Abril), a Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 152/2001 de 11 de Outubro) e o novo Regime Jurídico da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008 de 24 de Julho). No entanto, Portugal possui também legislação específica que regulamenta a introdução de espécies exóticas, interditando genericamente a introdução intencional de espécies exóticas na natureza (Decreto-Lei n.º 565/99 de 21 de Dezembro). Este diploma proibe o cultivo, a criação ou a detenção em local confinado e a utilização como planta ornamental ou animal de companhia de espécimes das espécies identificadas como invasoras (anexo I) ou das espécies consideradas como comportando risco ecológico (anexo III, do mesmo diploma). O diploma também proíbe a cedência, a compra a venda, a oferta de venda, o transporte, etc., de espécies identificadas no anexo III ou de espécimes vivos ou propágulos viáveis de espécies do anexo I. O referido não se aplica quando praticado para fins científicos e educativos, desde que as acções sejam realizadas por entidades devidamente licenciadas e se cumpridas as particulares condições de segurança exigidas. Este diploma e respectivos anexos encontram-se em revisão.A Região Autónoma dos Açores tem um Plano Regional de Erradicação e Controlo de Espécies da Flora Invasora em Áreas Sensíveis (PRECEFIAS) aprovado através da Resolução n.º 110/2004, de 29 de Julho, do Governo, cujo objectivo é a erradicação e controlo de 16 espécies de flora invasora em áreas sensíveis em todas as ilhas do arquipélago dos Açores (Pittosporum undulatum, Hedychium gardnerarum, Hydrangea macrophylla, Arundo donax, Gunnera tinctoria, Clethra arborea, Carpobrothus edulis, Lantana camara, Ailanthus altíssima, Polygonum capitatum, Drosanthemum floribundum, Acacia melenoxylon, Ulex europaeus, Ipomoea indica, Rubus ulmifolius, Pteridium aquilinum).A implementação do Regulamento (CE) nº 708/2007 do Conselho, de 11 de Junho, relativo à utilização na aquicultura de espécies exóticas e de espécies ausentes localmente, bem como as normas de execução do mesmo, aprovadas pelo Regulamento (CE) nº 535/2008 da Comissão, de 06 de Junho,  é articulada com a implementaçõ do Decreto-Lei nº 565/99, de 21 de Dezembro.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 34 are present in Portugal. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.    ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions..','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_1_2','','Portugal has not developed a strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS). Portugal’s national strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (2001) does however, contain measures relating to IAS. So far a strategy has only been implemented in practice for the water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_1_3','','Portugal has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  According to reporting by the Member State, the ongoing project INSPECT focuses on the introduction of marine alien species. It looks at patterns of distribution and abundance of IAS, as well as potential intrusion vectors such as ballast water. This project is funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology over a 3 year period. Its objective is to take stock of marine alien species present in estuaries and coastal areas, to determine the environmental conditions leading to the introduction, and contributes to public awareness raising. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, an inventory/database of alien species is in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects. However, no early warning and information system for IAS has been developed. Further details are provided below, in Portuguese only.Não existe uma base de dados nacional, embora estejam inventariadas as espécies não indígenas de Portugal, incluindo invasoras. No âmbito do processo de revisão do Decreto-Lei n.º565/99, de 21/12, em curso, foi actualizada a lista de espécies não indígenas com reprodução confirmada e a lista das espécies com impacte na diversidade biológica (invasoras e de risco ecológico). No caso das Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira, ambas as listas foram igualmente elaboradas (Silva et al., 2008). Existem outras bases de dados desenvolvidas por projectos específicos, que permitem a divulgação continuada dos trabalhos efectuados e resultados obtidos no âmbito desses projectos, nomeadamente: •        Projectos INVADER e INVADER II - da responsabilidade do Centro de Ecologia Funcional da Universidade de Coimbra e da Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra, relativo às espécies de plantas invasoras mais problemáticas em Portugal Continental;•        Projecto INSPECT - Fundação da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, relativo às espécies exóticas marinhas introduzidas em estuários e zonas costeiras portuguesas: padrões de distribuição e abundância; vectores e potencial de invasão (em desenvolvimento).Não está desenvolvido um sistema de alerta precoce e de informação para as espécies exóticas invasoras, nem nenhuma das acções abrangidas por este sistema (mecanismo de resposta rápida, listas de incidentes, rede de pontos focais ou mecanismo nacional de coordenação).  O Inventário Florestal Nacional (IFN) 1995/98 identifica os povoamentos de eucalipto, incluindo-se na versão de 1998 as associações de eucalipto com outras espécies. O IFN 2005/6, por sua vez, identifica os povoamentos de eucalipto e acácia. Na Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA), no âmbito do dos Projectos INTERREG III B “Atlântico” (2003-2005) e “BIONATURA\" (2007-2008), foi desenvolvido o Portal da Biodiversidade dos Açores, em http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/. Para a RAA os parceiros foram a Direcção Regional do Ambiente e do Mar e a Agência Regional da Energia e Ambiente - ARENA. O chefe de fila do projecto foi a Consejeria de Medio Ambiente y Ordenacion Territorial do Governo das Canárias.Na RAA foi também estabelecida uma base de dados através do Software ATLANTIS que organiza e analisa toda a informação existente sobre a informação espacial das espécies. O Gabinete de Ecologia Vegetal e Aplicada da Universidade dos Açores possui inúmeros inventários e mapas de distribuição de espécies exóticas as quais estão incluídas na sua base de dados interna Atlântida-GEVA ©. Parte desta informação encontra-se disponível na base na página do GEVA online como a” lista de referência da flora dos Açores”.Em Atlântida-GEVA © existem dados cartográficos desde 2003 e o Herbário da Universidade dos Açores (AZU) desde 1987. Na Região Autónoma Madeira (RAM) não existe uma base de dados de Espécies Exóticas Invasoras.  Ambas as regiões autónomas participaram com as Canárias num projecto que permitiu identificar 100 espécies exóticas mais nocivas, ordenadas de acordo com a sua prioridade de gestão (Silva, e tal., 2008) A RAM, a RAA e o Continente Português possuem departamentos de fiscalização orientados para as acções de controlo sanitário e fitossanitário no âmbito de regulamentação nacional e comunitária específica.Com a publicação do DL 565/99 procurou-se, de forma pioneira ao nível europeu, enquadrar, prevenir e sancionar a introdução de espécies exóticas em Portugal, estabelecendo disposições específicas para as que apresentam natureza invasora ou exibem risco ecológico. Assim, e para o efeito, no Anexo I deste diploma são discriminadas as espécies da fauna e da flora introduzidas em Portugal Continental e, entre elas, as que assumem carácter invasor e as espécies não indígenas consideradas “com risco ecológico conhecido”. A experiência de dez anos de aplicação desta legislação e os desenvolvimentos entretanto ocorridos a nível global (Linhas orientadoras adoptadas pela Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica), Regional (Conselho da Europa - Estratégia Europeia para as Espécies Exóticas) e Comunitário (Comunicação da  Comissão para uma Estratégia para as Espécies Exóticas Invasoras motivaram a necessidade de se promover a revisão deste diploma, processo iniciado em 2009 que, para além de alterações de âmbito regulamentar, inclui ainda a revisão técnica dos seus anexos. Por seu lado, os instrumentos de gestão florestal (Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal – PROF) integram orientações específicas para as espécies exóticas e para as invasoras e no âmbito dos planos de gestão florestal (PGF), a aplicar ao nível da unidade de gestão, são consideradas orientações específicas neste âmbito, considerando-se que quanto às infestantes e espécies invasoras não indígenas poderá efectuar-se o seu mapeamento, indicando igualmente (caso existam) que medidas foram ou estão a ser tomadas no sentido do seu controlo. Para o caso dos planos específicos de intervenção florestal define-se que os programas de controlo das espécies invasoras deverão incidir sobre as espécies classificadas como tal no Decreto-Lei nº 565/99 de 21 de Dezembro. A Autoridade Florestal Nacional criou em 2009 um grupo de trabalho com vista à definição de normas / orientações específicas para serem adoptadas nos espaços florestais e no referente às unidades de gestão de recursos associados, incluindo, designadamente, espécies cinegéticas, haliêuticas e apícolas.','',' The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:Silva L, Ojeda Land E & Rodríguez Luengo J (eds) 2008. Flora e fauna terrestre invasora na Macaronésia. TOP100 nos Açores, Madeira e Canárias. ARENA, Ponta Delgada. 546 pp.Marchante E, Freitas H & Marchante H. 2009. Guia Prático para Identificação de Plantas Invasoras de Portugal Continental. Imprensa Universitária de Coimbra. 183 pp.Autoridade Florestal Nacional (2009) – Normas técnicas de elaboração dos planos de gestão florestal, Ed. AFN, Lisboa.Autoridade Florestal Nacional / DUDEF – DUGEF (2009) – Normas técnicas de elaboração dos planos específicos de intervenção florestal, Relatório AFN.http://www1.ci.uc.pt/invasoras/index.php?menu=114&language=pt&tabela=especies http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/gestao-florestal/ http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/ http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/publicacoes.php?tipo=19 ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A5','A5_2_2','','Portugal has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is as follows: Decree-law 160/2006, of 21 September, on national measures on coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming published in official journal; Order n. º 904/2006, of 4 September, for the establishment of free zones of GM crop cultivation; Order n.º1611/2007, of 20 December and ;  Decree-Law 387/2007, of 28 November, which creates a compensation fund to cover any economic damage, caused by adventitious presence of GMO on non GM crops if the labelling threshold (0.9 %) is exceeded.According to reporting by the Member State, there are no restrictions on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at both national and/or regional levels in Portugal. However, a state of emergency applies for the municipality of Lagos, which was defined GMO varieties free zone under the Ordinance No. 904/2006, of September 4.Further details are provided below, in Portuguese only.Em Portugal,  não existem restrições ao cultivo de organismos geneticamente modificados (OGM) quer a nível nacional e/ou regional, para os OGM que estão autorizados na União Europeia para cultivo, isto é, o milho GM evento MON810. No entanto, existe uma situação de excepção no Concelho de Lagos, que foi considerado  como Zona Livre do Cultivo de Variedades Geneticamente Modificadas, ao abrigo da Portaria nº 904/2006, de 4 de Setembro.  O cultivo de organismos geneticamente modificados (OGM) encontra-se regulamentado por normas de cultivo a aplicar às variedades geneticamente modificadas (VGM) inscritas no catálogo de variedades agrícolas, bem como pelo procedimento para o reconhecimento de zonas livres do cultivo de VGM.O cultivo de VGM obedece a requisitos administrativos e técnicos previstos no Decreto-Lei n.º 160/2005, de 21 de Setembro, que devem ser cumpridos pelos agricultores que pretendem cultivar VGM.Deste modo, o Decreto-Lei n.º 160/2005, de 21 de Setembro, que regula o cultivo de variedades geneticamente modificadas, visando assegurar a sua coexistência com culturas convencionais e com o modo de produção biológico, estabelece medidas, designadamente regulando a distância mínima de isolamento entre culturas, a salvaguarda do problema da contaminação, a notificação às entidades responsáveis por parte dos agricultores que quiserem cultivar essas variedades, as acções de controlo e acompanhamento das explorações agrícolas.Neste diploma estava prevista a adopção de um diploma legislativo para regulamentar a criação das chamadas Zonas Livres de cultivo de OGM.Assim, foi publicada a Portaria n.º 904/2006, de 4 de Setembro, que estabelece as condições e o procedimento para o estabelecimento de zonas livre de cultivo de variedades geneticamente modificadas.Decorrente desta possibilidade legal e por terem sido cumpridos os requisitos, foi oficialmente reconhecido o Concelho de Lagos como Zona Livre do Cultivo de Variedades Geneticamente Modificadas, nos termos do Despacho n.º 25306/2007, de 19 de Outubro. Posteriormente,  foi publicada a Portaria n.º 1611/2007, de 20 de Dezembro, que altera a Portaria nº 904/2006.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report had been submitted to the CBD. The Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade was published in 2001.Portugal had paid her annual contributions to the CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to Agreements, the exchange rate of the paying date is used.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions to conventions from Portugal Weblink: ','21/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related multilateral aid spent by Portugal in 2006 or 2007.','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Portugal spent EUR0.24m in 2006 and EUR0.37m in 2007 for bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.002% and 0.001%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget. ','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A7','A7_1_4','','Portugal contributed EUR5.16 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.21% of the total replenishment. Portugal contributed EUR5.73 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.27 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A7','A7_2_2','','Os Procedimentos de Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica ou de Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental não são obrigatórios, respectivamente, para estratégias, planos ou projectos relevantes financiados em países terceiros. Portugal encontra-se a acompanhar o processo de preparação da Estratégia da UE em matéria de Integração das Alterações Climáticas e Ambiente no Desenvolvimento e consequentemente em fase de reorganização de procedimentos internos com vista à harmonização das suas práticas no contexto da cooperação para o desenvolvimento. ','','','www.ipad.mne.gov.pt','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A8','A8_1','','Portugal has undertaken awareness raising activities on the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing; no national legislation implementing these Guidelines or the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exist. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available. However, the entire consumption of forest products coming from the European Union is from a sustainable origin. Portugal has issued a large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied; a number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed; no support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Portugal does not have national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists. However, Portugal has implemented national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. Actualmente estão em desenvolvimento medidas administrativas com vista a implementar as linhas orientadoras de Bona em acesso aos recursos genéticos e partilha dos benefícios decorrentes da sua utilização. Tal como actualmente redigidas, estas medidas administrativas visam essencialmente afirmar a existência de uma autoridade nacional em matéria de ABS e estabelecer um procedimento PIC. Entre as competências propostas para a autoridade nacional do ABS tendo em vista elevar a consciência sobre a matéria constam as seguintes tarefas:	Informar interessados sobre os procedimentos para obter o consentimento prévio informado (PIC) e os termos mutuamente acordados (MAT);	Divulgar e sensibilizar os diversos interessados sobre as disposições relevantes da CBD e nacionais sobre ABS;	Criar um mecanismo nacional de recolha e transmissão de informações (Clearing-House Mechanism) sobre ABS.Portugal não possui uma estratégia nacional, um plano de acção específico nem legislação nacional de execução das linhas orientadoras de Bona. Tendo as Partes da CDB acordado em concluir as negociações sobre o Regime Internacional de ABS, o mais rapidamente possível, até à COP 10 da CBD (Outubro 2010) e que, na COP 9, as Partes concordaram que o futuro regime internacional pode incluir elementos juridicamente vinculativos, Portugal considera que a legislação nacional sobre os recursos genéticos deverá ser desenvolvida e aprovada, após a adopção do Regime Internacional de ABS. Em relação a actividades nacionais que contribuam para a sensibilização sobre as Linhas Orientadoras de Bona em Acesso aos Recursos Genéticos e Partilha de Benefícios, as implementadas foram quase na totalidade anteriores a 2006 e, na sua maioria, direccionadas à administração pública. Incluíram reuniões interministeriais directamente focadas sobre o tema (nomeadamente com a participação dos Ministérios da Agricultura, da Economia e da Saúde) ou reuniões da Comissão de Coordenação Interministerial sobre a CDB onde o tema foi abordado. Além disso, em 2004, no âmbito de um curso de conservação de recursos fitogenéticos foi ministrada uma aula sobre o acesso aos recursos genéticos e partilha de benefícios no âmbito da CDB, com enfoque especial nas Linhas Orientadoras de Bona.Já em Julho de 2006 foi organizada uma reunião sobre esta temática com a participação do Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e do Gabinete de Relações Internacionais (Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento e do Desenvolvimento Regional), Secretaria de Estado da Indústria e Tecnologia e Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (Ministério da Economia e da Inovação), Direcção Geral de Protecção das Culturas, Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas, Estação Florestal Nacional e Banco Português de Germoplasma Vegetal (Ministério da Agricultura, Desenvolvimento Rural e Pescas).','','','','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Portugal did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Portugal does not have legislation on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In addition, Portugal does not have national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. ','','','','06/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A8','A8_1_4','','A percentagem relativamente ao total do consumo nacional não está disponível. No entanto, a totalidade do consumo de produtos florestais provenientes da União Europeia é de origem sustentável.A Autoridade Florestal Nacional não possui informação sistemática do consumo de produtos florestais. O consumo de produtos florestais a que se responde nos questionários internacionais é um \"consumo aparente\" estimado de alguns produtos, como a madeira serrada, os painéis e aglomerados, a pasta e o papel. Os consumos aparentes são estimados em função da produção, da exportação e da importação. Os dados em bruto do INE dizem respeito ao comércio (importação e exportação), não se considerando os dados relativos à produção. Estes eram no passado usualmente fornecidos pelas associações empresariais, mas nos últimos 3 anos a Associação das Indústrias de Madeira e Mobiliário de Portugal não tem fornecido tal informação.  Em qualquer dos casos, a informação existente é global, não estando alocada nem ao proprietário nem à propriedade. A Nomenclatura Combinada utilizada na UE para o comércio não discrimina os produtos certificados, pelo que não é possível chegar a estes valores através desta fonte. O anuário da CELPA-Associação da Indústria Papeleira apresenta consumos de madeira para a indústria da pasta e consumos de pasta para a indústria do papel, mas também não aloca nenhum dos valores à proveniência (certificada ou não).Na Região Autónoma dos Açores, em relação à produção lenhosa regional, a sua totalidade provém de fontes sustentáveis, uma vez que todas as áreas cortadas são alvo de reflorestação ou regeneração. Não existe no entanto ainda produção lenhosa certificada. Relativamente ao material lenhoso importado não se possuem dados sobre a sua proveniência.','','','','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 2377, 119 and 519, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 is not available. Portugal made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens – 234 for 2007 and 225 for 2008, representing net decrease in the number of seizures of 9. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and NGOs. Also, oral and written advice/guidance was provided to the public. Portugal has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Portugal paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','21/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','A9','','','A Estratégia Nacional de Adaptação às Alterações Climáticas, aprovada pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 24/2010, de 1 de Abril, considera a biodiversidade como um domínio/sector estratégico onde serão identificados impactes e definidas medidas de adaptação.','','','http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/04/06400/0109001106.pdf','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_3_2','','Portugal decidiu integrar um plano de acção sobre Biomassa no âmbito do Plano de Acção Nacional de Renováveis (NREAP), que se encontra em desenvolvimento. Mecanismos chave, tais como, critérios de sustentabilidade para a bioenergia, certificação de origem ou os impactes da produção de biomassa para aquecimento, arrefecimento e energia eléctrica, devem ser abordados no NREAP.Na Região Autónoma dos Açores foi estabelecido um protocolo de cooperação financeira entre a Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (em representação do MIT-Portugal), o Governo Regional e a Universidade dos Açores, no âmbito do desenvolvimento do projecto Green Islands.Este Projecto, financiado pela Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia e em desenvolvimento pelo MIT-Portugal, destina-se a promover conhecimento científico crítico para o desenvolvimento de sistemas sustentáveis de energia, caracterizados por reduzida dependência de combustíveis fósseis, e o consequente desenvolvimento tecnológico em parceria com empresas nacionais e internacionais e a sua implementação e demonstração nos Açores.Na Região está em desenvolvimento o Plano Estratégico para a Energia dos Açores (PEEA) que visa “fomentar a produção de energia de fontes renováveis e recursos endógenos prevendo-se a redução do consumo de gasóleo e gasolina rodoviários até 10 por cento e do fuel em mais de 50 por cento”.Para concretizar o PEEA, a Empresa de Electricidade dos Açores estima investir nos próximos cinco anos 105 milhões de euros de forma a possuir uma potência em energia verde de 46 megawatts.Vão ser construídas duas centrais de biomassa vegetal e duas de biogás nas ilhas Terceira e São Miguel, uma central de resíduos em São Miguel, instalação de aerogeradores em São Miguel (10) Santa Maria (2), Graciosa (2), São Jorge (3), Pico (2) e Faial (3).Os investimentos abrangem, também, a ampliação de uma central geotérmica e a construção de uma nova central geotérmica na ilha de São Miguel, aproveitamento hidroeléctrico em São Jorge e uma nova central hídrica nas Flores.A Região Autónoma da Madeira (RAM), ao abrigo do Projecto ERAMAC II “Maximização da Penetração das Energias Renováveis e Utilização Racional da Energia nas Ilhas da Macaronésia”, no âmbito do PCT MAC (03/MAC/4.3/C3), efectuou o levantamento do potencial energético da biomassa florestal do arquipélago, com o intuito de criar uma central de biomassa, a curto/médio prazo, na ilha da Madeira. No âmbito do 1º Inventário Florestal da Região Autónoma da Madeira, foram estimados a quantidade de biomassa florestal existente e o stock de carbono existente nesta biomassa. Estes dados serão utilizados para o plano de acção florestal da RAM.As energias renováveis e a metodologia para o seu desenvolvimento estão consagradas no Plano de Política Energética da Região Autónoma da Madeira (PPERAM). Paralelamente a este plano, a RAM tem-se associado a vários projectos, de onde se destaca o “WAVEGEN”, projecto de cooperação para a instalação de uma central de demonstração de aproveitamento da energia das ondas na Madeira, através da conversão directa em energia eléctrica, que consiste na integração de bombas, denominadas wavepumps – equipamento offshore ultraleve de conversão da energia das ondas – com um único gerador hidráulico submerso (6º Programa Quadro, 2006-2008).','','','Reference or title: Weblink: RCM n.º 63/2003 e RCM n.º 169/2005 (orientações da Política Energética Portuguesa)RCM n.º 171/2004 (Aprova o Programa de Actuação para Reduzir a Dependência de Portugal face ao Petróleo)','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_4_1','','A Estratégia Nacional de Adaptação às Alterações Climáticas, aprovada pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 24/2010, de 1 de Abril, considera a biodiversidade como um domínio/sector estratégico onde serão identificados impactes e definidas medidas de adaptação.',NULL,NULL,'http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/04/06400/0109001106.pdf','21/04/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','A9','A9_4_3','','Um estudo intitulado “Iberia Change – Impacts of Climate Change in Terrestrial Biodiversity” foi patrocinado pelos Governos de Portugal e Espanha para análise dos potenciais impactes das alterações climáticas sobre um grupo de espécies de vertebrados nos próximos 100 anos. Este estudo está focado na análise de risco ao nível da espécie. Os habitats não foram alvo de estudo.As 302 espécies analisadas forma classificadas de acordo com as seguintes categorias: Estável	                            distribuição potencial futura difere da actual em menos de 30% Ganhadora	             distribuição potencial futura é 30% maior que a actualPerdedora	              distribuição potencial futura é 30% menor que a actualSem sobreposição	sobreposição entre distribuição actual e potencial futura menos que 70%www.biochange-lab.eu/iberiachange/pt ','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Romania','A1','','','No information was available on business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','A10_1','','No information was provided on whether Poland has a national research scheme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research or if biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. ','','Romania provided this information: Ecosystem services of forests included in natural protected areas are accounted for in Romania based on the amount of wood restricted from harvesting through nature conservation measures (as alternative to the aggregation of the whole array of ecosystem services, e.g., UNEP tool-kit on environmental economics, 2005). These compensatory payments are made in accordance with the Law no. 46/2008 - Forest Law and the subsequent governmental decision on forest support measures, and were awarded so far for private forests belonging to individuals. However, the allocated funding for 2010 will not allow for granting these compensatory payments for the ca. 225,000 ha forests included in protected areas (of which ca. 50,000 in designated core conservation areas) belonging to both natural and legal persons. In addition, from 2010 on, there is need of Commission approval for this state aid scheme. ','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Romania is planning a follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. ','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','A10_1_8','','No information was provided on whether Romania has created a national biodiversity platform.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info BioPlatformhttp://www.bioplatform.info/index.htm ','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','A10_1_9','','Romania is not currently a Participant or Associate member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A private organisation in Romania is a member of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). Finsiel Romania Srl, an IT company, are ‘members’ of Work Package 2: ENBI forums.','','Finsiel Romania Srl is a private company, so none of the categories above apply','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','A1_1','','No information on the conservation status of habitats was available for Romania as Romania only became a member of the EU in 2007.','','','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Romania has designated 273 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 32.833 km², totalling 13.2% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 6 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 1353 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 108 with a total area of 29,890 km², totalling 12.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 1, with a marine area of 1,470 km² (no surface area figures were available for SPAs).','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is generally not available in the data source indicated.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26.02.2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','20% of Natura 2000 sites have a completed management plan, while for 80% of sites a management plan is in preparation.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','26.02.2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','05/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','A1_2_3','','The national legislation regarding protected areas includes articles on connectivity (ecological corridors). These articles define the ecological corridors and how they can be established. Also, the subsequent legislation regarding documentation for new protected areas establishment recommend for the location of new protected areas to take the ecological corridors into consideration. On the other hand, for the most important species of community importance, the Natura 2000 sites were designated taking into consideration the ecological corridors (for example for large carnivores also the most important ecological corridors were designated as SCIs).','','','','22/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','A1_3','','Of the 324 regularly occurring bird species in Romania, 12 are globally Near-threatened and 12 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Romania, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!Romania has not submitted information on the conservation status of mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed of the total of regularly occurring species at the global level. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa from the Habitats Directive reporting process: The methodology for the other taxa would be different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Romania does not have species action plans. Red Data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','www.blacksea-commisssion.org ','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','B1_1_1','','A Fund for the Environment was created in Romania. It consists of the taxes for pollution and biological resources exploitation paid by economic agents. There are no special governmental programmes for biodiversity conservation, but the willingness to cofinance the best conservation projects of public or private organisations selected for this purpose. The Ministry of Environment and Water Management decided to support with larger funds and facilities the co-financing of applications to the Fund for the Environment for projects on biodiversity conservation and management of biological resources. The recent measure 3.3 of the SAPARD program will contribute to the development of green agriculture and agricultural biodiversity conservation. Financial support is strictly limited to the projects of the institutions subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Water Management and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development and for international co-financing. Bilateral external funding plays a significant role, coming from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, USA and other countries, multilateral funding from the EU and in the past from the GEF. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Romania spent up to EUR1,544,050 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Romania’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report does not provide the detailed information required here. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Romania’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','B1_1_4','','Romania’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR172m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR63.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR115.5m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Romania has created a new strategy or policy or updated an existing one in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available on forestry and biodiversity or farming and biodiversity partnerships.','','Romania recognised that it is crucial for the environmental protection / biodiversity / nature conservation policies to be harmonized with programmes/policies on the sustainable use of natural resources. Relevant examples noted by Romania for the forestry sector included the long-standing discussions on harmonization and integration of environmental protection norms and regulations for the development of forest management plans. ','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B3_1_5','','Romania stated a number of future priorities concerning planning and biodiversity. These include adequate land use planning, which serves to mitigate urban dispersion and to reduce land fragmentation and biodiversity loss. Another future objective is the development of planning policies including regional level policies which include clear objectives in support of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation.  Romania does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development of biodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report of RomaniaWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','','','','11/12/2009','24/04/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available on business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available on partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available on the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines and their application to projects financed by public funds.','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','B4_1_1','','No information was available concerning a national communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','Romania noted that, in the European Union, misconceptions are widespread over the meaning of biodiversity conservation. It is often believed to mean the preservation of nature rather than the sustainable management of natural resources. Several studies in the forestry sector, looking at EU citizens perceptions have revealed this. Romania stated that this has to be changed through consistent information campaigns that put emphasis on technical data (at an appropriate level of accessibility) and onto the critical points of the political agenda (biodiversity, climate change, renewable energy policy, etc.). Romania also noted that the EU forest communication strategy is now in the stage of preparation, following the Jihlava Declaration 2009.','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Romania has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Romania between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.   ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','24/04/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','C1_2','','Romania applies 2 of the SEBI indicators directly (Nationally designated protected areas; Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives). 10 further SEBI indicators are similar but have been amended to the national circumstances; 6 indicators are in development or their use is being checked, and 8 SEBI indicators are not being used.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink-','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','C1_2_1','','Romania applies 2 of the SEBI indicators directly (Nationally designated protected areas; Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives). 10 further SEBI indicators are similar but have been amended to the national circumstances; 6 indicators are in development or their use is being checked, and 8 SEBI indicators are not being used.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A1','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees (lines, groups or isolated) and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures aim to maintain soil organic matter, avoid soil erosion and protect water resources. To maintain soil condition farmers must not plant the same crops in a field in more than 2 consecutive years and must ensure autumn sown crops maintain crop cover over the winter. There are also legal requirements governing the use of water for irrigation.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Romania total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 8124.2 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 10097.08 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1907.8 million EUR, and 2326.59 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 23.48 and 23.04 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Romania was 817.05 million EUR (996.4 with co-financing) and amounted to 10.06 per cent of the EAFRD (9.87 with co-financing). There are no payments in Romania for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','',' 2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)00Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, a national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. No further information on the conservation of genetic resources is provided by the Member State.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Romania in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Romania had a total certified forest area of 917,473 hectares out of a total forest area of 6.37 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Romania was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 14.4 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Romania amounted to 4.86 million ha, representing a share of 33.7 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','','','','',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees (lines, groups or isolated) and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures aim to maintain soil organic matter, avoid soil erosion and protect water resources. To maintain soil condition farmers must not plant the same crops in a field in more than 2 consecutive years and must ensure autumn sown crops maintain crop cover over the winter. There are also legal requirements governing the use of water for irrigation.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity, but no further details are provided.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_8','','National / regional monitoring schemes are being developed (to be implemented from 2010) for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	HNV farming.There are no indicators in place for the other mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators, namely HNV forestry or tree species composition. However, according to the Member State, programme-specific biodiversity indicators have additionally been drawn up.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 102 million € has been added to the Romanian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Romania attributed € 14 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 13 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, national monitoring programmes have been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity. However, parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory.In Romania, degraded land area has been indentified. This refers to their location as well as to drivers which lead to degradation (e.g., erosion, salinisation, desertification, landslides, etc.). Land area classified as inappropriate for the designated use category amounts to at least 2 million ha. One of the most common mitigation measures is afforestation, as part of a programme implemented by the Forestry General Department, and financed through budgetary allocations and the Land Amelioration Fund (Law no. 18/1991). In the framework of this programme, maximum annual area afforested amounted to roughly 5,000 ha between 2005 and 2006. In 2008 and 2009 afforested area decreased to roughly 1,000 per year, due to decreasing budgetary allocations and the enactment of special laws exempting from compensatory payments deforestation works for particular public investments (e.g., roads, ski slopes and transport installations, etc.). ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_3','','Romania does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2006 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007.','','-','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Romania.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Romania had a total number of 1 bathing water which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 2.0 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to the previous year, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, the colour of the water, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Romania, all biological assessment methods for rivers, but also lakes, transitional and coastal waters are only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete).According to reporting by the Member State in 2010, Romania developed assessments methods for rivers for the following biological indicators: phytoplankton, benthic invertebrate and fish fauna. Regarding transitional and coastal waters the following applies: phytoplankton and benthic invertebrate are already available; fish fauna, and macro algae and angiosperms methods are under development.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 249 in Romania.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','',''),
	('Romania','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, iRomania had a total number of 699 IPPC installations and issued 57 permits. 1 permit was still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ro/eu/ippc/colssghwq/envssgibq/RO_Template_question_2_1.xls/manage_document ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_4_2','','In 2008, Romania’s emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, and non-methane volatile organic compounds were all below NEC Directive ceilings. It is projected that they will remain below these levels in 2010, although emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds have been increasing over the last years.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised for 2007, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Romania the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 46 and 19 per cent respectively, considering an area of 97,964 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 22 and 12 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 20 per cent in 2010 and 15 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 0 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','A2_4_3','','-','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','Romania does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2006 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007.','','-','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_1','','No information was provided for Romania in the first Article 17 report (covering period 2000-2006), as Romania entered the EU in January 2007. Romania has indicated that they have started to classify and map some marine habitats identified as habitats of community interest. Only 6 of coastal habitats identified until now are considered of community interest and they are in ‘Unfavorable’ status of conservation. Between 2003 and 2005 an inventory of marine species was carried out. Based on available data obtained in the previous 20 years in different projects, and data from this assessment, a list of important species for the Black Sea was drafted. The 222 species included in that list have been assessed against IUCN criteria. Among them, there are 19 plant species (macrophytes and angiosperms), 57 invertebrates, 142 fish and 4 mammals. In red categories, there are 21 species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), 24 as Endangered (EN) (most of them invertebrates - 12), and 18 as Vulnerable (VU).','','Romania (along with Bulgaria) joined the EU in January 2007, so no data is available from official Habitats directive Article 17reporting for the period 2000-2006. ','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','',''),
	('Romania','A3','A3_1_4','','Romania reported that, in 2009, it had 42 surveillance stations and 42 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Romania has 4 coastal water bodies. All coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Assessment methods for monitoring phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and macroalgae or angiosperm have been developed.A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is being developed.  ','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','14/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status of the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','A3','A3_2','',' In Romania, 98% of the coastal bathing waters (48) met the mandatory values in 2008. Only one coastal bathing area was not-compliant. This is a very significant increase compared to the previous year, when 28.6% of the bathing waters met the mandatory values. In 2007, the compliance rate was low because a large percentage of the bathing waters (51%) was insufficiently sampled and could not be taken into account in the quality assessment. Only one coastal bathing area (2%) met the more stringent guide value, the same number as in 2007. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as Romania has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years.','','There is no bathing water quality data for 2006 as Romania had not yet joined the EU. ','','21/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_4','','Romania’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €13,300,000 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and developing conservation measures for Turbot and sprat as well as improving gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€140,000,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and organic production. It also promotes the protection of N2000 sites and management of traditional features of the landscape in aquaculture zones. Axis 3 (€40,000,000) allows for the rehabilitation of sturgeon migration routes and stock enhancement of Danube salmon. Axis 4 (€100,000,000) does not include any specific environmentally friendly measures. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_02_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm ','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_5_1','','There is no 2006 data for Romania as it only joined the EU in 2007.','','2007 data is not currently available','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_5_2','','It is assumed that Romania does not have any specific restoration plans for diadromous species,  as no information was provided by the Member State. However there are some stocking activities for Sturgeon. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Romania','A3','A3_5_3','','Romania has a relatively small fleet compared to other European countries. Its fishing capacity has remained quite stable but has reduced between 2006 and 2008. Vessels numbers have hardly changed from 440 in 2006 to 437 in 2008 but the tonnage has dropped from 2607 to 1660 (36% reduction) and fishing power has decreased from 8701 to 6194 kW (29% reduction). Romania considers its fleet to be sustainable and although some scrapping of older vessels is envisaged under EFF (2007-2013 programme).','','2008 data: 437 vessels; 1660 tons; 6194 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_6_1','','There is no 2006 data for Romania as it only joined the EU in 2007. No information was provided by Romania on actions to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_6_2','','No information was provided by Romania on shark or seabird monitoring plans. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Romania','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Romania','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Romania has 9 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However there are different ways of defining marine sites and according to national sources, Romania suggests there are 6 Marine Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and 1 Marine Special Protection Area (SPA), therefore 7 marine Natura2000 sites in total. No information was provided by Romania on what fisheries measures have been implemented in any marine Natura2000 site either within or outside territorial waters. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusHowever, Romania gave some feedback that a number of these habitat/species are not relevant: Habitats: The habitat 1120 and 8330 are not present in Romania. For the habitat 8330 further research will be done. The habitat 1150* is present. Mammals: 1366* Monachus monachus is extinct (last observations 40-50 years ago). From our information, this species is also extinct in Bulgaria and Ukraina. 1938 phoca hispida bottnica, 1365 Phoca vitulina, are not present in Romania. Amphibians and Reptiles: 1224 Caretta caretta, 1227 Chelonia mydas, are not present in Romania. Fishes: 1101 Acipenser sturio is extinct. 1100 Acipenser naccarii, 1102 Alosa alosa, 1099 Lampetra fluviatillis, 1095 Petromyzon marinus, 4120 Alosa caspia normani, 1989 Alosa caspia vistonica are not present in Romania. 4127 Alosa tanaica (former name Alosa caspia caspia). 1130 Alosa fallax scientific reserve. -------It is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 6Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A3','A3_7_1','','Romania has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.  Data requirements needed for the calculation of the ecosystem indicators are specified in Appendix XIII of EC Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. Indicators 1-3 listed in Appendix XIII require data on species abundance and length distribution by species from fishery independent research surveys. Such information is collected routinely in Romania through established trawl surveys. Also, for the shallow waters near the shore, biodiversity surveys have been proposed using beach seine nets for four areas which cover whole Romanian littoral, to be undertaken two times a year. Indicator 4 requires extended information on age, length, sex and maturity from fishery independent research surveys. From 2009 onwards, this information will be collected for the turbot and sprat fisheries. Indicators 5-7 require position registration data based on VMS. The data are available in a resolution of one record every 2 hours and are stored in the central database NAFA. The different data sources can be linked. The data collected for economic and transversal variables allows the direct calculation fuel costs per quarter and métier for some segments. Estimation of the total costs for fuel in these métier will be based on total effort (from logbooks) and fuel costs per sea day. For all other fleet segments, fuel costs per métier and quarter will be estimated, based on the quarterly effort by métier.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Romanian National Programme for Collection and Management of Fisheries Data 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_tabs1=folders&_20_folderId=94848&_20_cur1=1&_20_delta=20&_20_keywords=&_20_advancedSearch=false&_20_andOperator=true&cur2=2Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','','','','','06/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Romania','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Romanian EEZ waters was 3.11 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.05 since both 1999 and 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','21/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Romanian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity considerably increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 351.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','21/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Romania has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However,the following specific legislation in Romania include articles referring to IAS: Law 192/19.04.2001 forbids the introduction of fish species into rivers; Law 103/23.09.1996 (regarding hunting) requires the introduction of animal species into hunting areas to be approved by a state organisation; Law 137/29.12.1995 (regarding environmental protection) forbids the introduction of species (animal, plant and microorganism) without consent of the Central Authority of Environmental Protection which consults the Romanian Academy of Sciences; Order 322/16.03.2000 (regarding import of species from wild fauna) states that alien species may only be imported with the consent of the Romanian government and the Romanian Academy of Sciences; Law 58/13.07.1994 implements the Convention on Biological Diversity in Romania (Article 8: signing bodies will prevent, control or eradicate the introduction of alien species that are potentially dangerous). Although specific legislation in Romania addresses import and export, introduction and control and eradication, it does not address the issue of possession and trade of IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 39 are present in Romania. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A5','A5_1_2','','Romania has no specific strategy or action plan focused on invasive alien species (IAS) in place . In addition, IAS are not comprehensively dealt with as part of a national/sub national biodiversity strategy of action plan. However, the upcoming updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan will also address issues related to IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A5','A5_1_3','','Romania has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A5','A5_1_4','','','',' The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A5','A5_2_2','','Romania has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national legislation in force is as follows: Order no. 237 of 7 April 2006 on authorising economic agents to grow GM crops, issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 337 from 14 April 2006 and; Order no 471 from 14 July 2006. Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 663 from 2 August 2006.     According to the Member State, there are no bans on GMO in place at the moment.  ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in October 2009. The Approximation Strategy for the Nature Conservation Sector was elaborated in 1999 and updated in 2000. While the annual contributions to CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention were paid, the annual contribution to AEWA for 2008 was, as of August 2008, still outstanding.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Romania for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Romania for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A7','A7_1_4','','Romania has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet. Data will be filled in by contractor from official sources.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A8','A8_1','','Information on national legislation implementing, and on activities raising awareness of, the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing and the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plan Genetic Resources and awareness raising activities is not available. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources reaches almost 100%. Romania has issued a number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no application denied, and a few items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Romania did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Romania','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','A8','A8_1_4','','The definition of  “Sustainable forest management” is provided in the Forest Code - the basic forest act:“Sustainable management of forests = The management and use of forests so they maintain and improve their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, health and in the way to ensure the capacity to fulfill permanently multiple ecological economical and social functions, in present and in the future at local, regional, national and global level, without prejudice to other ecosystems.”This is carried out through the “forestry regime” - “a unitary set of technical, economical and juridical norms concerning forest management planning, culture, harvesting, protection and guarding forests in order to ensure sustainable forest management”.The forestry regime is implemented through forest management plans. Consequently, wood consumption wich is not derived from sustainable sources is illegaly harvested which is estimated at 0.1 % from the annual harvesting rate. The greatest part of wood used in processing, building and furniture industry in Romania originate from domestic production (Romania is a traditional net wood-exporter, e.g., beech). Therefore, the national policy on assuring legal and sustainable use of timber concentrates on the domestic production (Strategy on illegal logging, SUMAL- an information system for wood tracking - , October 2008 MCPFE-FLEGT expert-level meeting organized by Romania, etc.). For the imported products (of which a still smaller part comes from non-EU states), the agreements valid at the EU level apply (EU-FLEGT, CITES.). ','','The greatest part of wood used in processing, building and furniture industry in Romania originate from domestic production (Romania is a traditional net wood-exporter, e.g., beech). Therefore, the national policy on assuring legal and sustainable use of timber concentrates on the domestic production (Strategy on illegal logging, SUMAL- an information system for wood tracking - , October 2008 MCPFE-FLEGT expert-level meeting organized by Romania, etc.). For the imported products (of which a still smaller part comes from non-EU states), the agreements valid at the EU level apply (EU-FLEGT, CITES). ','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 424, 50 and 18, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 is not available. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens is 5 for 2007 - 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical and financial assistance to Staff of the Management, the Scientific Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Oral and written advice/guidance was also provided to traders, NGOS and the public. Romania has not provided technical or financial support to another country in relation to CITES. Romania paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','',''),
	('Romania','A9','','','','','In Romania\'s Guide on the Adaptation to Climate Change Effects, one chapter is dedicated to biodiversity sector. In this context, Romania can mention the recommendations and adaptation measures proposed:• the determination of a national monitoring system of endangered species, performed with public and private support, through national programs and through the participation of the Civil Society, as a result of the research activities;• the evaluation of the monitoring system in order to determine its efficiency in accordance with the evolution of climate change effects and the identification of its modification opportunities.• the extension regarding the use of data in the monitoring process, by adapting the results achieved using the mathematical simulation;• the elaboration of the special management plans of the natural habitats in order to prevent and limit the degradation process of these habitats as a result of the climate change impact;• the decrease of the additional pressures which affect vulnerable species;• the decrease of the agricultural activities in the areas directly affected and the implementation of appropriate measures to protect the natural and semi-natural habitats existing close to the agricultural surfaces, including the identification of compensatory measures necessary for the survival of the affected population;• the decrease of the impact generated by the industrial activities on the phreatic water and air quality, by isolation with forest belts;• the increase of the forest areas by the rehabilitation of the waste areas and by the creation of other favourable areas;• the performance of surveys on the assessment of different ecosystems/species vulnerability to the climate change effects.','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','In Romania, the following climate change adaptation or mitigation measures have been initiated/implemented:- Sustainable harvesting: the annual allowable quota below growth, technical norms of forest management and harvesting applicable in Romania (promoting natural types of forests, under shelter regeneration, etc.) consistent with an increased potential of adaptation to climate change and to the increase of sink in all “pools” considered by GHG inventories;- The area of non-forestry land that was afforested from 1990 to present (ca. 30,000 ha) surpasses the deforested land within the same timeframe (ca. 7,000 ha, of which a lower amount still was deforested). This coupled with the forest management activity described above, lead to report “sinks” under LULUCF sector for the 1st  commitment period (2008-2012). - Forest National Inventory, to be completed in 2011, will assure solid evidence of the resource, enable thorough completion of the LULUCF-related tables in the UNFCCC and KP GHG inventories, and assess the mitigation potential for the present and subsequent commitment periods;- It is of outmost importance that the forestry biomass component within the NREAP 2010 (now in preparation) will take due account of the need to keep the mitigation potential of Romanian forests intact (i.e., harvest will allow \"sink\" accounting of GHG emissions from forests, irrespective of the accounting method that will be adopted for the 2nd commitment period). For EU Biomass Action Plan, the competent authority in Romania is the Ministry of Economy, Commerce and Business Environment.','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','A9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,'In Romania\'s Guide on the Adaptation to Climate Change Effects, one chapter is dedicated to biodiversity sector. In this context, Romania can mention the recommendations and adaptation measures proposed:• the determination of a national monitoring system of endangered species, performed with public and private support, through national programs and through the participation of the Civil Society, as a result of the research activities;• the evaluation of the monitoring system in order to determine its efficiency in accordance with the evolution of climate change effects and the identification of its modification opportunities.• the extension regarding the use of data in the monitoring process, by adapting the results achieved using the mathematical simulation;• the elaboration of the special management plans of the natural habitats in order to prevent and limit the degradation process of these habitats as a result of the climate change impact;• the decrease of the additional pressures which affect vulnerable species;• the decrease of the agricultural activities in the areas directly affected and the implementation of appropriate measures to protect the natural and semi-natural habitats existing close to the agricultural surfaces, including the identification of compensatory measures necessary for the survival of the affected population;• the decrease of the impact generated by the industrial activities on the phreatic water and air quality, by isolation with forest belts;• the increase of the forest areas by the rehabilitation of the waste areas and by the creation of other favourable areas;• the performance of surveys on the assessment of different ecosystems/species vulnerability to the climate change effects.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Romania','A9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Slovakia.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Slovakia has plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','A10_1_6','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','A10_1_8','','The Slovak Platform for Biodiversity was developed as part of the thematic network to support the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). It is a network of scientists and government workers working in areas related to biodiversity and the National Biodiversity Strategy. Entries on the website span from 2000 to 2005, but it does not appear to have been updated since then.','','copyright on website is 2004, latest ‘event’ is 2005','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','A10_1_9','','Slovakia became a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in April 2007. From August 2001-March 2007, Slovakia was an Associate Member.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A total of 11 German organisations contribute to ENBI. The Department of Vascular Plant Systematics at the Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) sclerophyllopus scrub habitats are in favourable condition. The condition of 6 of the 8 (75%) rocky habitats, 3 of the 5 (60%) heath and scrub and 9 of the 16 (56%) forests is also reported to be favourable. Habitats in an unfavourable-inadequate condition include 6 of the 6 (100%) bogs, mires and fens, 9 of the 12 (75%) grasslands and 5 of the 9 (56%) freshwater habitats.  All coastal alpine habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 3 of the 9 (33%) freshwater habitats and of 2 of the 8 (25%) rocky habitats is unknown. In the Pannonian biogeographical region 4 of the 6 (67%) rocky habitats and 1 of the 2 (50%) heath and scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition.  Half or over of dune (1 of 1 or 100%), sclerophyllous scrub (1 of 1 or 100%), bogs, mires and fens (2 of the 3 or 67%), grasslands (7 of the 11 or 64%), freshwater (3 of the 6 or 50%) and heath and scrub (1 of the 2 or 50%) habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.  All Pannonic coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 33% of both freshwater and rocky habitats is unknown.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported  Coastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1AlpineFreshwater habitats00%556%111%333%00%9Heath & scrub360%240%00%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands217%975%00%18%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%6100%00%00%00%6Rocky habitats675%00%00%225%00%8Forests956%638%16%00%00%16PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%2100%00%00%2Dunes habitats00%1100%00%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%350%117%233%00%6Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands19%764%218%19%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%267%133%00%00%3Rocky habitats467%00%00%233%00%6Forests325%542%433%00%00%12','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Slovakia has designated 382 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 5739 km², totalling 11.8% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 38 with a total area of 12,236 km², totalling 25.1% of the country’s area. ','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Slovakia.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','05/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_3','','Of the 296 regularly occurring bird species in Slovakia, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 7 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Slovakia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 13 of the 48 (27%) invertebrates and 9 of the 40 (23%) plants was reported to be favourable. 12 of the 19 (63%) amphibians and reptiles, 13 of the 43 (30%) mammals and 16 of the 40 (40%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 19 (21%) amphibians and reptiles and 14 of the 48 (29%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 15 of the 19 (79%) fish and 19 of the 43 (44%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 22 of the 44 (27%) invertebrates and 4 of the 29 (14%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 15 of the 21 (71%) amphibians and reptiles, 12 of the 40 (30%) mammals and 11 of the 29 (38%) plants was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 12 of the 44 (27%) invertebrates and 12 of the 29 (41%) plants are in an unfavourable- bad condition. The condition of 18 of the 22 (82%) fish, 12 of the 44 (27%) invertebrates and 20 of the 40 (50%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: oregion Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 316%1263%421%00%00%19Fish 211%211%00%1579%00%19Invertebrates1327%919%1429%1225%00%48Mammals37%1330%819%1944%00%43Plants 923%1640%718%820%00%40PannonianAmphibians and reptiles 210%1571%314%15%00%21Fish 314%15%00%1882%00%22Invertebrates1227%818%1227%1227%00%44Mammals13%1230%718%2050%00%40Plants 414%1138%1241%27%00%29','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','B1_1_1','','The major funding sources for biodiversity in Slovakia are the state budget, the Ministry of Environment’s Environmental Fund, and various EU funds and programmes provided by the EU and EU-associated countries (Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands). Within LIFE projects,from 2004 – 2008, Slovakia spent up to EUR2.288.832 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Slovakia spent up to EUR2.723.233 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','',' The information on national programmes is taken from Slovakia’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Slovakia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','B1_1_4','','Slovakia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR30.5m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR46.3m, while there is no allocation for category 55 (protection of natural assets).','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Slovakia created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B3_1_5','','The principle policy for planning is the Act No. 50/1976 on land-use planning and the building code. There have been problems in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity including the low levels of cooperation and coordination at all levels of activity and the inconsistencies between national, regional and local strategies and planning documents on issues relating to sustainable use and biodiversity conservation. Slovakia does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: Slovakia CBD 4th National ReportsWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','11/05/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','B4_1_2','','The government of Slovakia has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made from Slovakia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','C1_2','','Slovakia applies 3 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 9 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Slovakia in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','08/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A1','C1_2_1','','Slovakia applies 3 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 9 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Slovakia in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A1','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Slovakia total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 1969.42 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 2562.27 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 984.71 million EUR, and 1242.08 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 50 and to 48.47 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Slovakia was 268.15 million EUR (338.24 with co-financing) and amounted to 13.62 per cent of the EAFRD (13.2 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 2.73 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.14 per cent of EAFRD) and 3.45 million EUR of public expenditure (0.13 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 5.74 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.29 per cent of EAFRD) and 7.24 million EUR of public expenditure (0.28 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 19.93 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.01 per cent of EAFRD) and 25.14 million EUR of public expenditure (0.98 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)50.6163.588Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. No information on payments for genetic conservation measures was available for Slovakia.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Slovakia had a total certified forest area of 1.39 million hectares out of a total forest area of 1.93 million hectares. 174,083 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme under which 1.22 million hectares were certified. In total, 72.3 per cent of the forest area in Slovakia was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Slovakia amounted to 0.54 million ha, representing a share of 22.0 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title:','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 27 million € has been added to the Slovakian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Slvakia attributed € 11 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 38 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 67 per cent of both the Pannonian and alpine fresh water habitats in Slovakia have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining 33 per cent in each case have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of fresh water habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151005067%0%33%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6402067%0%33%0%U13  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9603067%0%33%0%U15   U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Slovakia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.10 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.71 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were still higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.94 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.62 mg N/l in 2005, being at the lowermost level of 1.47 mg N/l in 2004. Latest figures were below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 12.2 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 12.9 mg NO3/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.100 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.059 mg P/l in 2005. The previous value was well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on ammonium phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Slovakia had a total number of 20 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 52.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water ','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Slovakia did not develop (or no information was available on) fish fauna assessment for lakes. For all other water categories methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete).','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Slovakia under the Water Framework Directive.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, Slovakia had a total number of 500 IPPC installations and issued 452 permits. No permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/sk/eu/ippc/envstbjkw/Table_IPPC_Questionaire_2006_2008.xls/manage_document ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_4_2','','According to 2008 data on NECD emissions, Slovakia already met the targets set by the NEC Directive regarding all relevant air emissions. According to the country, taking into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures, it will be able to maintain emissions within its national ceilings, although increases in nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and, to a smaller extent, non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia are expected by 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Slovakia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 18 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 20,532 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 9 and 8 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction for 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 83 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Slovakia’s gross nitrogen balance was 46 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 43 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 82 per cent of the Pannonian and 80 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. Nine per cent of the Pannonian and 10 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats have a favourable conservation status; the remainder has an unknown status. Of the Pannonian forest habitats, 75 per cent have an unfavourable status; the remaining 25 per cent have a favourable status. 56 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have a favourable status; the remaining 44 per cent have an unfavourable status. With regards to heath and scrub habitats, 50 per cent of the Pannonian and 60 per cent of the alpine have a favourable conservation status, the remaining percentage has an unfavourable status. All occurrences of peat land habitat both Pannonian and alpine have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage231832078%13%9%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11911082%9%9%0%U17  U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10811080%10%10%0%U18   U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2816120057%43%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12930075%25%0%0%U15  U24       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage16790044%56%0%0%U16   U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7340043%57%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11  U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U12   U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9000100%0%0%0%9            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage33000100%0%0%0%U12  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U16   U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A3','A3_4','','Slovakia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes some environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 2 is €17,782,239and includes the promotion of traditional aquaculture methods in order to support conservation. Axis 3 (€4,227,154) aims to reduce negative environmental impacts. There are no activities or funding under Axis 1 or Axis 4. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_96_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A3','A3_5_2','','No information has been provided by Slovakia on restoration plans for diadromous species. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','A4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Slovakian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 76.8 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56). However, only spendings under categories 51 and 56 are foreseen by the Slovakian Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','10/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Slovakia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, it does have specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. The Act on Nature and Landscape protection (No. 543/2002) prohibits the import, possession, introduction, growth, reproduction and trade in IAS (and parts and products thereof). This currently only applies to the seven most problematic plant species (according to the Order of the Ministry of the Environment No.24/2003 Coll.) The Order of the Slovak Government No. 81/2007 Coll. contains regulations that require the elimination of IAS (plants) in order to qualify under the conditions of agricultural support under the single area payment scheme. Maintaining good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) is a basic mandatory condition for farmers to receive payments and since April 2008, the Order of the Slovak Government No. 160/2008 Coll. has included the elimination of IAS plants as one sub condition of the GAEC. The Order of the Ministry of the Environment No. 110/2005 Coll. prohibits the possession of alien birds of prey (Falconiformes) and owls (Strigiformes) and Red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans).','',' The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','  Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 46 are present in Slovakia which equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.  ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_1_2','','Slovakia’s National Biodiversity Strategy covers IAS and was approved by the Slovak government and the National Council of Slovakia in 1997. The Action Plan for implementing the national strategy was subsequently developed (amended in 2002 for the period 2003 to 2010). A National Strategy specifically for IAS is under development based on the Global/European Strategy for IAS and will include measures pertaining to the introduction, control and eradication of all IAS in Slovakia. The first draft has been through cross-sectoral consultation.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_1_3','','Slovakia has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Slovakia.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in September 2009. The National Biodiversity Strategy of Slovakia was published in 1997.Slovakia had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Slovakia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Slovakia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A7','A7_1_4','',' Slovakia has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A8','A8_1','','Slovakia has issued very few import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and a low number of items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A8','A8_1_3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Slovakia did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A8','A8_1_4','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 0, 27 and 2, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The combined number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 17 for 2007 and 2008. Disaggregated numbers of seizures are not available. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the Scientific Authority, the public, district offices as well as training and technical to the Staff of enforcement authorities. Slovakia has not provided technical and financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Slovakia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres), combined for 2007 and 2008. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. ','','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','A9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/05/2010',NULL),
	('Slovakia','A9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','','','There is cooperation between business and nature conservation services (park administrations) and NGOs, where business supports nature conservation activities or undertakes these activities itself. In some cases this cooperation is established as a formal partnership.The Ministry has supported the following partnerships:- Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation, Aquarium Piran and Marine Biology Station for preservation of Caretta caretta. - Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation for conservation of locally specific waterholes “kali” - Partnership between Petrol and NGO Morigenos on survey and conservation of dolphins.- Partnership with Mobitel for management of the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park – managed by Mobitel’s daughter company Soline.d.d  - Partnership between Telekom and NGO Doves on national contest of eco-schools, theme: Natura 2000 (schoolyear 2009/2010). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.morigenos.org/index.php?path=Novice http://www.mobitel.si/Splosno/Druzbena-odgovornost/sobivanje/soline.aspx?en=1http://eko.telekom.si/','08/03/2010','','05/05/2010','',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','A10_1','','Slovenia does not have a specific research programme dedicated exclusively to dealing with a holistic approach to biodiversity research. However, within other programmes there are each year several projects approved, basic and applicative, that aim at contributing to the knowledge of status and trends of biodiversity in Slovenia.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','A10_1_2','','Slovenia does not currently have any plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), either as a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. The MA results and approaches are used in the updating of the strategic documents in Slovenia. However, at the moment Slovenia are focused on reporting, which will be basis for next updating of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. There are some approaches to assess ecosystem services in Slovenia, mostly in forestry, but there is currently no systematic approach.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','04/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','A10_1_8','','Slovenia has a national biodiversity platform, developed under the European Platform for Biodiversity (BioPlatform) project—1999-2005. After the end of the project the use of the biodiversity platform as a coordination body between biodiversity and research policies stopped. Slovenia indicated that they are included in the BIOSTRAT project and regularly attends EPBRS meetings, but that there are currently no active links between this and research policy, and there is therefore not much influence on the research policy in favour of biodiversity research.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','A10_1_9','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 100% of both heath and scrub and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. 8 of the 9 or 89% and 4 of the 7 or 57% of forests and rocky habitats are also in favourable condition respectively. Half of alpine bogs, mires and fens are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 4 of the 11 (36%) grasslands and 2 of the 9 (22%) freshwater habitats are reported to be unfavourable-bad.In the Continental biogeographical region, 100% (1 of 1) of sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in favourable condition. 6 of the 9 (67%), 5 of the 8 (63%) and 2 of the 4 (50%) coastal habitats, forests and rocky habitats are also reported to be in favourable condition respectively. The condition of 4 of the 5 (80%) bogs, mires and fens, 4 of the 7 (57%) freshwater habitats and 2 of the 4 (50%) rocky habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 7 (57%) and 3 of the 7 (43%) grasslands and freshwater habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) coastal habitats are in favourable and an unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively.','','An analysis for the biogeographical region follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats333%444%222%00%00%9Heath & scrub2100%00%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous Scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands436%327%436%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens233%350%117%00%00%6Rocky habitats457%229%114%00%00%7Forests889%111%00%00%00%9ContinentalCoastal habitats667%333%00%00%00%9Freshwater habitats00%457%343%00%00%7Sclerophyllous Scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%343%457%00%00%7Bogs, mires & fens00%480%120%00%00%5Rocky habitats250%250%00%00%00%4Forests563%113%225%00%00%8Marine Mediterranean Coastal habitats133%267%00%00%00%3','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','18/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Slovenia has designated 260 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 6397 km², totalling 31.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 26 with a total area of 4618 km², totalling 22.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are no marine areas in SCIs or SPAs.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm; http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=N2K@ZRSVN and http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=45  ','22/02/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','The Natura 2000 site management programme 2007-2013, adopted by the government in 2007 defines the Natura 2000 conservation objectives and measures for each species and/or habitat type at each Natura 2000 site. In relation to management planning it identifies the competent sectors (protected area management plans, forestry, fisheries and hunting), their related unit and/or area management plans and responsible implementers. According to a governmental conclusion conservation measures have to be incorporated in relevant sector management plans, when they are being updated. The data in the field \"…management plans completed\" shows the situation for each of these four sectors. There are 9 protected areas, relevant for Natura 2000 measures, where legislation enables approval of a site management plan, and in this case this number has been taken as 100% of sites. For these 9 sites there is 1 approved protected area management and 7 in preparation. In forestry out of 234 unit management plans, that cover the whole country, 158 are relevant for Natura 2000 measures and were identified by the Natura 2000 management programme and in this case this number has been taken as 100% of sites. By the end of the year 2009 45 of them have been in the process of update and Natura 2000 measures have been incorporated in these management plans. They represent 28% of all relevant management plans in forestry. It is not applicable to give % of sites, as some management plans cover several sites and some only a part of one site. The same system exists for hunting (10 area management plans are relevant, meaning 100% of sites), and fishing (26 unit management plans are relevant, meaning 100% of sites).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/NATURA_2000-ANG-01.pdf, http://www.mop.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/okolje/zakon_o_ohranjanju_narave/priloga_42_operativnega_programa/','26/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_2_3','','Currently, no tools to support ecological connectivity are in place or developed.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','22/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_3','','Of the 298 regularly occurring bird species in Slovenia, 11 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Slovenia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 13 of the 40 (33%) mammals and 15 of the 35 (43%) plants was reported to be favourable. 15 of the 21 (71%) amphibians and reptile, 18 of the 19 (100%) fish, 20 of the 37 (54%) invertebrates and 13 of the 35 (37%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 37 (16%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 20 of the 40 (50%) mammals and 1 of the 19 (5%) fish species in alpine biogeographical region is unknown. is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 11 of the 39 (28%) mammals and 13 of the 36 (36%) plants are in a favourable condition. 68% of amphibians and reptiles, 90% of fish, 52% of invertebrates and 36% of plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 10 of the 46 (22%) invertebrates is reported to be unfavourable-bad. The condition of 20 of the 39 (51%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) amphibians and reptiles and 1 of the 2 (50%) invertebrates are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) invertebrates and 1 of 1 (100%) mammals was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group tNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 15%1571%210%314%00%21Fish 00%1895%00%15%00%19Invertebrates616%2054%616%514%00%37Mammals1333%615%13%2050%00%40Plants 1543%1337%39%411%00%35Continental Amphibians and reptiles 13%2168%516%26%00%29Fish 00%2790%27%13%00%30Invertebrates613%2452%1022%613%00%46Mammals1128%718%13%2051%00%39Plants 1336%1336%411%617%00%36Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 110000%00%00%00%1Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates150%150%00%00%00%2Mammals00%1100%00%0000%1Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','18/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Slovenia has 2 completed species action plans for birds and 1 for mammals.In addition, Slovenia has 2 action plans for mammals. Red Data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants. The Rural Development Plan 2007-13 includes indicators, derived from the Farmland Bird Index (part of Common bird monitoring scheme). ','','Action plans for some species have been adopted at the EU level and include specific measures for Slovenia. These action plans are taken into account in indicating the numbers. An up-to-date overview of  action plans is in preparation for species; relevantRed lists are adopted also as a legislative act (Ministerial Decree).','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/rds_zivali_rastline.pdfhttp://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/rds_zivali_rastline_priloga.pdf','26/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','B1_1_1','','Besides the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, other ministries provide funding for the implementation of the CBD. External funding, through EU resources, also plays a significant role. There is a process of monitoring financial support for biodiversity from the state budget that is being further developed.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Slovenia spent up to EUR1,506,164 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. The Natura 2000 site management programme 2007-2013, adopted by the government in 2007 defines sources of funding for its implementation:Type of financing      Total sum 2007-13 in m€	%National budget	     52.5	                                      35.7%Structural funds	     57.3	                                      39.0%Rural development    21	                                      14.3%LIFE +	                   16.1	                                      11.0%TOTAL	                 146.9                                       100.0% ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Slovenia’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Slovenia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','08/03/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','B1_1_4','','Slovenia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR49.6m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR39.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR7.7m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','08/03/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','B1_1_7','','This action is covered under Objective 7. Please see the measures of progress under A.7.1 and A.7.1.3 for your country’s international development assistance funds for projects directly benefiting biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','B1_1_8','','Exact information on the amount of funding for biodiversity research is not available.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','12/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B2_4','','Slovenia has updated a national environmental programme in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The updated Natura 2000 management programme was approved by the Government in October 2007 as a specific follow up of the National Environmental Action Programme and as an update of a part of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. This management programme covers 35.5% of Slovenian territory, including many areas with outstanding biodiversity, and includes specific biodiversity targets for 2010.  ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/NATURA_2000-ANG-01.pdfhttp://www.mop.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/okolje/zakon_o_ohranjanju_narave/priloga_42_operativnega_programa/','08/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','B3_1_2','','No partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity have been formally facilitated or established.However, there is regular cooperation between the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning and nature conservation services and the Chamber of agriculture and forestry in the field of Natura 2000 implementation','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B3_1_5','','No forum or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by MS for establishing formal biodiversity and planning partnerships at local, regional and national levels.There is however a legal requirement for the cooperation of nature conservation institutions and bodies, responsible for spatial planning (on national and local level), and this cooperation is exercised in a number of meetings.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','08/03/2010','','','na','25/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','B3_1_6','','There is cooperation between business and nature conservation services (park administrations) and NGOs, where business supports nature conservation activities or undertakes these activities itself. In some cases this cooperation is established as a formal partnership.The Ministry has supported the following partnerships:- Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation, Aquarium Piran and Marine Biology Station for preservation of Caretta caretta. - Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation for conservation of locally specific waterholes “kali” - Partnership between Petrol and NGO Morigenos on survey and conservation of dolphins.- Partnership with Mobitel for management of the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park – managed by Mobitel’s daughter company Soline.d.d  - Partnership between Telekom and NGO Doves on national contest of eco-schools, theme: Natura 2000 (schoolyear 2009/2010). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.morigenos.org/index.php?path=Novice http://www.mobitel.si/Splosno/Druzbena-odgovornost/sobivanje/soline.aspx?en=1http://eko.telekom.si/','08/03/2010','','05/05/2010','',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B3_1_7','','There is cooperation between business and nature conservation services (park administrations) and NGOs, where businesses (which include companies from financing sector) support nature conservation activities or undertake these activities themselves. In some cases this cooperation is established as a formal partnership.','','Slovenia indicated that the collaborations supported by the Ministry for business and biodiversity (given in B3.1.6) were similar as the partnerships established between the financing sector and biodiversity.','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B3_1_8','','','','No information was available concerning the implementation of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','B4_1_1','','No information was available concerning communications campaigns which have been developed directly in support the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). However, related communications campaigns have been developed. For example, Slovenia launched a communication campaign on Natura 2000 as part of the project: “Communication support to Natura 2000” over the period 2007-2008. The specific objectives of the project were to augment the general visibility of the Natura 2000 ecological network; to place biodiversity conservation among the key development opportunities of Slovenia; to equip and qualify a network of communicators; encourage stakeholders to participate in maintaining biodiversity conservation in the Natura 2000 sites.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A1','B4_1_2','','The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initative on 16th October 2007.The Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning communicated that it had joined Countdown 2010 to strengthen understanding  and management of biodiversity in particular focusing on endemic and endangered species particularly given the level of species richness in Slovenia. Their focus was stated to be also on establishing new protected areas and promote effective management to contribute to the European and global network of protected areas. They proposed expanding existing transboundary collaboration in order to ensure a coherent transboundary network of protected areas and by developing and implementing the nature conseration measures of the Natura 2000 Operational Programme 2007-2013 on protected and planned protected areas.  The implementation of the Slovenian National Biodiversity Strategy was also a priority. The establishment of a monitoring system which will allow the continious review of the biodiversity status and the progress of implementation of international commitments. Another aim was to involve local authorities and other stakeholders  in the implementation of international commitments. Best practice examples on the use of wood biomass on biodiversity with particular attention to close-to-nature forest management were mentioned as a future action. Connecting biodiversity and forest issues was also refarded as a priority during the Slovenian Presidency in early 2008.  No funding contributions appear to have been made by Slovenia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects. Activities in Countdown initiative have been or are currently part of different governmental programmes, therefore funding has been assured or allocated through these programmes when they have been approved.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','C1_2','','Within the National Environmental Action Programme in 2005, a range of indicators has been adopted. In the field of biodiversity and nature conservation, these indicators basically follow the logic of the SEBI indicators (as at that time SEBI indicators were not fully developed). As for the EU level not for all of the SEBI indicators national data exists.','','','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?&data=group&group_id=13&menu_group_id=13','08/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','C1_2_1','','Within the National Environmental Action Programme in 2005, a range of indicators has been adopted. In the field of biodiversity and nature conservation, these indicators basically follow the logic of the SEBI indicators (as at that time SEBI indicators were not fully developed). As for the EU level not for all of the SEBI indicators national data exists.The Slovenian Environmental Agency is publishing information on environmental indicators with the following indicators (some in development) in the field of biodiversity and nature conservation: Brown bearDamage caused by protected animal speciesDolphinsEndangered speciesGame preservationPlants – invasive speciesPlants – species richness and endangered speciesPopulation size of selected bird speciesSubterranean biodiversityNatura 2000Nature areas under protectionProtected areasValuable natural features ','','No attempt is made here to link the national indicators as shown above to the SEBI 2010 indicators.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?&data=group&group_id=13&menu_group_id=13','08/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A1','C1_3_1','','Slovenia does not have monitoring programmes for habitats, but for the following species groups monitoring schemes exist: birds (31 schemes), mammals (29), fish (5), and invertebrates (26).','','Results are available on the webpage: http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=211','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=211','26/02/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A2','','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulation on statutory management requirements and GAEC (only in Slovene):Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=96008   ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Slovenia total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 916 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 1176.99 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 474.31 million EUR, and 592.89 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 51.78 and 50.37 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Slovenia was 248.4 million EUR (310.5 with co-financing) and amounted to 27.12 per cent of the EAFRD (26.38 per cent with co-financing). There are no payments in Slovenia for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)32.62017*40.7753*Forest environment payments (225)00According to reporting by the Member State, following data refer to actual payments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 31 December 2009:(214): EAFRD: 65.595093 miilion €, Total: 81.993866 miilion €','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A strategy to address the conservation of genetic diversity is being developed for crop varieties and an action plan has been adopted for crop varieties and breeds. The national biodiversity strategy (NBS), action plan (NBAP) and RDP also promote the conservation of genetic diversity in crops. Further cover NBS and NBAP livestock breeds and races as well as commercial tree species.In situ measures are being taken for livestock breeds (with a value of €25,154.00), which in 2009 addressed the most endangered breeds (Istrian sheep, Bela Krajina Sheep, Dreznica goat, Krskopolje pig and Cika cattle). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.*for crop varieties** for crop varieties and breeds','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/publikacije/drugo/biotska.pdf ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Slovenia approved 3220 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.798 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.997 million of total expenditure, representing respectively around 2.44 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.According to reporting by the Member State, as part of the agri-environment measures within the Rural Development Programme sub-measures such as \'Sustainable rearing of domestic animals\' and \'Production of autochthonous and traditional agricultural plant varieties\' are being implemented.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, there have not been any afforestation plans in Slovenia. Deforestation is only possible on the basis of special permits issued by Slovenian Forest Service, which comprise about 200 ha annually. A limit for application is 0.5 ha. Impact on biodiversity is among criteria considered when issuing the permits. Otherwise a permit is issued if none of environmental and social forest functions are endangered.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Slovenia had a total certified forest area of 212,104 hectares out of a total forest area of 1.26 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Slovenia was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 16.78 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Slovenia amounted to 0.59 million ha, representing a share of 78.4 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_4','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulation on statutory management requirements and GAEC (only in Slovene):Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=96008   ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Lectures and training is provided by the Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia, the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation and DOPPS (BirdLife Slovenia), the content of which are checked and approved by  the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (national level).HNV farming (national level).The farmland birds population indicator has several sub-indicators (e.g. for Natura 2000 sites and LFA areas). Programme specific indicators for biodiversity in forests have been developed, which are: tree species composition, distribution of developmental phases, dead wood, habitat trees and key habitats.According to reporting by the Member States, favourable conservation status using above indicators is assessed on the basis of ecological requirements of forest dependent species, in the interest of the EU (as defined in the Wild Birds and the Habitats Directives). Density of population of protected large predators and some other species is regularly monitored on the basis of approved schemes.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 12 million € has been added to the Slovenian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Slovenia provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’. ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: no link','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all seven occurrences of continental fresh water habitats in Slovenia have an unfavourable conservation status. 67 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats have an unfavourable status; the remaining 33 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences1330081%19%0%0%16            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9630067%33%0%0%U14  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U14   U23       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Slovenia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.84 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.64 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were below the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a decrease from 0.30 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.19 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.10 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.23 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were slightly the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 29.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 34.6 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 37.2 mg N/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.053 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.048 mg P/l in 2005. The latter data were well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA). Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Slovenia had a total number of 8 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 44.4 per cent of all inland bathing waters. There is no clear trend compared to previous years. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Slovenia did not develop (or no information was available on) phytoplankton assessment for rivers as well as fish fauna for lakes. For all other water categories methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). According to reporting by the Member State, due to natural characteristics of Slovene rivers phytoplancton in rivers is not relevant as indicator. This has been verified by national legislation.Since July 2009 Slovenia has biological assessment methods available for  Macrophytes and phytobenthos and benthic invertebrate - rivers Phytoplankton - lakes Macro algae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrate - coastal waters.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#secondhttp://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_okolje/sektor_za_vode/ekolosko_stanje_povrsinskih_voda/.  ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Slovenia under the Water Framework Directive, because no extra requirements were defined. However, according to reporting by the Member State, in Slovenia out of 83 surface water monitoring stations analysing the chemical and ecological status, 27 are based in Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive, and 56 in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive. In addition, out of 39 groundwater monitoring stations analysing the chemical status 12 are base in SPAs and 27 in SACs. Monitoring at these stations is performed according to WFD requirements.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, Slovenia had a total number of 169 IPPC installations and issued 64 permits. 102 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/si/eu/ippc/colsokvvg/envsokw0w/ippc-q2-2006-2008_SI.xls/manage_document  ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, data for 2008 indicate that Slovenia has met its NECD ceilings targets for three emissions - sulphur dioxide, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC).  It exceeded the target for its nitrogen oxide emissions, and will continue to do so according to 2010 projections. Its is expected by 2010 that all other ceilings will be met, according to the country’s projections. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007 figures, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Slovenia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 7 and 98 per cent respectively, considering an area of 10,996 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 92 per cent in 2010 and 82 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 0 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following figures represent Slovenia’s nitrogen balance from 1992 onwards, calculated in accordance with OECD methodology for all years presented:N balance (kgN/ha/year):1992  1993  1994   1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 93.6   79.9   38,2    44.6   45.2   41.1   44.0   48.4   66.0   67.7   45.6   81.8   33.1   23.1   50.5   40.3   24.3                                                                                                                 Figures represent a clear downward trend, with a change of roughly 26 per cent between 2008 and 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all seven occurrences of continental grassland habitats in Slovenia have an unfavourable conservation status. 78 per cent of the alpine grasslands also have an unfavourable status, the remaining 22 per cent have a favourable status. The majority of forest habitats in Slovenia have a favourable conservation status (89 per cent of alpine and 63 per cent of continental forest habitats), the remainder in both alpine and continental have an unfavourable status. All of the two occurrences of alpine heath and scrub habitats have a favourable conservation status. The majority of peat land habitats in Slovenia have an unfavourable conservation status (100 per cent of continental and 67 per cent of alpine). The remaining 33 per cent of alpine peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage181440078%22%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11740064%36%0%0%U13  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U13   U24       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage174130024%76%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9180011%89%0%0%U11  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8350038%63%0%0%U11   U22       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage920082%18%0%0%11            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6420067%33%0%0%U13  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U14   U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','08/03/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Slovenia found that of the three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and the other two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (67%). There were nine coastal habitats assessed in the Continental biogeographic region, of which six had a ‘Favourable’ status (67%) and three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%). Four marine species were assessed—including a mammal, a reptile and two invertebrates—of these four, two had a ‘Favourable’ status (50%) and the other two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follow below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats133%267%00%00%00%3ContinentalCoastal habitats667%333%00%00%00%9Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles1100%00%00%00%00%1Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates150%150%00%00%00%2Marine MediterraneanMammals00%1100%00%00%00%1Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL250%250%00%00%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','18/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','26/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_1_4','','Slovenia reported that, in 2009, it had 2 surveillance stations and 4 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas (both surveillance stations are also included in operational monitoring network). Slovenia has 5 coastal water bodies. Approximately 15% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Since July 2009 Slovenia has had biological assessment methods available for monitoring macroalgae and benthic invertebrates in coastal waters.  The phytoplankton assessment method is still under development. A programme of measures for coastal areas is being developed and should be adopted by December 2010.','','-','framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfReference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf ','08/03/2010','','','13/01/10','25/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_1_5','','No national plan/strategy exists for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). The ICZM Protocol was ratified in 2009.','26/02/2010','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_2','','Slovenia has 19 coastal bathing areas. 94.7% of these reached mandatory standards for water quality in 2008 and the number of non-compliant bathing waters decreased from six in 2007 to one in 2008. There has been a steady improvement in compliance with the stricter guideline standards from 84.2% in 2006 to 94.7% in 2008, although there was a dip in water quality in 2007. The trend analysis of nutrient concentrations in transitional, coastal and marine waters requires a minimum of 5 years of information. Slovenia has reported time series of less than 5 years duration so this information is not currently available. ','','-','','08/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_2_1','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see Action 2.4.1 for an indication of the implementation of Directives for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_4','','Slovenia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €2,885,372 and includes adjusting fishing capacity and increasing the diversification of activities. Axis 2 (€10,675,876) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and sustainable processing and marketing. Axis 4 (€2,885,372) promotes the sustainable development of coastal areas. Axis 3 does not include any specific environmentally friendly measures. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_91_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','22/2/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','08/03/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Slovenia had 179 vessels and 12% were involved in a serious infringement (22 vessels). A total of 22 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €170 and maximum fine of €417.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','08/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_5_2','','There are no permanent diadromous populations of salmon, trout or sturgeon present in Slovenia; therefore there are no management plans for these species. Eel is present in Slovenia, but the species is protected and not exploited, and therefore no management plan exists. There is restoration of a brackish bay ongoing (Škocjan bay) and eel populations could benefit from this restoration.','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','10/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_5_3','','Slovenia’s fishing capacity has increased in terms of vessel numbers between 2004 and 2008 from 173 to 181 vessels (4% increase). Tonnage has slightly decreased from 1068 to 983 tons (8% reduction) and power has remained fairly consistent changing from 11,450 in 2004 to 10,653 (7% decrease) in 2008. The capacity of the Slovenian fleet decreased slightly during 2007 without public aid. The fleet suffers from structural problems, notably old vessels and obsolete gear. The management plan drawn up according to the provisions of the Mediterranean regulation will focus on capacity adjustment and reduction of trawling.','','2008 data: 181 vessels; 983 tons; 10653 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf ','08/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Slovenia had 179 active vessels. There were 5 type D breaches in this year and 5 penalties imposed with an average fine of €86. Slovenia has adopted two national legal acts that use fisheries inspection as a basis for penalizing infringements in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy (see additional clarifications).','','2007 data is not currently available. Slovenia’s legal instruments to use fisheries inspection as a basis for penalizing infringements in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy: There is a decree defining pecuniary penalties for violations of provisions of Community Regulations applicable in the field governed by the maritime Act (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 141/2006) and a decree amending the Decree defining pecuniary penalties for violations of provisions of Community Regulations applicable in the field governed by the maritime Act (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 9/2009). ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdfNB. New report should be available in November 2009 with 2007 data. Please check before completing','10/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_6_2','','Although there are no specific seabird and shark monitoring programmes, shark and seabird by-catch is recorded as part of the national programme on fisheries data collection. The Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia implements a study of by-catch and discards every year. Samples are taken four times a year, from five different fishing gears (purse seines, bottom trawl nets, pelagic trawl nets, gill nets and trammel nets). Within the framework of this study, all by-catches of sharks and seabirds are recorded.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','10/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','10/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Slovenia has 1 marine Natura 2000 site (located within its territorial waters) based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). There are no specific fisheries measures defined for this site. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 3Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','10/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A3','A3_7_1','','Slovenia has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. MEDITS surveys will be used by Slovenia to calculate the ecosystem indicators 1-4 from Appendix XIII. Only two MEDITS surveys are undertaken annually in Slovenian waters, restricted to a small geographical area, so Slovenia suggest calculation of ecosystem indicators should be performed on the regional level, covering at least GFCM geographical sub-area (GSM) 17: Northern Adriatic. Appendix XIII ecosystem indicator 8 on discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated from logbooks of observer trips and ecosystem indicator 9 on fuel efficiency of fish capture will be calculated based on data collected through the use of a survey questionnaire and technical literature.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','National programme of the Republic of Slovenia for the collection and management of data 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94848 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','10/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Slovenian EEZ waters was 3.09 in 2004. This represents a slight decrease (-0.02) since 1999 and overall a decrease of 0.01 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink:  http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx  Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','08/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','26/10/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A4','A4_3','','Additional to a coherent Natura 2000 network in Slovenia, there is a network of ecologically important areas (Decree on ecologically important areas) covering 50% of the country, that are taken into account in spatial planning procedure. Part of this procedure is intersectoral coordination. In spatial planning procedures protected habitat types, animal and plant species have also to be taken into account. Effectiveness can be partly monitored through conservation status of species and habitat types (Measures of progress giving information on conservation status of species and habitat types). Information on species monitoring schemes is given under Measure of progress for the action C.1.3.1 ','','','The Decree on ecologically important areas has been adopted in 2004: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/epo_uredba_sprejeta.pdf http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/epo_uredba_sprejeta_priloga1.pdfThe decree on habitat types has been adopted in 2003 and later extended therefore we include the reference to a consolidated version:http://www.pisrs.si/npb/files/2003-01-4926-20090525_100452_2009-2511-0041.doc The decree on protected animal species has been adopted in 2004 and later changed therefore we include the reference to a consolidated version:http://www.pisrs.si/npb/files/2004-01-2216-20090525_100758_2009-2511-0040.doc The decree on protected plant species has been adopted in 2004 and later changed therefore we include the reference to a consolidated version:http://www.pisrs.si/npb/files/2004-01-2215-20090525_101057_2009-2511-0075.docMonitoring:http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=211','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A4','A4_4_1','','The implementation of CBD Guidelines is not required by the law or any national regulation. However these guidelines on Sustainable Tourism are included in the Development Plan and Policies for Slovenian Tourism 2007-2013 and in the Tourism Policy with Guidelines, which is the an annual implementation document of the Governement of the Republic of Slovenia for systematic development of tourism.','','','http://www.mg.gov.si/fileadmin/mg.gov.si/pageuploads/razpisi/JN/DT/publikacija_RNUST_ang_SPLET.pdf http://www.mg.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/turizem','25/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Slovenian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 97.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). Some other activities indirectly providing biodiversity benefits (for example tertiary treatment of sewage, elimination of sources for water pollution, improvement of sanitation networks, etc) are also financed from the Cohesion Fund, but the amount of these activities has not yet been identified.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','25/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Slovenia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) but there is specific legislation in place that addresses the issues of possession and trade and introduction into the wild of IAS, in particularly in the context of plant health. Measures related to the introduction, reintroduction, repopulation and captive breeding of alien species are regulated for in the revised Nature Conservation Act (ZON-UPB2; Uradni list RS No. 96/04). The Nature Conservation Act also provides rules on carrying out assessments on the risk to nature which provides a mechanism for controlling intentional releases of alien species (2002, Uradni list RS No. 43/02). Other relevant legal measures in Slovenia pertaining to IAS include: the Environmental Protection Act (1993, 2004); the Forestry Act (Uradni list RS No. 30/93) which provides for forest management plans (within its guidelines it is implicit that non-native species commonly planted across Slovenia be replaced by native species); Freshwater Fisheries Act (Uradni list RS, No. 61/06) that aims to prevent the introduction and spread of alien species in inland waters and; the Plant Health Act (Uradni list RS No. 62/2007) that implements Council Directive 2000/29/EC and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 35 are present in Slovenia which equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_1_2','','A national strategy on alien species is being prepared with the aim of developing a comprehensive inter-sectoral framework that would allow a co-ordinated action on IAS. It is foreseen that the strategy will entail a review of legislation and provide a comprehensive list of priorities for action with regard to IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_1_3','','Slovenia has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Slovenia does not have a national level early warning system for IAS. And no inventory inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects. In the plant health sector, an early warning system is being developed for species requiring quarantine measures under the EU Plant Health Directives. Also, a special project (i.e. Thuja project) to raise awareness on IAS was conducted in 2008/2009 (see link below). ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.tujerodne-vrste.info/projekt.html    ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, the Slovenian parliament adopted the Act on the co-existence of genetically modified plants with other agricultural plants in June 2009 (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia, 1 June 2009, Ur.l. RS, št. 41/2009). The Act sets up the conditions under which genetically modified plants can be cultivated in Slovenia. The legislation to implement the Act is still pending. In Slovenia no ban on GMO cultivation at national level exists.According to the Member State, Slovenia has no ban on GMO cultivation at national level.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200941&stevilka=1980','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report to the CBD had been submitted. The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy was published in 2001.Slovenia had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','26/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Slovenia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Slovenia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A7','A7_1_4','','Slovenia contributed EUR1.45 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.06% of the total replenishment. Slovenia contributed EUR5.15 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.24 % of the total replenishment.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A7','A7_2_2','','Both directives are transposed (link: http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=101&vt=1&sm=k&q=zakon+o+varstvu+okolja&mandate=-1&unid=UPB|7F3DBE2A64E1FB92C12576A90042382F&showdoc=1) and implemented.','','Overview of decisions in implementation procedures are available for SEA at: http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_okolje/celovita_presoja_vplivov_na_okolje/and for EIA at: http://www.arso.gov.si/varstvo%20okolja/presoja%20vplivov%20na%20okolje/podatki/PVO-Soglasja20100212.xls ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=101&vt=1&sm=k&q=zakon+o+varstvu+okolja&mandate=-1&unid=UPB|7F3DBE2A64E1FB92C12576A90042382F&showdoc=1http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_okolje/celovita_presoja_vplivov_na_okolje/http://www.arso.gov.si/varstvo%20okolja/presoja%20vplivov%20na%20okolje/podatki/PVO-Soglasja20100212.xls  ','26/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A8','A8_1','','While Slovenia has not provided funds for the CBD ABS Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing, it has established national legislation to implement the Bonn Guidelines on ABS. Slovenia has established national legislation on the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and has undertaken activities to raise awareness about it. About 98% of the national consumption of wood products derives from sustainable sources. Slovenia has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no application denied, and a few items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to Croatia for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','08/03/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Strategies and Acts that are implementing  the Bonn guidelines: Law on Industrial Property Act, Nature Conservation Act, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Environmental Action Programme, Aarhus Convention. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Slovenia did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','08/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The text of the standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) has been translated in Slovenian lanugage. Detailed instructions / guidelines have been prepared for the implementation of the standard MTA. The implementation of the standard MTA has been presented and discussed with the representatives of institutions keeping ex situ collections of plant genetic resources in public domain. All organisations keeping plant genetic resources in public domain use sMTA for distribution of accessions. Some private organisations keeping plant genetic resources have been informed about the use of sMTA as well.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','17/03/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A8','A8_1_4','','Taking into account the fact that according to Slovenia Forest Service Reports only 1.2 percent of timber in Slovenia is cut illegally without a permit required by the Forest Act, and only 200.000 cubic metres of round wood is imported (mostly from Croatia and BiH), where we assume that 10% might not be legal, we can conclude that 98 percent of timber derives from sustainable sources. The figure is pretty stable from 2006 to 2009.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','05/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 271, 27 and 66, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 19 for 2007 and 22 for 2008 representing a net increase of 3 seizures. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training was provided to the Management and Scientific Authorities, the Staff of enforcement authorities, traders, NGOs and the public. Slovenia has provided training assistance to Croatia. Slovenia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','05/03/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','A9','','','Slovenia will develop and define a national approach to tackle biodiversity adaptation to climate change in relation to the level of appropriateness of the EU level Programme of priority actions.','','','','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_3_2','','Slovenian NREAP has a separate part on biomass and requirements for sustainable production of biomass are addressed in its chapter on Biomass. Impacts of NREAP on biodiversity are being assessed in strategic environmental assessment of NREAP.','','','','23/03/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_4_1','','Slovenia will develop and define a national approach to tackle biodiversity adaptation to climate change in relation to the level of appropriateness of the EU level Programme of priority actions.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'26/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Slovenia','A9','A9_4_3','','There are assessments of habitats and species in the EU most at risk from climate change that probably cover also Slovenia, however there are no specific assessments made on the national level yet.','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','','','No information was provided concerning business biodiversity partnerships.','','DG-Environment desk officers indicated that there is data on business and biodiversity even in the web site of the Fundación Biodiversdidad and in the program Emplea Verde.','','','','','29/03/10',''),
	('Spain','A1','A10_1','','Spain does not currently have a national research programme exclusively dedicated to biodiversity. They had a ‘National Program of Biodiversity, earth science and climate change’ in the 2004-2007 National Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation Plan (R+D+i National Plan).  For 2008 to 2011 a new R+D+i National Plan is being implemented. This new plan does not have a dedicated biodiversity research programme, but biodiversity is included in the Subprogram of fundamental non-oriented research, which is based on instruments more than in thematic areas of research. Therefore data related to budget support to biodiversity should be higher than if there was a specific programme for biodiversity as there is the possibility for actions in other Subprograms. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Ministry of Science and Innovation:: http://www.micinn.es Plan Nacional de I+D+I: http://www.plannacionalidi.es/plan-idi-public/toHome.do ','26/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','A10_1_2','','The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of Spain (EME) is an interdisciplinary project led by the Biodiversity Foundation – Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs. It aims to provide scientifically accepted information to different stakeholders and decision-makers, so that they can be more conscious of the close links between ecosystem conservation and well-being. The project is now under implementation. The evaluation is done at National level within different scales and including case studies.  In the previous investigative period, coordination meetings were undertaken with team leaders from Universities to identify their availability to collaborate in the project. Furthermore, contact was established with international projects working on ecosystem services (e.g. MA, EURECA) to facilitate coordination and understanding of their methodology.','','The CBD considered the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) evaluation at the 9th Conference of Parties (COP) meeting. This led to decision COP IX/15: Follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.','http://www.ecomilenio.es/','03/03/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','A10_1_8','','Spain does not have a national biodiversity platform at the moment, but creation of a Biodiversity Platform is ongoing, following the structure of LIFEWATCH (Pending approval). This process and the future platform are coordinated by the Spanish National research Council (CSIC).  Up to now, 19 countries have expressed their interest in Life Watch. Spain has participated since the preparatory phase, through CSIC, and is a part of the direction core in the Management Committee and the Science and Policy Board as well as leaders of WP4: Legal Organisation.  ','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','04/03/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','A10_1_9','','Spain has been a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since February 2001. Spain’s ‘Participant node’ is GBIF Spain. One of its fundamental tasks is to support collections, centres and projects relating to participation in GBIF. This includes providing technical support, information, training, standards, software and advice; enduring coherence between national initiatives and GBIF information architecture; investigating how to maximise the value of developing data analysis tools; collecting and disseminating information relevant to the collections; and coordinating the activities of the national centres and international initiatives.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. In Spain, participants in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) are members of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC). The Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) is a State Agency in Spain with the objective to promote, coordinate, develop and disseminate scientific and technological research to advance knowledge, economic, social and cultural development. The three Centres/Research Units under the CSIC that participate in ENBI are: Real Jardin Botanico, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, and the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar. Both the Real Jardin Botanico and the Museo Nacional de Ciencias are main contractors of WP2 (ENBI Forums) and also contribute to WP1 (Coordination and continuity). The Instituto de Ceincias del Mar is a member of WP11 (Multilingual access).','','The ENBI network organisation of all institutional participants is organized in the 13 workpackages. For each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','A1_1','','','04/03/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of 28th August 2009, Spain has proposed 1435 Sites of Community Importance, covering a total area of 126,132 km². This represents 22.9 % of the terrestrial area of the country, calculated as the total terrestrial area of the SCIs divided by the total terrestrial area of Spain. There are 95 sites with a marine part. The number of Special Protected Areas is 594. This involves an area of 103,216 km², totalling 20.18 % of the terrestrial area of the country, calculated as total terrestrial area of the SPAs divided by the total terrestrial area of Spain. The total number of SPAs with a marine part is 33.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update) and direct information from Spain: CNTRYES, 28th August 2009Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','04/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Spain is working on the embellishment of new guidelines to the future elaboration of management plans.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','12/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','A1_2_3','','Currently, particular guidelines for implementing and improving the ecological coherence of Natura 2000 network are being developed within the context of the National Guidelines for its management and conservation. ','','',':','04/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','A1_3','','Of the 385 regularly occurring bird species in Spain, 17 are globally Near-threatened and 16 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Spain, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 2 of the 7 (29%) fish and 3 of the 15 (20%) invertebrates was reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 17 (24%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 36 (17%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 12 of the 17 (71%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 7 (57%) fish, 11 of the 15 (73%) invertebrates, 22 of the 36 (61%) mammals and 17 of the 22 (77%) of plants was reported to be unknown. In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of all amphibians and reptiles, fish, mammals and plants was reported to be unknown .In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 36 (3%) mammals and 1 of the 38 (3%) plants was reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate and favourable condition, respectively. 1 of the 10 (10%) of fish were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 21 of the 22 (95%) amphibians and reptiles, 9 of the 10 (90%) fish, 22 of the 23 (96%) invertebrates, 34 of the 36 (94%) mammals and 37 of the 38 (97%) plants were reported to be unknown.In the Macaronesian biogeographical region, 9 of the 12 (75%) amphibians and reptiles, and 6 of the 8 (75%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 2 of the 12 (17%) amphibians and reptiles, 2 of the 8 (25%) of mammals and 23 of the 52 (44%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 18 of the 52 (35%) of plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 1 of the 12 (8%) amphibians and reptiles and 5 of the 52 (10%) plants were reported to be unknown, respectively. Of the species in the Macaronesian/ Marine Atlantic biogeographical regions, 1 of the 3 (33%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 26 (23%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 3 (67%) of amphibians and reptiles, 18 of the 26 (69%) mammals and 1 of 1 (100%) invertebrates was reported to be unknown. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, the conservation status of all amphibians and reptiles, fish, mammals and invertebrates was reported to be unknown.Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 2 of the 36 (6%) amphibians and reptiles and 1 of the 21 (5%) fish are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 21 (33%) fish was reported to be unfavourable-bad. The conservation status of 31 of the 36 (86%) amphibians and reptiles, 11 of the 21 (52%) fish, 26 of the 33 (78%) invertebrates, 36 of the 45 (80%) mammals and 112 of the 130 (86%) plants was reported to be unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. Note:  There is a slight difference with the data provided regarding the total number of mammals in the Mediterranean Region. This is because Spanish criteria includes Eliomys melanurus (= E. munbyanus, E. quercinus subsp. melanurus), which is distributed in Ceuta. This species is included in Annex IV.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','04/03/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','The number of species action plans is as follows (all plans are completed): birds 30, mammals 10, amphibians and reptiles 6, fish 5, invertebrates 2, plants 43. There are currently no species action plans in preparation. Spain has developed indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes. Red Data Lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/inventarios/inb/index.htm','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','B1_1_1','','Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Spain spent up to EUR18,377,375 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Spain spent up to EUR787,357 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','As to national biodiversity funding programmes, little information was found in the 3rd and 4th national reports to the CBD hence no information is included here.The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Spain’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States. On the basis of the methodology followed up by the Article 8 Expert Group (EC, 2002), total public direct expenditure needed for the Natura 2000 network was estimated. In sum, global management of the terrestrial Natura 2000 Network would rise to 1,556,934,607 € in 2007 (113.52 € in 2007 / hectare), while real allocation only sums up to 967,763,764 € in 2007 (70.56 € in2007 / hectare). Additionally, 68,168,994 € in 2007 should be allocated for the marine Natura 2000 network (14.86 € in2007 / hectare), although it is still underdesignated. ','Reference or title: LIFE project database; Moreno, V., Picazo, I., Cuellar, R., García, M.C. y Cabrerizo, M. 2007. Valoración de los costes directos de gestión de la Red Natura 2000 en España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid. Documento inédito.Fernández, M., Moreno, V., Picazo, I., Torres, A. y Martínez, B. 2008. Valoración de los costes indirectos de gestión de la Red Natura 2000 en España. Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. Madrid. Documento inédito.-Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','08/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','B1_1_4','','Spain’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR681.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR68.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR63.5m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','B1_1_8','','The national funding allocation for biodiversity research was EUR41,025,700 for 2006, EUR34,711,500 for 2007, EUR30,933,900 for 2008 and EUR35,014,200 for 2009. See for additional clarification below.','','Funding from R+D+i National Plan as explained in the Measure of Progress A.10.1. This does not include national funding allocated for biodiversity under the Seven Framework Programme since data are not easy to access for specific programmes exclusively dedicated to biodiversity.','','29/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','B2_4','','Span is currently developing a Strategic National Plan of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. It is anticipated that it will be approved in 2010. ','','','','01/03/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','B3_1_2','','No information was provided concerning farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','29/03/10','','','30/03/10',''),
	('Spain','A1','B3_1_5','','Sectoral policies are the competence of the General State Administration, the Ministry of EnvironmentEnvironment and the Ministries which are jointly concerned with the development of Sectoral Plans in consultation with the Autonomous Communities and stakeholders. As part of its future priorities Spain is the integration of different aspects of biodiversity in development policies of the major policy challenge biodiversity in Spain. Although significant progress has been made at the policy level and planning, the extent to which existing measures are producing real benefits for biodiversity need to be assessed. Spain does not appear to currently have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnerships at the local, regional and national levels.    ','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for SpainWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','','','','11/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','B3_1_6','','No information was provided concerning business biodiversity partnerships.','','DG-Environment desk officers indicated that there is data on business and biodiversity even in the web site of the Fundación Biodiversdidad and in the program Emplea Verde.','','','','','29/03/10',''),
	('Spain','A1','B3_1_7','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Spain','A1','B3_1_8','','No information was provided concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines. ','','','','','','','29/03/10',''),
	('Spain','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','B4_1_1','','A National Communication campaign related to Biodiversity has been implemented by The Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs, since January 2010, has been broadcast in the press, media, radio and television. The concept of this campaign is to show how biodiversity contributes to the harmony of life. 1.500.000 € has been awarded to support this initiative which should continue with other funding when this ends. ','','','http://www.marm.es/','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Spain','A1','B4_1_2','','The Spanish Ministry of Environment made a declaration in support of the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative on the 10th January 2005.The Fundacion Biodiversidad, established by the Spanish Ministry of Environment, contributes to halt the loss of biodiversity through different activities. It publishes an annual publication with several calls for proposals to help NGOs developing environmental projects. It commits itself to promoting Countdown 2010 and raising public awareness through its newsletter, encouraging its partners to join as well, informing Countdown 2010 campaign of their activities, and being involved where possible, in Countdown 2010 activities such as: Steering Group meetings, contributing expertise to thematic working groups or collaborating with others nationally. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Spain between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','28/03/10','','','11/12/2009','29/03/10'),
	('Spain','A1','C1_2','','Spain has developed biodiversity indicators, within a wider system of environmental indicators. Many of these indicators correspond to the SEBI indicators. Spain has included in its national conservation law (Ley 42/2007, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad) the obligation to develop a National Indicators System. This system will be based on existing international indicator systems, such as SEBI 2010, and an annual national report on biodiversity will be produced using this information.','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009, does not contain information from Spain on national indicators. The information presented above is taken from the 4th national report to the CBD augmented by information from Spain. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','C1_2_1','','Spain has developed biodiversity indicators, within a wider system of environmental indicators. Many of these indicators correspond to the SEBI indicators. Spain has included in its national conservation law (Ley 42/2007, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad) the obligation to develop a National Indicators System. This system will be based on existing international indicator systems, such as SEBI 2010, and an annual national report on biodiversity will be produced using this information.','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009, does not contain information from Spain on national indicators. The information presented above is taken from the 4th national report to the CBD augmented by information from Spain. ','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/   ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A1','C1_3_1','','Spain is carrying out a national monitoring scheme for biodiversity, including all major vertebrate groups, as well as vascular plants and terrestrial invertebrates. It is expected to start monitoring for marine biodiversity and habitat types in the future.','','','','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Implementation of the cross-compliance regulation is coordinated by FEGA (Spanish Agricultural Guarantee Fund), which has monthly coordination meeting with the Autonomous Regions regarding the evaluation, monitoring and enforcement of measures.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.fega.es/PwfGcp/es/accesos_directos/condicionalidad/index.jsp ','05/03/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Spain total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 7508.65 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 14266.3 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 2923.65 million EUR, and 5275.35 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 40.02 and 37.09 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Spain was 1146.23 million EUR (2079.92 with co-financing) and amounted to 15.27 per cent of the EAFRD (14.58 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 10.14 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.14 per cent of EAFRD) and 14.29 million EUR of public expenditure (0.1 per cent of public expenditure). Forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 50.52 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.67 per cent of EAFRD) and 82.77 million EUR of public expenditure (0.58 per cent of public expenditure). There are no payments in Spain for Axis 2 measure 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)1.66422.44001Agri-environment payments (214)188.70508372.2844Forest environment payments (225)2.736916.84227','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','Since 1993 there has been a National Programme on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetics, and there is the Spanish Law 30/2006 on seeds, nursery plants, and plant genetic resources (Title IV). There is also a strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of Spanish forest genetic resources. Furthermore, in compliance with the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) a Spanish Strategy of Plant Conservation is being drafted, which will go further than current measures for forest and agricultural  genetic resources, both for commercial and traditional varieties, and for genetic conservation in wild nature.The Plant Genetic Resources Centre (INIA-CRF) is responsible for the National Plant Resources Inventory.There is also a Royal Decree 2129/2008, of 26 December, establishing a national programme for the conservation, improvement and promotion of livestock breeds. A development plan has also been produced to implement the programme.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://wwwx.inia.es/webcrf/CRFesp/Paginaprincipal.asp http://www.mapa.es/app/Zootecnia/Pdf/pags/Real%20Decreto%20Ingl%C3%A9s.pdf http://www.mapa.es/app/Zootecnia/Pdf/pags/Plan%20Nacional%20Ingl%C3%A9s%20con%20portada.pdf http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/montes_politica_forestal/recursos_geneticos_forestal/pdf/ecrgf_11mayo_imprenta.pdf http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/montes_politica_forestal/recursos_geneticos_forestal/ ','08/03/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Spain approved 234 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.352 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.705 million of total expenditure, representing respectively 0.187 and 0.189 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_12','','','','','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys or additional tools are not applied. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 50 ha for afforestation and 20 ha for deforestation. EIA and SEA are fully implemented following the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2008 on EIA and the Law 9/2006 of Plans and Programs Evaluation affecting environment. Special conditions apply when Natura 2000 or RAMSAR wetlands are affected. Here no limit for application in hectares exists if there is a negative ecological transformation. According to Spain, currently the development of methodological guidelines on afforestation is in progress. More specifically a Technical Protocol following the ruling of the Royal Decree 289/03 in Reforestation is being elaborated. In addition, a work group as part of the National Committee for Improvement and Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources has been created. Regarding non-invasive tree species the legislation in force is implemented at regional level, with each autonomous region having its own procedures. Furthermore, Forest Plans and Environmental Authorisations are needed for any project affecting these forest areas.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','03/03/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Spain had a total certified forest area of 1.25 million hectares out of a total forest area of 17.92 million hectares. 127,356 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 1.12 million hectares were certified. In total, 6.96 per cent of the forest area in Spain was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self http://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Spain amounted to 18.99 million ha, representing a share of 55.8 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Implementation of the cross-compliance regulation is coordinated by FEGA (Spanish Agricultural Guarantee Fund), which has monthly coordination meeting with the Autonomous Regions regarding the evaluation, monitoring and enforcement of measures.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.fega.es/PwfGcp/es/accesos_directos/condicionalidad/index.jsp ','05/03/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. However, these are devised by each Autonomous Region and no further information is given on the training and advisory services provided. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds (national level).•	Tree species composition (regional and national level).Schemes are also being set up to monitor HNV farming and forestry areas.In compliance with the Article 11 of the National Law 42/2007 (Natural Heritage and Biodiversity) the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs together with the Autonomous Regions will prepare a report on the status of biodiversity. This will use data provided by the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity National Inventory, the National Forest Inventory (dating back to 1966 and currently being updated with new data on biodiversity) and from the Indicator System. Farm land birds Indicators are being developed by SEO. In the future they will be available at the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs Web Page. Since 1998 there is a continuous monitoring of common bird population tendencies. Through a standard methodology of census, idemographic data of more than hundred breeding birds is obtained in almost all the territory of Spain. This standard methodology is used in almost all the European countries and some others around the world. It is derived from the proposal made by BirdLife International and the EBCC (European Bird Census Council), and directly applied by BirdLife International partner in Spain: SEO/BirdLife.The following graphic refers to the national Farmland Birds Index developed by Spain. It shows that by 2008 the indicator had decreased to -1.4 per cent above the 1998 baseline. ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.seo.org http://www.seo.org/programa_seccion_ficha.cfm?idPrograma=3&idArticulo=2952 http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/inventarios/ifn/ http://www.seo.org/media/docs/graf_grupos98_08.pd ','03/03/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 574 million € has been added to the Spanish national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Spain attributed € 243 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 42 per cent of total national additional programmed funding. Furthermore, € 25.1 million were additionally allocated to biodiversity in the framework of the regional RDP for Extremadura defined as a priority area.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.The table below provides an overview of resources generated for Spain’s ‘outermost region’: Total million €Biodiversity million €PercentageCanaries1.600    ','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','',''),
	('Spain','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by Spain, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','03/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Spain','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic (10 occurrences), Macaronesian (one occurrence) and Mediterranean (13 occurrences) fresh water habitats in Spain have an unknown conservation status. Furthermore, 67 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats have an unknown conservation status; the remaining 33 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage30202807%0%93%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10001000%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6204033%0%67%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13001300%0%100%0%U10  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Spain oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.35 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.73 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were still higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.81 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.92 mg N/l in 2005. Values are clearly higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 31.1 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 39.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 45 mg NO3/l in 2004. No information on concentrations of nitrate in rivers and phosphorus concentrations according to EEA data was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2008 Spain had a total number of 68 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 36.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Spain the development of biological assessment methods shows a complete range from developed to undeveloped for all water bodies, due to differences in various districts.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 1116 in Spain.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting process 2006-2008, Spain had a total number of 5061IPPC installations and issued 3694permits. O permits were still outstanding.',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/es/eu/ippc/envsvk69a/Template_question_2_1_final_Spain_updated.xls/manage_document ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Spain by far exceeded its 2010 NEC Directive emission ceilings for nitrogen oxides, although it shows a slight decrease compared to previous years. Ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) emissions were slightly above, sulphur oxides emissions since 2008 below target levels. Projections suggest that emissions of sulphur oxides will further fall below ceiling levels. Ammonia emissions will only exceed targets by a small amount and also NMVOCs levels will exceed targets at a moderate level. However nitrogen oxide emissions are will be well above their ceiling level. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Spain the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 3 and 95 per cent respectively, considering an area of 187,115 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will also be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 93 per cent in 2010 and 90 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 48 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Spain’s gross nitrogen balance was 33 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 5 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1996 and 2001, Spain’s national farmland bird indicator showed an increase of 27.7 per cent from the 1996 baseline. By 2006 the indicator had decreased to 7.2 per cent above the 1996 baseline. 25 species were assessed. Data not available for the years 1990 to 1995.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.Information on the national Farmland Birds Index developed by Spain can be found under A2.1.8.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html http://www.seo.org/media/docs/graf_grupos98_08.pdf ','05/03/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic (10 occurrences) and Mediterranean (11 occurrences) grassland habitats in Spain have an unknown conservation status. The entire Macaronesian grassland habitat (one occurrence) has an unfavourable conservation status as well as 18 per cent of the alpine grassland habitat. The status of the remaining 82 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats is unknown. All 13 occurrences of Atlantic forest habitat in Spain have an unknown conservation status. All 6 occurrences of Macaronesian forest habitat have an unfavourable conservation status. 33 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining 67 per cent have an unknown status. Of the heath and scrub habitats in Spain, all occurrences of Atlantic heath and scrub (six) and Mediterranean heath and scrub (four) have an unknown conservation status. All occurrences of Macaronesian heath and scrub have an unfavourable conservation status, as does 75 per cent of the alpine heath and scrub. The remaining 25 per cent of the alpine heath and scrub habitats have an unknown status. The conservation status of the vast majority of peat land habitats in Spain is unknown (100 per cent of Macaronesian, alpine and Mediterranean peat land habitats). Furthermore, 86 per cent of the Atlantic peat land habitats have an unknown status; the remaining 14 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage33303009%0%91%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10001000%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U10   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11209018%0%82%0%U11  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11001100%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5311042021%0%79%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13001300%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U11   U25       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12408033%0%67%0%U14  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22102105%0%95%0%U11  U20       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage165011031%0%69%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage600600%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4301075%0%25%0%U13  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage400400%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage19101805%0%95%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7106014%0%86%0%U11  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage500500%0%100%0%U10  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage600600%0%100%0%U10  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Spain','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Spain found that in the Marine Atlantic region, five out of five marine habitats were ‘Unknown’(100%), in the Marine Atlantic/Macaronesian region (Canary Islands for Spain) two out of two habitats were unknown (100%),  and in the Marine Mediterranean region five of five habitats were ‘Unknown’ (100%).  There are nine coastal habitats in the Atlantic biogeographic region—and all nine had an ‘Unknown’ status (100%). In the Macaronesian (Canary Islands) biogeographic region, four coastal habitats were assessed—one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (25%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%). A total of 18 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, including reptiles & amphibians, fish, mammals and plants, and all had an ‘Unknown’ status (100%). All 25 of the marine species assessed in the Marine Mediterranean, including reptiles & amphibians, fish, invertebrates and mammals, also had an ‘Unknown status’ (100%). In the Marine Macaronesian/Atlantic (Canary Islands) region a total of 30 marine species were assessed, including amphibians & reptiles, invertebrates and mammals. Of these, two had a ‘Favourable’ status (7%), seven had an ‘Inadequate’ status (23%) and the remaining 21 had an ‘Unknown’ status (70%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%00%00%5100%00%5Marine Atlantic/MacaronesianMarine habitats00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats00%00%00%5100%00%5AtlanticCoastal habitats00%00%00%9100%00%9MacaronesianCoastal habitats00%125%250%125%00%4MediterraneanCoastal habitats00%00%00%13100%00%13Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%5100%00%5Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%3100%00%3Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals00%00%00%8100%00%8Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine AtlanticTOTAL00%00%00%18100%00%18Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%3100%00%3Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%3100%00%3Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%6100%00%6Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%00%13100%00%13Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%00%00%25100%00%25MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%133%00%267%00%3MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticMammals28%623%00%1869%00%26MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticTOTAL27%723%00%2170%00%30The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','25/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_1_4','','Spain reported that, in 2009, it had 1148 surveillance stations and 395 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Spain has 351 coastal water bodies. Approximately 55% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has some assessment methods developed for 8 out of 19 river basin districts for monitoring coastal waters for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and macroalgae and angiosperm. Programmes of  measures in coastal and transitional waters are part of the river basin management plans, to be approved shortly.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','25/02/2010','','','13/01/10','26/04/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_1_5','','An ICZM plan/strategy is being developed in Spain. The Member State indicated that there was an ICZM plan/strategy under preparation, but as no further information was provided on its content, its contribution to halting biodiversity loss cannot be assessed.','','','','20/02/2010','','','24/04/10',''),
	('Spain','A3','A3_2','','Spain currently has 1,988 coastal bathing waters. A high proportion of these have achieved mandatory standards for water quality in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (98.9%; 99.1% and 99.4%). A high proportion has also achieved the stricter guidelines standards although this has dropped slightly in recent years: 92.7% in 2006; 88.7% in 2007 and 83.4% in 2008. Four coastal bathing areas had to be closed in 2008 and one in 2007.There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as although Spain has reported such data, they have not reported it for this full 5-year time series to the EEA.  ','','The data required for this MOP was a time series, and Spain did not report during the years that were used by the EEA. Thus, no analysis of nutrients under this MOP was possible.','','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_4','','Spain’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €778,357,591 and includes measures such as reducing negative impacts of fishing and improving energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€633,009,953) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€595,999,163) promotes the development of aquatic flora and fauna through the creation of artificial reefs and marine reserves. Axis 4 does not include any specific environmentally friendly measures. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_100_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Spain had 13,357 vessels and 15% were involved in a serious infringement (2,061 vessels). A total of 2061 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,995 and maximum fine of €120,000.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_5_2','','There are no National Management Plans for Salmon, Trout, Sturgeon or Eel. However the autonomous regions have developed some plans specifically for these species and these activities include restoration of habitats and removal of migratory barriers. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Spain','A3','A3_5_3','','Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets in the EU. Its fishing capacity has reduced consistently between 1999 and 2008. The number of vessels has reduced from 17,322 to 11,402 (34% reduction), tonnage from 531,606 to 458,520 (14% reduction) and power from 1,382,805 to 1,023,366kW (26% reduction). According to the annual report from the Commission in 2007, the Spanish fleet has reduced fishing effort for deep-sea species and for southern hake and nephrops (shrimps). In the 2007-2013 operational programme there is an objective to achieve further capacity reductions of 39,335 tons and 126,276.5 kW by 2010.The operational programme provides around 20% of the funding required to achieve this.','','2008 data: 11402 vessels: 458520 tons; 1023366 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Spain had 13,357 active vessels. There were 632 type D breaches in this year, and 632 penalties imposed with an average fine of €2,442. Spain has undertaken some specific actions to reduce by-catch including: Technical studies and an awareness campaign have been undertaken to reduce by-catch of turtles from long-lines. Technical assistance has also been commissioned to reduce the by-catch of seabirds in the Mediterranean during the use of deep long-lines.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_6_2','','A recent study on seabird monitoring has been implemented by SEO/Birdlife Spain and in the future this information will be incorporated into Management Plans of marine protected areas. Further information on seabird monitoring was not provided by Spain. There is no specific monitoring programme for sharks in Spain. ','','','','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Spain','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Spain','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Spain has 105 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below).  However, as there are different ways of defining marine sites according to national sources there are 95 marine Sites of Community Importance, of which 27 are implicit Special Protected Area. There has been collaboration between the Deputy General Direction of Coastal Resources and Aquaculture, and the Autonomous Region of Valencia to increase the number of marine SPA areas. There is an offshore marine Natura2000 site 25km from the Spanish coast in the Cantabrian Sea known as ‘El Cachucho’ where fisheries measures have been undertaken. Protection measures were adopted in December 2008, requiring an amendment to the TAC & Quota Regulation ((EC) 43/2009). The Macronesian Bioregion will be the first area within territorial waters where fisheries management areas will be implemented. Data collection is currently ongoing with the collaboration of stakeholders and approval is foreseen in the second semester of 2010 (following the obligation described in the Ministerial Order MARM/3521/2009 of 29th December 2009). Other activities related to marine Natura 2000 sites include: - Continued and intense collaboration between the fisheries department and ten Marine Protected Areas with fishery interests (all SCIs); - Continued data contribution from the ten marine protected areas on biodiversity information, coverage, and species frequencies such as dendropoma, pinna, cymodocea, cladocora,  patella, scyllarus etc;- Collaboration with the Coasts General Direction on drawing up inventories and lists of endangered species;- Updating of all the information related to marine Natura Network and, improving the implementation of the Marine Natura 2000.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 139Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A3','A3_7_1','','Spain has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.  They will calculate the Appendix XIII indicators from data collected in surveys in 2009 and 2010. Indicator 8 on the percentage of discards of commercially exploited species will be calculated from data collected by observes conducting discards sampling of  the different fisheries. Indicator 9 on the energy efficiency of fish catches will be made by dividing the income by fuel cost for each fishery to provide comparison of the energy efficiencies for both capturing different species and by different vessel types within a species. ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Programa de recopilacion y gestion de dataos de España Año 2009-2010, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94849 ; Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for the EEZ waters of Spain, not including the Canary Islands, was 3.42 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.03 since 1999, but an overall increase of 0.09 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','This data is for Spain EEZ, not including Canary Islands.From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','25/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Spain','A4','A4_3','','In Spain, the ecological coherence within the spatial planning is included in the National Law 9/2006 of Plans and Programs Effects Evaluation on the Environment.','','Though the Member State indicated that ecological network is enacted by law, as no further information was provided on its content, its contribution to halting biodiversity loss can not be assessed','http://www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-7677','01/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A4','A4_4_1','','Nature tourism sector in Spain is growing year after year based on a quality and sustainable criteria. Sectorial Strategies have been approved to guarantee the performance of sustainable objectives of this activity following the CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism. The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism gathers directly the CBD Guidelines. The Spanish adhesion has been promoted by EUROPARC Spain and has been adopted in almost all the Nature Protected areas of the country.The Strategic National Plan of Nature heritage and biodiversity  which is now in elaboration will include the future strategy for Nature Tourism.Moreover, there is a preliminary draft of election law on sustainable economy which will take into account the sustainable tourism. In November 2007 it was approved the Spanish Tourism Plan 2020, its objective aims to develop a future tourism sector competitive and based on environmental, social and economy sustainability. Moreover, there is a plan to create an Observatory on Sustainable Tourism.  At the moment, The Spanish Strategy on Sustainable Development (2007) describes some objectives and activities to reassess the tourism with sustainable character','','','http://www.redeuroparc.org/carta_europea_turismo_sostenible.jsphttp://www.economiasostenible.gob.es/http://www.la-moncloa.es/NR/rdonlyres/B73920C0-8F78-4EFE-83D8-A570345ADBA4/0/EEDS.pdfhttp://www.turismo2020.es/','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A4','A4_5_1','','Spain has National and Regional Legislation on Nature Protection and EIA/SEA. The National Law 42/2007 of Nature Heritage and Biodiversity is in force in all National Territory; and the Law Decree 1/2000, 8th May approved the rewritten text of Spatial Planning Laws of Canaries ad the Nature protected areas of Canaries.','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Spanish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 813.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','Spain explained that the total amount directly spent under \'Biodiversity\' categories under the Cohesion and Structural Funds could be higher, as there are funds from the European Social Fund (ESF) that are going directly to the improvement and adaptation of workers, enterprises, employers and technical assistances to a new culture that introduces environmental aspects into creation and management of green companies. For example, the Biodiversity Foundation (as part of the Ministry of Environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs) has started the \"Empleaverde\" Programme. (Source: http://www.fundacion-biodiversidad.es/es/inicio/emplea-verde/intro)','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS, provided by DG Regio.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','19/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Spain has both general and specific legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS).Article 61 of the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Act (Law no. 42/2007) provides for the creation of a National catalogue of IAS. IAS are added to the catalogue based on scientific or technical information. Under the Act, it is prohibited to possess, transport, trade in, import or export any species (or specimen/part/propagule thereof) listed in the catalogue, alive or dead. Article 74.2.i of the Act establishes a National Biodiversity and National Heritage Fund which includes the control and eradication of IAS. Article 62.3.e of the Act prohibits the introduction of alien species for hunting or fishing. This is also covered by earlier legislation (Law 1/1970 of 4 April; Royal Decree 1095/1989; and Royal Decree 1118/1989 of 15 September). Further to the general legislation in relation to IAS outlined above, specific legislation in Spain also addresses the issues of import, export, introduction and eradication of IAS. Under Article 333 of the Penal Code, the unlawful introduction of an IAS is punishable and may involve a prison sentence. If an IAS listed in the National catalogue of IAS is introduced this is considered to be a ‘severe’ or ‘very severe’ (depending on the damage it causes) infraction. The Royal Decree 1803/1999 of 26 November (corrected in BOE No. 13 of 15 January 2000) regulates for the management of National parks. Prohibition of the introduction of non-native taxa and the encouragement of eradication of established alien populations is found in chapter 3.2 (c). Law 31/2003 of 27 October on the conservation of wild fauna in zoological parks requires zoos to avoid the escape of IAS (Art. 3d) and imposes fines for the illegal, negligent and intentional releases of IAS (Art. 14). The Autonomous Communities of Spain have developed their own legislative tools based on the national legal framework addressing IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 38 are present in Spain. This equates to <0.10 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A5','A5_1_2','','In 2006, a national action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) was developed. The action plan provided a diagnosis of IAS in Spain in order to form a basis for developing a national strategy. It is unclear whether IAS are comprehensively dealt with as part of a national or sub national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.According to the Member State, a catalogue for IAS was created through Law 42 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (Article 61). It is in process of publication. Responsibilities lay at the national level, whereby the Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs is responsible of administrative issues. Specific Action Plans are a competence of the Regional Administrations. The Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs is also responsible for the National Control Programmes (i.e. Oxyura jamaicensis, Mustela vison).  It has also published a National Strategy for the control of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) elaborated by the Working Group on zebra mussel. This was approved by the National Commission for Nature Protection on 10th of May 2007, and by the Environment Sectorial Conference on 6th September 2007.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link1. Law 42/2006, of  28th December 2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/12/29/pdfs/A46226-46444.pdf2. Title:  Invasive Alien Species: Diagnosis and bases for management and treatment. Authors: Capdevilla L.; Iglesias A., Orueta J.F. and Zilleti B. Publishing: National Parks Autonomous Organism. Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs. ISBN-10:84-8014-667-2. 20063. Title: Invasive vertebrates. Authors: Orueta J.F. Publishing: National Parks Autonomous Organism. Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs. ISBN: 978-84-8014-697-5. 2007','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A5','A5_1_3','','Spain has ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Spain is in progress of developing an inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS, as well as in developing an early warning and information system for IAS.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire Weblink: ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, no legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming has been adopted.According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative in 2010, four regions (Asturias, Basque Country, Balearic Islands and Canary Islands) have declared themselves GMO-free.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in April 2009. The “Spanish Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity” (no year of publication given) was posted on the CBD website in 2001.Spain had paid her contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid spending for Spain for 2006 and 2007. However, Spain has provided the following information: Spain spent EUR1,878,069m in 2006, EUR3,246,490m in 2007, and EUR6,529,338m in 2008 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid. These figures have been provided by the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, and the Autonomous Organization of National Parks (OAPN).','',' The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the figures from the OECD markers, Spain spent EUR40.5m in 2006 and EUR52.8m in 2007 on bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.02% of the total annual bilateral aid budget in both years. However, Spain points out that these figures are not accurate.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A7','A7_1_4','','Spain contributed EUR19.49 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.80% of the total replenishment. Spain contributed EUR21.67 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.01 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A7','A7_2_2','','The new Master Plan for the Spanish Cooperation (2009-2012) incorporates these two concepts and foresees the application of EIA in larger projects. Nonetheless, SEA and EIA are not compulsory at this moment. ','','','http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/CooperacionInternacional/Publicacionesydocumentacion/Paginas/publlicaciones_cooperacion.aspx','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A8','A8_1','','Spain has provided substantial funding annually for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. National legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists and awareness of the issue exists, as well as on the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. Although all the wood products derived from National Forest are considered derived from sustainable sources, no overall data is available on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources. Many import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens were issued in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed; there is no information on support to developing countries provided for implementing CITES. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Spain has national legislation on implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. Additionally, national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing been implemented. Awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing is being implemented by The International University of Andalucía through the Master programme: Master Degree in Management, Access and Conservation of Species in Trade: The International Framework. Furthermore, Spanish Law 30/2006 on seeds, nursery plants, and plant genetic resources deals with access to plant genetic resources for food and Agriculture (not covered by The FAO International Treaty) in a manner which is in line with the CBD Bonn Guidelines.','','','','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','Spain provided the following amounts to the ABS Working Group: -2006-ABS 4: 255.842 $ (Conference servicing costs = 166.481$; Developing Country Participants costs = 89.362 $).- 2007-ABS 5: 44.430 $ (Developing Country Participants costs = 1.109 $; Indigenous and Local Communities Participants costs = 43.321$).- 2008- ABS 6: 93.506 $ (Developing Country Participants costs = 45.396 $; Indigenous and Local Communities Participants costs = 48.110 $).- 2009-ABS 7: 949.962 $ (Conference Servicing costs = 328.204 $; Developing Country Participants costs = 500.720 $; Indigenous and Local Communities Participants costs = 121.038 $).               ','','The exchange rate used is the one for 30 June of each year.','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The SMTA of the International Treaty does not need to be implemented through national legislation. A number of awareness raising and implementation meetings have been undertaken and are scheduled for this year by INIA (National Institute of Agriculture Research and Food Technology) through the National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which covers 33 public gene-banks, with the participation of MARM (Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs.','','','','26/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A8','A8_1_4','','All the wood products derived from National Forest are considered derived from sustainable sources, as the management is clearly positive and no decline in the production or soil impoverishment, among others, has been observed. However, few of them are certified (Source: FSC and PEFC); the wood source (80% plantations) will continue being plantation and producing the same quantity of wood afterwards.For international consumption no data are available.','','','','12/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 6921, 1211 and 4476, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications denied in 2007 and 2008 was 196, 4 and 2, respectively. The combined number of seizures in 2007 and 2008 was 724. As to capacity-building at the national level, it was provided through oral and written advice/guidance and training to the Management Authority. Training was provided to the enforcement authorities. Spain supplied the management programme to issue CITES documents used in Spain to the CITES Management Authority of Portugal. Spain paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','09/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','A9','','','On July 2006 the Spanish Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affaire adopted the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan. This plan provides the current framework for carrying out assessment actions to evaluate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Spain. The Plan’s objective is to mainstream adaptation to climate change in the planning processes of all the relevant sectors or systems. To achieve this, it is important that the development of the Plan becomes a major collective project with the participation of all institutions and key players.Many ecological, economic and social sectors and systems in Spain are vulnerable to climate change. The National Adaptation Plan has defined an initial set of 15 sectors and systems to start the assessment of their vulnerability and their possibilities of adaptation, in which biodiversity is included.The Plan is being implemented trough work programmes in which the activities and projects to be carried out are determined, as well as the schedule to develop them.The First Work Program, approved in 2006, targets the development of regional climate scenarios and the impacts of climate change on water resources, biodiversity and coastal areas.','','Data source: http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A9','A9_3_2','','Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC has not been implemented yet in Spain. Its Implementation is in progres and will address those requirements.','','','','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','A9','A9_4_1','','On July 2006 the Spanish Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affaire adopted the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan. This plan provides the current framework for carrying out assessment actions to evaluate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Spain. The Plan’s objective is to mainstream adaptation to climate change in the planning processes of all the relevant sectors or systems. To achieve this, it is important that the development of the Plan becomes a major collective project with the participation of all institutions and key players.Many ecological, economic and social sectors and systems in Spain are vulnerable to climate change. The National Adaptation Plan has defined an initial set of 15 sectors and systems to start the assessment of their vulnerability and their possibilities of adaptation, in which biodiversity is included.The Plan is being implemented trough work programmes in which the activities and projects to be carried out are determined, as well as the schedule to develop them.The First Work Program, approved in 2006, targets the development of regional climate scenarios and the impacts of climate change on water resources, biodiversity and coastal areas.',NULL,'Data source: http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','25/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Spain','A9','A9_4_3','','The National Climate Change Adaptation Plan includes activities to assess the impact of climate change on biodiversity., as it has been said above.Regarding biodiversity, two projects have been carried out until now: -Identification of the most climate change vulnerable Spanish flora and fauna Habitats and species in order to estimate their capacity to adapt to climate change along S XXI. This project is been developed in coordination between the Spanish Climate Change Office and the General Directorate of Nature and Forestry Policies, by two agreements, one  with the University of Extremadura and the other one with the National Natural Science Museum.The results coming out from this project are going to be published during this year 2010 under the title “Atlas of Climate Change Impacts over the Spanish Flora and Fauna”. They will provide important elements to integrate adaptation to climate change into planning and biodiversity management.-“Establishment of a Global Change Impact Monitoring Network inside the Spanish National Parks” with the involvement of four different organizations: Spanish Climate Change Office, Biodiversity Foundation, National Park Agency and National Meteorological Agency. This projects is been developed inside three National Parks; Sierra Nevada, Picos de Europa, and archipiélago de la Cabrera but is foresee to increase its scope to other Parks. ','','','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htmhttp://reddeparquesnacionales.mma.es/en/parques/rcg/index.htm','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals. Far-reaching changes in society are also needed, where environmental improvement programmes in farming, forestry and industry have a vital part to play. The forestry, farming and business sectors are represented in the Environmental Objectives Council, by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and The Federation of Swedish Farmers (agriculture and forestry).\"The Rural Network\" reinforces the implementation of the Swedish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and also reinforces the link between rural policy, regional growth policy and environmental policy. LEADER constitutes a part of the Rural Network. The Swedish government has also supported local nature conservation initiatives (called “LONA”). Within this initiative, government grants have enabled Sweden’s municipalities, individuals, companies and associations to work on nature conservation in local projects. Between 2004 and 2006, almost EUR 28 million (used to finance up to 50% each project) was granted to 1513 projects. The total budget for these projects was almost EUR 70 million. LONA resumed in 2010, and the Swedish EPA has recently distributed almost 5 million euros for new projects.   ','','','Weblinks:The Environmental Objectives Portal, www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: www.svensktnaringsliv.se/english/The Federation of Swedish Farmers: www.lrf.se/In-English/The Swedish Rural Network, www.landsbygdsnatverket.se/inenglishLONA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-8255-8.pdf','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','A10_1','','Currently, Sweden does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. However, 84 large and small projects contained within the Environmental Research Grant (Miljöforskningsanslaget) and the Wildlife Management Fund (Viltvårdsfonden) subscribe to one or several biodiversity objectives. There is a programme funded by the Swedish Environment Protection Agency aimed at Adaptive Management of Fish and Wildlife Populations that will develop sustainable models for fish and wildlife management compatible with Sweden’s environmental objectives and with the public interest in fishing and hunting. Three other large biodiversity research programmes were completed in 2006 or 2007. ','','',' Swedish EPA Website: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/Research/','10/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','A10_1_2','','Sweden does not currently have a national plan for follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), but it is possible that this will be a part of ERA-net BIODIVERSA. The MA has influenced, for example, work with the Sweden\'s Environmental Quality Objectives, but not all findings of the MA are transposable to national conditions. Valuation and accounting methods are increasingly important in different types of assessments of ecosystem services, e.g. in proposals for environmental measures or exploitation projects. The in-depth evaluation of the Environmental Quality Objectives included a comprehensive economic and qualitative assessment of the cost and benefit of environmental measures. The assessment is presented in the Environmental Objectives Council’s report \"Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose\". The government and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also recently instigated a major study on marine economic information to describe current knowledge on the economic consequences of human impact on the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak, which answered what it will cost if no further action is taken, as compared with the implementation of remedial measures. The synthesis report “What’s in the sea for me?” of February 2009 gives an introduction to the findings, and there are several in-depth reports in English, see http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/GlobalMenu/Press-information/Press-Releases/Whats-in-the-sea-for-me/.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No time to lose: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-1266-3.pdf   What’s in the Sea for Me?: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/GlobalMenu/Press-information/Press-Releases/Whats-in-the-sea-for-me/ ','10/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','A10_1_6','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','A10_1_8','','The Swedish Scientific Council on Biological Diversity was established by the Government in order to is to foster contacts between scientists and policy-makers, e.g. by developing scientific documentation on biological diversity as a basis for decision-makers. The council works continuously with issues within the framework of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and relating to biological diversity in Sweden. The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM), jointly operated by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Uppsala University, is Sweden\'s national centre for co-ordinating and initiating research on biodiversity. The centre\'s main function is to conduct, initiate and coordinate research on the preservation, sustainable use and restoration of biodiversity in Sweden.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/infoThe Swedish Scientific Council on Biological Diversity: www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Arbete-med-naturvard/Detta-ar-naturvard/Biologisk-mangfald/Vetenskapliga-radet-for-biologisk-mangfald/  (in Swedish)The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM): www.cbm.slu.se/eng/index.php ','16/02/2010','','','na','12/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','A10_1_9','','Sweden has been a voting Participant in GBIF since Feb 2001. The national ‘Participant node’ for Sweden is GBIF-Sweden, set up by the Swedish Research council and extended to the Museum of Natural History, who host a portal where you can search for over 24million records with information on animals, plants and fungi in the Swedish museum collections and observational databases.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Swedish Museum of Natural History is a government agency that reports to the Ministry of Culture. The Research Division of the Museum is a research institute that participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. ','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','16/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.Habitats currently enjoying a favourable conservation status are mainly found within the northern mountain range, and in rocky areas all over the country, where levels of exploitation are low, and land use is less intense. This applies to e.g. Baltic islands and islets, alpine grasslands and heaths as well as screes and caves. Other habitats with a favourable conservation status are dystrophic lakes (nationwide) and calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus (Boreal and Continental biogeographical regions). Several other lacustrine, riverine and wetland habitats only reach a favourable conservation status in the Alpine region, where they cover large areas, are widely distributed, and often occur within protected areas. In other parts of Sweden river damming, wetland drainage, sewage effluents and excessive use of fertilisers have caused severely disturbed hydrological conditions and eutrophication. As a result, many habitats are currently in an unfavourable conservation status. In recent years, strengthened legislation regulating all kinds of drainage has, however, contributed to an improvement of the situation.  Marine habitats, forests and grassland habitats are generally heavily affected, and as a result neither range nor structures and functions reach satisfactory levels. Problems are often associated with inappropriate land use and human exploitation of land and water resources. The situation for several marine habitats is regarded as unfavourable, with negative future prospects, due to excessive nutrient levels and commercial fisheries (mainly bottom trawling). Forest habitats are adversely affected by clear-cutting and other forest practices. Modern forestry management results in severe deficits of coarse woody debris and old trees, and natural disturbances such as fire and flooding are scarce. Valuable grassland habitats suffer from lack of management and are consequently becoming increasingly over-grown with young trees and bushes. Abandonment of agricultural land, fertilisation through deposition of air-borne nitrogen, and an ever more intense use of remaining areas constitute major problems. A small but positive exception concerns calcareous grasslands and alvar on the island of Öland, where a LIFE-funded restoration project has been highly successful.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 50% of more of all habitat types are reported to be in a favourable condition. 2 of the 2 (100%) of heath and scrub habitats are in favourable condition. The condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) and 1 of the 3 (33%) coastal habitats in both the Marine Atlantic and Marine Baltic biogeographical regions are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate and unfavourable-bad respectively.In the Boreal biogeographical region, 5 of the 7 (71%) rocky habitats and 2 of the 4 (50%) heath and scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. The condition of 6 of the 8 (75%) of both freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 11 of 13 (85%), 5 of the 9 (56%) and 2 of the 4 (50%) grasslands, dune habitats and heath and scrub habitats are reported to be unfavourable-bad condition respectively. The condition of all boreal sclerophyllous scrub habitats is unknown.In the Continental biogeographical region, 3 of the 4 (75%) rocky habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. The condition of 6 of the 7 (86%) freshwater habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. Over half of bogs, mires and fens (4 of the 7 or 57%), grasslands (7 of the 10 or 70%), dunes (7 of the 9 or 78%), forests (11 of the 13 or 85%) and heath and scrub (100%) habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of all continental sclerophyllous scrub habitats is unknown. ','17/02/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats686%114%00%00%00%7Heath & scrub2100%00%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%00%00%0Grasslands338%00%563%00%00%8Bogs, mires & fens788%00%113%00%00%8Rocky habitats571%00%114%00%114%7Forests457%00%229%00%114%7Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats00%267%133%00%00%3Marine Baltic Coastal habitats00%267%133%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats431%538%431%00%00%13Dunes habitats111%222%556%111%00%9Freshwater habitats225%675%00%00%00%8Heath & scrub250%00%250%00%00%4Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands18%00%1185%18%00%13Bogs, mires & fens113%675%113%00%00%8Rocky habitats571%229%00%00%00%7Forests213%320%1067%00%00%15ContinentalCoastal habitats220%440%440%00%00%10Dunes habitats00%111%778%111%00%9Freshwater habitats114%686%00%00%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands220%00%770%110%00%10Bogs, mires & fens114%229%457%00%00%7Rocky habitats375%125%00%00%00%4Forests00%18%1185%18%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Sweden has designated 3983 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 64,468 km², totalling 15.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 334 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 9.2%. The number of Special Protection Areas is 531 with a total area of 29,873 km², totalling 6.2% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 108, 4.9% of the total area. Sweden started the process of designating sites as SACs in 2009, and will continue this work during 2010. The process of designation includes establishing conservation plans with conservation objectives and measures.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update); Swedish EPA N2000-basenWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','16/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','The absolute majority of the Swedish Natura 2000 sites have a \"bevarandeplan\" (BP), which is the Swedish interpretation of the management plans. However, most of the management plans will need to be updated due to new knowledge about habitats etc coming from the baseline inventory. The BPs are a rather basic type of plans, and the sites that have some other sort of formal protection, as nature reserves or national parks, also have a more comprehensive management plan.','','The BPs are a rather basic type of plans, and the sites that have some other sort of formal protection, as nature reserves or national parks, also have a more comprehensive management plan.','Reference or title:Weblink: Swedish EPA - expert judgment and information gathered from County administrative boards in relation to the article 17 reporting in 2007.','09/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','013/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_2_3','','Ecological connectivity is promoted in many different ways in Swedish society. Some examples of tools to support ecological connectivity include legal demands for environmental consideration in forestry; obligations concerning spatial planning; obligations concerning environmental impact assessments in e.g. infrastructure projects; general habitat protection of e.g. small ponds, wetlands and ditches on agricultural land. Further, in accordance with the Environmental Quality Objectives efforts are being made to promote or restore connectivity in e.g. rivers and along roads.','','',':','16/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_3','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the 279 regularly occurring bird species in Sweden, 7 are globally Near-threatened and 2 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Sweden, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! The national Swedish Red List from 2005 gives that out of 251 assessed bird species, 88 species are red-listed and distributed on the Red List categories as follows: RE 8, CR 5, EN 7, VU 31, and NT 37. With regard to non-bird taxa, similar patterns as above under target 1.1 (regarding habitats) apply also to the species. The differences in conservation status between organism groups are, however, large. The conservation status of species and populations is, in general, more favourable in the northern part of the country. This is also true of species associated with montane and rocky habitats. The conservation status of vascular plants and freshwater insects is, on average, better than that of other groups, but also some mammal and fish species maintain a favourable status. Enduring work to decrease acidification, and to restore natural watersheds, together with construction of new ponds and wetlands, is beginning to yield improved conditions for many aquatic organisms. In addition, all frog and toad species currently in an unfavourable conservation status are subjected to Species Action Plans.  Many species are, however, threatened and fail to reach a favourable conservation status. This is often due to decreasing range and excessive loss of habitat, in conjunction with small population sizes. The situation is especially serious for listed butterflies, woodland insects and marine mammals. Commercial fisheries and chemical pollution are major threats to seals and Harbour porpoises. The seals are, however, gradually recovering. Commercial fisheries on Atlantic salmon, Vendace, and River lamprey affect these species adversely, as does the presence of dams and other obstacles to migration. Butterflies and some other insects that thrive in traditionally managed, semi-natural grasslands suffer from the abandonment of traditional agricultural practises as well as the transformation of grasslands into woodland. Several species of bryophytes, amphibians, and molluscs are at risk. Prescribed burning of woodland in central and northern Sweden has, however, improved the situation for several species associated with fire and burnt wood.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 100% of amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 4 (75%) fish, 2 of the 8 (25%) invertebrates, 6 of the 10 (60%) mammals and 28 of the 29 (97%) of plants was reported to be favourable. 1 of the 4 (25%) and 5 of the 8 (63%) fish and invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, respectively. The conservation status of 1 of the 8 (13%) invertebrates is unknown and 3 of the 10 (30%) mammals were not reported. In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) mammals are favourable condition and unfavourable-bad condition, respectively. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, all mammals (100%) of Community Interest are in an unfavourable-bad condition. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 2 of the 8 (25%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 8 (50%) fish, 11 of the 23 (48%) mammals and 27 of the 52 (52%) plants are in a favourable condition. 19 of the 52 (37%) of plants, 6 of the 8 (75%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 8 (38%) fish and 27 of the 36 (75%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 23 (17%) mammals was not reported. In the Continental biogeographical region, 7 of the 20 (35%) invertebrates and 10 of the 17 (59%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 4 of the 7 (57%) of fish are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 8 of the 12 (67%) of amphibians and reptiles, 10 of the 20 (50%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 21 (52%) of plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 2100%00%00%00%00%2Fish 375%00%125%00%00%4Invertebrates225%00%563%113%00%8Mammals660%00%110%00%330%10Plants 2897%00%13%00%00%29Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals133%00%267%00%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Marine Baltic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Boreal Amphibians and reptiles 225%00%675%00%00%8Fish 450%113%338%00%00%8Invertebrates617%38%2775%00%00%36Mammals1148%14%730%00%417%23Plants 2752%612%1937%00%00%52Continental Amphibians and reptiles 325%18%867%00%00%12Fish 229%457%114%00%00%7Invertebrates735%315%1050% 0%00%20Mammals1059%16%635%00%00%17Plants 733%314%1152%00%00%21','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International data; RÖDLISTADE ARTER I SVERIGE 2005 - THE 2005 REDLIST OF SWEDISH SPECIES. Ed.: Gärdenfors, U., 2005. ISBN 91-88506-30-4. Weblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html;  http://www.artdata.slu.se/english/redlist.asp; http://www.artdata.slu.se/filer/Arter_och_naturtyper_i_habitatdirektivet_lowres.pdf (Article 17 assessment)','15/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','Sweden has the following completed species action plans: 8 for birds (all referring to species of the Birds Directive), 7 for mammals (all referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 7 for amphibians and reptiles (2 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 4 for fish (one of those referring to a species of the Habitats Directive), 34 for invertebrates (7 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive) and 30 for plants (9 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive). In addition, the following species action plans are in preparation: 5 for birds (all referring to species of the Birds Directive), 4 for mammals (3 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 2 for amphibians and reptiles, 6 for fish (2 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 43 for invertebrates (4 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive) and 10 for plants (3 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive). The Swedish action plans for threatened species (Åtgärdsprogram för hotade arter) are guiding documents for authorities and other operators involved, for joint actions for the conservation of the species. The action plans are not drawn up according to the EU standards. Some of the completed action plans have not been updated, but are still valid.Bird indicators are derived from The Swedish Bird Survey, as a part of a national environmental monitoring, cf. bird monitoring schemes below. Indicators are: Common Bird Index, Breeding birds of the mountains, Breeding birds in farmland, Breeding birds of the forest, Breeding birds of the wetlands, and Breeding birds in lake and river areas. Data is included in the EU indicator \'Population trends of farmland birds\'. The Red List of Swedish Species is an account of animal, plant and fungi species whose populations in Sweden are considered not to be viable in a long-term perspective. The assessments are based on the IUCN Red List Criteria. The Red List is revised every five years. The 2005 Red List includes 3,653 multicellular species in all organism groups, of which 1,664 are classified as threatened. The Red List contains an overview of the situation for different groups of organisms: mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, wasps, butterflies and moths, beetles, flies, bugs, othopterans, neuroptera, megaloptera, rhaphidioptera, trichoptera, plecoptera, odonata, ephemeroptera, myriapods, spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions, crustaceans, echinoderms, brachiopods, molluscs, leeches and planarians, ahthozoans, vascular plants, algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens. A separate table presents all species that are nationally protected or appear on the global Red List, in international conventions or in EU legislation. ','','Action Plans: Numbers in brackets indicate plans that concern species in the Habitats or Birds Directive.','Reference or title:Weblink:Reference or title: RÖDLISTADE ARTER I SVERIGE 2005 - THE 2005 REDLIST OF SWEDISH SPECIES. Ed.: Gärdenfors, U., 2005. ISBN 91-88506-30-4. Weblink: http://www.artdata.slu.se/english/redlist.asp','15/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','B1_1_1','','The Swedish government has established budget appropriations for protection of biodiversity, agricultural management measures and purchase of forest land. Also relevant for biodiversity are management measures in farming, purchasing forest land of high conservation value or compensating forest owners for enhanced environmental stewardship. Although there are environmental payments and even entire posts on the national budget that have biodiversity as their main focus, a lot of other expenditures benefit both biodiversity and other issues. Besides the state, local authorities, businesses and households also spend money on improving the environment for themselves or others. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Sweden spent up to EUR10,965,119 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Sweden spent up to EUR381,288 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. The national funding allocated for management of protected areas, including the Natura 2000 sites, was approximately EUR 12 million (SEK 126 million) in 2004, EUR 12.3 million (SEK 130 million) in 2005, EUR 16 million (SEK 170 million) in 2006, EUR 24.3 (SEK 257 million) in 2007 and EUR 24.3 (SEK 257 million) in 2008.','',' The information on national programmes is taken from Sweden’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Sweden’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','09/02/2010','','','11/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','B1_1_4','','According to data from the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, the approximate total amounts granted for 2007-2013, as of yet, are: Category 51 - € 1.98 million; Category 55 - € 0.36 million; Category 56 - € 1.5 million. ','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the Commission, amended by data from the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional GrowthWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','09/02/2010','','','11/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','B1_1_8','',' From 2006-2009, Sweden has spent between EUR660,000 and EUR2,990,00 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure. ','',' From 2006-2009, Sweden has spent between EUR660,000 and EUR2,990,00 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure','','10/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B2_4','','Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) that are aimed at guiding the Swedish society towards sustainable development. The individual EQOs address biodiversity to a varying extent. In particular, the EQO \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" sets the strategy and policy for biodiversity issues. The Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’ was influential in the latest in-depth evaluation, when new interim targets were proposed.','','In addition to the EQO \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" there are several EQOs addressing specific types of nature - and the associated biodiversity - such as wetlands, forests, lakes and streams, the agricultural landscape, mountain areas, and the marine environment. For further information see the Environmental Objectives Portal: http://www.miljomal.nu/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/',' Environmental Quality Objective \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\", in-depth evaluation conducted 2007: www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5773-2.pdf (English summary)','16/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','B3_1_2','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals. Far-reaching changes in society are also needed, where environmental improvement programmes in farming, forestry and industry have a vital part to play. The forestry, farming and business sectors are represented in the Environmental Objectives Council, by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and The Federation of Swedish Farmers (agriculture and forestry).The Swedish Parliament has adopted the national objectives, and regional EQOs have been developed by the County Administrative Boards. Some municipalities have translated the national and regional objectives into local aims and actions, in order to make the objectives effective tools at the local policy level.\"The Rural Network\" reinforces the implementation of the Swedish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and also reinforces the link between rural policy, regional growth policy and environmental policy. LEADER constitutes a part of the Rural Network. Partnerships are established in certification standards for forest and agriculture as well as in sectoral integration and environmental policy integration activities. The Swedish Forest Agency and the County Administrative Board are key authorities, working at regional and local level, to facilitate a work partnership between farming, forestry and biodiversity. The forestry sector is where there is strong involvement of private and public sectors for the protection and sustainable use of forest land. The ‘Greener Forest’ educational document shows how forest owners can voluntarily implement the Swedish forest policy on their property. Also, the ‘National Strategy for the legal protection of forest land’ is a guidance document aimed primarily at regional and local authorities to promote the protection of forest land, and can also be used by the private sector for voluntarily setting-aside areas for nature protection.The Swedish government has also supported local nature conservation initiatives (called “LONA”). Within this initiative, government grants have enabled Sweden’s municipalities, individuals, companies and associations to work on nature conservation in local projects. Between 2004 and 2006, almost EUR 28 million (used to finance up to 50% each project) was granted to 1513 projects. The total budget for these projects was almost EUR 70 million. LONA resumed in 2010, and the Swedish EPA has recently distributed almost 5 million euros for new projects.   ','','','Weblinks:The Environmental Objectives Portal: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/The Swedish Rural Network: www.landsbygdsnatverket.se/inenglishThe Federation of Swedish Farmers: www.lrf.se/In-English/LONA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-8255-8.pdf','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B3_1_5','','Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships in different sectors. The Swedish Parliament adopted a strategy (which is is a part of the EQO system) for the management of land, water and the built environment in order to emphasize the need to consider biological diversity, as well as the culture, human health, wise land and water management, environmentally sound land use planning and a sustainable built environment. The Swedish Parliamant adopted the national objectives, and regional EQOs have been elaborated by the County Administrative Boards. Some municipalities have translated the national and regional objectives into local aims and actions, as to make the objectives effective tools in local politics and spatial planning.The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning is responsible for issues concerning city planning including urban green structures. The Board has developed several documents on how the municipalities can work with these issues. The Board has started work on how to integrate green areas in city planning and to promote planning at the landscape level. A handbook was published on how to perform impact assessments of city plans. In addition, similar work has started for the marine environment (“seascape planning”). In general, planning processes are conducted at the local municipal level, and landscape strategies are developed by the regional county administrative boards. The county administrative boards have suggested that the situation for biodiversity in urban areas should be improved and that urban biodiversity should also be included in environmental impact assessments. Sweden consists of 290 local municipalities. Each municipality is responsible for developing plans for land use, as well as detailed development plans, covering smaller units. These should, according to national policy follow the ecosystem approach, although this varies greatly depending on the municipality. Most municipalities have adopted a strategy to include biodiversity issues. A number of municipalities are aware of biological diversity and nature values in urban areas and have actively taken initiatives to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Municipalities are also involved; particularly those with more densely populated which appear to focus the most on urban nature. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has granted funds to help the municipalities carry out projects with the am of promoting biological diversity. Other examples include the restoration of ponds which deliver purification services and function as recreational areas, wildlife inventories and methods for promoting biological diversity in urban areas. ','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for SwedenWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/Reference or title: The Environmental Objectives PortalWeblink: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Reference or title: The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning Weblink: www.boverket.se/Om-Boverket/About-Boverket/','16/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Sweden','A1','B3_1_6','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals. Far-reaching changes in society are also needed, where environmental improvement programmes in farming, forestry and industry have a vital part to play. The forestry, farming and business sectors are represented in the Environmental Objectives Council, by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and The Federation of Swedish Farmers (agriculture and forestry).\"The Rural Network\" reinforces the implementation of the Swedish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and also reinforces the link between rural policy, regional growth policy and environmental policy. LEADER constitutes a part of the Rural Network. The Swedish government has also supported local nature conservation initiatives (called “LONA”). Within this initiative, government grants have enabled Sweden’s municipalities, individuals, companies and associations to work on nature conservation in local projects. Between 2004 and 2006, almost EUR 28 million (used to finance up to 50% each project) was granted to 1513 projects. The total budget for these projects was almost EUR 70 million. LONA resumed in 2010, and the Swedish EPA has recently distributed almost 5 million euros for new projects.   ','','','Weblinks:The Environmental Objectives Portal, www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: www.svensktnaringsliv.se/english/The Federation of Swedish Farmers: www.lrf.se/In-English/The Swedish Rural Network, www.landsbygdsnatverket.se/inenglishLONA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-8255-8.pdf','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B3_1_7','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals.In 2010, a project on Business and Biodiversity will start, in cooperation with the other Nordic countries. The financing sector will be included in this project.','','','The Environmental Objectives Portal: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe Kwon Guidelines have been partly applied to funded projects in non-EU and developing countries. Relevant aspects of the Akwe Kwon guidelines are addressed in the assessment and preparation process for all development cooperation, e.g. in EIA/SEA guidance.','','Perspectives relating to issues of poverty and rights are included as guiding principles in all Swedish external relations (following the Swedish Policy for Global Development) and always considered in management of Swedish Official Development Aid.','','09/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.However, the Swedish EPA is waiting for more information on the campaign at EU level. In 2009, Sweden celebrated Nature\'s Year, in commemoration of the designation of the first Swedish national park in 1909 and 100 years of nature conservation. Around 20 organisations took part in the communication efforts in 2009. This cooperation has continued since and will increase in 2010, as Sweden has joined the UN\'s International Year of Biodiversity. The Swedish EPA has planned to highlight biodiversity issues in their information and communication in 2010.','','','Reference or title: \"Nature\'s Year\"Weblink: www.naturensar.se ','09/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Sweden','A1','B4_1_2','','The Swedish Ministry of the Environment (01/10/2005) and the Swedish Museum of Natural History (29/08/2006) have made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initative.The Swedish Museum of Natural History communicated that it would commit itself to further research on global biodiversity and to organize exhibitions aimed at the general public to describe biodiversity and the threats to biodiversity, in addition to encouraging and assisting decision makers to achieve the 2010 biodiversity targets. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Sweden between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects. ','','Although no funding has been contributed specifically to the 2010 countdown initiative or related projects, as described elsewhere in this country profile, a number of efforts have been made aiming at tackling the causes of biodiversity loss in order to achieve the goal of halting its loss. The 16 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) address biodiversity, and the EQO \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" in particular sets the strategy and policy for biodiversity issues. The EQOs are widely communicated. During the Swedish EU Presidency, Sweden highlighted the importance of biodiversity and the value of ecosystem services to the sustainable development of society, see the presidency website www.se2009.eu/biodiversity.','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','22/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Sweden','A1','C1_2','','Sweden is implementing a wide range of indicators, including most of the SEBI indicators. There are many indicators additional to the SEBI indicators and further indicators are under development.','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009 does not contain information from Sweden. The above information was provided by Sweden and parts of it are taken from the 4th National Report to the CBD. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','17/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','C1_2_1','','Sweden is implementing a wide range of indicators, including most of the SEBI indicators, in the national system of environmental objectives. There are many indicators additional to the SEBI indicators. Further indicators investigated or under development include the following: indicator for butterflies; Red List Index; indicator for species in the Habitats Directive; an indicator developed from National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden, or NILS (cf. A2.1.8 and C1.3.1) and satellite-based landscape monitoring; indicator based on Article 17 assessments of Habitats of European Interest; invasive alien species; membership numbers of nature conservation organisations (NGOs).','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009 does not contain information from Sweden. The above information was provided by Sweden and parts of it are taken from the 4th National Report to the CBD.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD. Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ . For the indicator on growing forest stock, increment and fellings see http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/default.aspx?id=38515. 20    ','17/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A1','C1_3_1','','National and/or regional monitoring schemes exists for all habitat types and species groups, typically several schemes per group. The National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) monitors landscape conditions and changes and the resulting conditions for biodiversity. In general the estimate is that Sweden has reliable monitoring data for less than half of the species and habitats listed in the Habitats Directive. Expert judgement can likely provide reasonable estimates of several more. A project just started, \"Biogeographical monitoring of habitats in species in the Habitats Directive\", aiming at filling the most important gaps in existing monitoring of biodiversity covered by the Directive, until 2011. ','','The numbers mentioned above are rough estimates only. ','Reference or title:Weblink:National list of environmental monitoring methods (\"undersökningstyper\"), national list of biodiversity methods for baseline surveys of protected areas, national list of monitoring methods for protected areas, national list of regional environmental monitoring, expert judgement. Weblink NILS: http://nils.slu.se/ Weblink Swedish EPA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/State-of-the-environment/Habitats-and-species/ ','10/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A2','','','According to the Member State, Sweden has implemented all compulsory Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures listed in Annex III of Council Regulation No. 73/2009, including:• Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.• Protection of permanent pasture.• Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Other GAEC measure include the optional standard about minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Sweden total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 1825.65 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 3917.17 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1260.81 million EUR, and 2702.13 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 69.06 and 68.98 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Sweden was 982.8 million EUR (2106.3 with co-financing) and amounted to 53.83 per cent of the EAFRD (53.77 with co-financing).There are no payments in Sweden for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.According to reporting by the Member State, approximately EUR 30 million (SEK 300 million) from the agri-environmental schemes are paid to landowners in Natura 2000 areas, for maintenance of semi-natural grasslands. This is based on a rough estimate made by a GIS analysis undertaken by the Swedish EPA in 2008. ','',' 2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)262.793556.483Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national action plan is being developed to address the conservation of genetic resources and a number of actions are already underway.The Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) include the conservation of genetic variation of wild species, e.g. in the EQO \"A rich diversity of plant and animal life\", as well as crop varieties and livestock breeds in the EQO \"A varied cultural landscape\". On the request of the Government, the Swedish EPA proposed a national action plan for conservation of genetic variation in flora, fauna and fungi in the wild in 2008. The Swedish Board of Agriculture correspondingly worked out an action plan for long-term sustainable management of genetic resources for domestic animals in 2007. Neither of the action plans have yet been funded.The national Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants, POM, aims to insure the long-term survival and sustainable use of cultivated plant resources through e.g. inventory, collection and conservation of cultivated plants. POM has had a yearly budget of € 830,000 since 2004, and a proposal for the continuation of POM during 2010-2015 has been drawn up.In-situ conservation of livestock breeds and races, as well as gene bank activities, is funded through the Rural Development Programme. Support is given to livestock owners all over the country so that the breeds are conserved in their original environment. Support is given for a total of 21 breeds: five breeds of cattle, four breeds of goat, 11 breeds of sheep and one pig breed. 1000 farms have received approx. € 650,000 for 2007 and € 700,000 for 2008. RDP support is also given to gene bank activities conducted by the Swedish Society of Old Native Poultry (totally € 60,000 to 749 gene banks) and the Gotlandic Rabbit Society (€ 9,000 to 110 gene banks). As for crops, grassland/pasture species and their wild relatives are generally conserved in-situ through the protection and management of meadows and pasture land. In-situ conservation of tree species consists of the Swedish Forest Agency\'s clonal archives of presumably autochthonous material of oak, spruce and pine and also one archive for Ulmus glabra. The Swedish Forest Research Institute uses Multiple Population Breeding System (MPBS) as to maintain sufficient levels of genetic variation.      NordGen – the Nordic Genetic Resource Center – is a Nordic organization dedicated to the safeguarding and sustainable use of plants, farm animals and forests. The Nordic countries have been co-operating for more than 30 years on conservation of genetic resources. NordGen was established in January 2008 as a result of a merger between the Nordic Gene Bank, the Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals and the Nordic Council for Forest Reproductive Material. NordGen is mainly financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers.* Several of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives deal with conservation of genetic variation. For example, the objective \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" states that \"nationwide distribution of animal and plant species within their natural ranges will ensure sufficient genetic variation within and between populations\", and further that \"alien species or genetically modified organisms posing a potential danger to human health or threatening to deplete biological diversity in Sweden will not be introduced\". The Swedish Environmental Quality Objective \"A Varied Agricultural Landscape\" has the interim target \"Plant genetic resources and indigenous breeds\" dealing with development of a national programme for plant genetic resources, as well as long-term conservation of indigenous breeds of domestic animals.**There are about four commonly used native and alien tree species in forestry, and approximately additionally six that are moderately used.  ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Environmental Objectives Portalhttp://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/ Action plan for genetic resources for domestic animals: www.sjv.se/download/18.b1bed21121e26684180006145/rapport+070511 (in Swedish)Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants, POM: www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/Pdf_rapporter/ra08_32.pdf  (English summary)Swedish Forest Agency, genetic resources: www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11530  Swedish Forest Research Institute:www.skogforsk.se NordGen: www.nordgen.org/index.php/en/content/view/full/2,www.nordgen.org/ngdoc/nordgen/NAR.pdf ','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Sweden approved 12 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.79 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.99 million of total expenditure, representing respectively 0.041 and 0.042 per cent of actual agri-environment payments from 2007 to 2008. ','Axis 2 payments for genetic conservation measures should include payments for local breeds.','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments provided under A2.1.1','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are not applied in connection with individual afforestation or deforestation operations. However, regeneration felling on sites larger than half a hectare must be notified to the Swedish Forest Agency at least six weeks in advance. The notification must include information for example on area to be felled, regeneration methods to be used, copy of a forest map, a description of the intended conservation measures, and measures to protect the cultural heritage. Notification must also be given if the land is to be used for purposes other than timber production, i.e. if forest fuel is to be removed, if foreign tree species are planned be used, or in the event of protective ditching. The notification process offers the Forest Agency an opportunity to provide advice, information and also to reassure that the operations are done according to the current guidelines. Permanent or very long term loss of forest cover only occurs as a result of urban settlements, infrastructure (such as roads, railways etc.) and industrial activities. In those cases legal provisions such as EIAs apply to control and mitigate impacts.In Swedish forest policy, production goals and environmental goals are given equal weight. Many landowners have Green Forest management plans that contain details concerning the stands production and environmental values. Four different goal classes are used to describe where timber production dominates or when an environmental goal dominates. The establishment of a Green Management Plan may entail inventories of biodiversity.Strategic Environmental Assessment is needed for measures that may imply more general impact, such as when new methods are developed or forestry legislation or policy is altered. One example is new methods for stump-harvest, where the knowledge of environmental aspects are limited. Based on the Forestry Act – Section 32, the Forest Agency decided that the seven forest companies interested in stump-harvest had to perform an environmental assessment, which was conducted by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (see weblink).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Swedish Forest Agency, University of Agricultural Sciences Weblink: www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11310 www.nlfak.slu.se/ShowPage.cfm?OrgenhetSida_ID=11604','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Sweden had a total certified forest area of 17.24 million hectares out of a total forest area of 27.53 million hectares. 9.74 million hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system under which 7.51 million hectares were certified. In total, 62.64 per cent of the forest area in Sweden was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.aspwww.pefc.se ','16/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Sweden amounted to 1.14 million ha, representing a share of 23.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.According to reporting by the Member State, the HNV-farmland indicator used in the Swedish Rural Development Programme (RDP) includes all semi-natural pastures and mown meadows, and all agriculture land in municipalities with less than five percent open land. The latter is included since all cultivated land is considered to be of importance if Sweden is to retain farmland biodiversity in areas mainly dominated by forest. According to the RDP, HNV-farmland covers about 850,000 hectares, which is approximately 27 per cent of the agriculture land in Sweden in 2008.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','09/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, Sweden has implemented all compulsory Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures listed in Annex III of Council Regulation No. 73/2009, including:• Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.• Protection of permanent pasture.• Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Other GAEC measure include the optional standard about minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','09/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. These include the provision of individual advice, environmental courses and information material for landowners, farmers and farm workers by national and regional authorities. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (regional and national level).HNV farming (regional and national level).HNV forestry (national level).Tree species composition (national level).An additional programme-specific biodiversity indicator has also been drawn relating to the area of organic farming. Furthermore, a number of indicators relating to biodiversity are used to assess the Environmental Quality Objective for \"A Varied Agricultural Landscape\", (e.g. area of pasture and area of meadows).Sweden has a variety of inventories and monitoring systems for these purposes, as described below. The National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) is a nation-wide environmental protection programme that monitors the conditions and changes in the Swedish landscape and how these changes influence biodiversity. The programme started in 2003 and is the first Swedish inventory programme that includes all types of terrestrial environments. Agricultural land as well as forests, wetlands, shores, alpine and populated environments are included. An important aim is to provide information to assess the achievement of Sweden’s national environmental objectives and the condition of the Natura 2000 network.The Swedish National Inventory of Forests (RIS) is a nationwide inventory which comprises an annual sample of all forests and soils in Sweden. The inventory provides an image of current status and changes in Swedish forests, regarding both forest production as well as environmental conditions. RIS comprises the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and the Swedish Forest Soil Inventory (MI). Information from the inventory is used for developing and evaluating environmental and forestry policies. In addition, forestry companies, organizations within the sector, and scientists use the information.Sweden is monitoring the area of semi-natural pastures and mown meadows on a regular basis. This is done on both national and regional level. These habitats constitute about half of Sweden’s HNV-farmland area (450,000 out of approximately 850,000 hectares; see comment to Action 2.1.3). For the rest of the HNV-farmland area there is no ongoing monitoring. In addition to the quantitative aspects, there is also a national monitoring scheme focusing on biodiversity in the most valuable (highest biological values) of Sweden’s semi-natural pastures and mown meadows (approximately 270,000 hectares). The latter monitoring scheme is carried out as a part of the NILS study. Sweden also monitors farmland birds (FBI), another mandatory baseline and impact indicator in the RDP.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden: http://nils.slu.se/ Swedish National Forest Inventory: www-nfi.slu.se/    Farmland Bird Index: http://www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/birdmonitoring  ','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 120 million € has been added to the Swedish national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Sweden attributed € 31 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 26 per cent of total national additional programmed funding. According to the Member State, an amount 3.67 million Euro is dedicated conservation of biodiversity  through modulation according to the Swedish report, exclusive of national co-financing. ','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG Agriculture, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','09/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are herby mandatory.The environment monitoring of farmland includes land and crop inventories, which analyse soil chemical properties in some 2,000 sampling areas in ten year intervals; and the soil compaction programme, which has running measurements of soil physical properties in six different locations in Sweden. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are included.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Monitoring of agricultural land www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/State-of-the-environment/Environmental-monitoring/Programme-areas/Agricultural-land/ Soil compaction sub-programme www-mv.slu.se/Vv/Datavskap/Markpackning_07.pdf (in Swedish)Land and crop inventorieswww-jordbruksmark.slu.se/AkerWebb/MgiPub/Index.jsp?PageType=3&PageID=0 ','15/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the majority of boreal and continental fresh water habitats in Sweden have an unfavourable conservation status (75 and 86 per cent respectively). The remaining boreal and continental fresh water habitats have a favourable conservation status. In contrast, 86 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats in Sweden have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 14 per cent is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data. ','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage221390059%41%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8620075%25%0%0%U16  U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7160014%86%0%0%U11 U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U16   U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Sweden ammonium data demonstrated a slight increase from 0.05 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.06 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.07 mg N/l in 2003. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 0.55 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.47 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.56 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly above weighted average of 0.45 mg N/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden, Finland and Norway only) in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear tendency from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 0.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 0.4 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 1 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.013 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.014 mg P/l in 2005. The latter value more or less corresponded to the weighted average of 0.015 mg P/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden, Finland and Norway only) in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present an upward trend, increasing from 0.014 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.015 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values below the weighted average of 0.0186 mg P/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden and Finland only).No information on oxygen demand (BOD5) was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Sweden had a total number of 187 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 88.2 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage had increased, though the total number of all bathing waters had decreased.','Data is OK.','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','16/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Sweden developed three out of four biological assessment methods for rivers, with the exception of phytoplankton, and all four for the assessment of rivers. In addition, all four assessment methods for transitional waters and all three for coastal waters, including phytoplankton, macro-algae and angiosperms, and benthic invertebrates were developed.According to reporting by the Member State, Sweden does not report on phytoplankton data from rivers since this quality factor is not applicable to Swedish conditions.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, In 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Sweden under the Water Framework Directive.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Sweden had a total number of 1066 IPPC installations and issued 926 permits. 140 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Sweden met its 2010 EU Emissions Ceilings Directive targets for reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide, ammonia and volatile organic compounds. Emissions were also expected to remain below these targets levels in 2010. However, nitrogen dioxide emissions were above targets levels in 2008, but had decreased compared to the previous year. Emissions are expected to be still slightly above related ceiling in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Sweden the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 17 and 56 per cent respectively, considering an area of 443,660 km2 and 15,865 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 10 and 9 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 2 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 47 per cent in 2010 and 43 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 13 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Sweden’s gross nitrogen balance was 48 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 16 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.According to reporting by the Member State, nitrogen and phosphorus balances have been calculated for agricultural land in Sweden using the soil surface gross method every second year since 2003 (including updated data for 1995, 1999 and 2001). The method of calculation is largely adjusted to the method recommended by OECD and Eurostat. ','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html www.scb.se/statistik/MI/MI1004/2007A02/MI1004_2007A02_SM_MI40SM0701.pdf ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','According to the status of common birds provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International, between the years 1990 and 2006, Sweden’s national farmland bird indicator has decreased. In 2006 the indicator was at 61.5 per cent, a 38.5 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 14 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','17/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 85 per cent of the boreal, 63 per cent of the alpine and 70 per cent of the continental grassland habitats in Sweden have an unfavourable conservation status. Eight per cent of the boreal, 38 per cent of the alpine and 20 per cent of the continental grassland habitats have a favourable status. The remaining 8 per cent of the boreal and 10 per cent of the continental have an unknown status. The majority of boreal and continental forest habitats in Sweden have an unfavourable conservation status (87 and 92 per cent respectively). 29 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 13 per cent of the boreal and 57 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have a favourable status. The remaining eight per cent of the continental forest habitats have an unknown status and the remaining 14 per cent of the alpine forest habitats were unreported. With regards to the heath and scrub habitats in Sweden, all of the alpine occurrences (two) have a favourable conservation status while all of the continental occurrences (two) have an unfavourable status. 50 per cent of the boreal heath and scrub land habitats have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 50 per cent has an unfavourable status. Of the peat land habitats in Sweden 13 per cent of the boreal and 14 per cent of the continental have a favourable conservation status. A far higher percentage of alpine peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status (88 per cent). 88 per cent of the boreal, 86 per cent of the continental and 13 per cent of the alpine peat land habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2362074%19%6%0%31            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131111085%8%8%0%U10  U211       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U10 U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10721070%20%10%0%U10   U27       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2761177%17%3%3%35            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151320087%13%0%0%U13  U210       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7240129%57%0%14%U10 U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131201092%0%8%0%U11   U211       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage440050%50%0%0%8            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4220050%50%0%0%U10  U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10 U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10   U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1490061%39%0%0%23            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U16  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8170013%88%0%0%U10 U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U12   U24       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','17/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from un-assessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','22/02/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 report for Sweden found that  of three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, two had ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and one had a ‘Bad’ status (33%). The assessment of marine habitats in the Marine Baltic region also found that of the three marine habitats, two had ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and one had a ‘Bad’ status (33%).  A total of 23 coastal habitats were assessed in Sweden—13 in the Boreal biogeographic region and 10 in the Continental biogeographic region. Dune habitats were not included as coastal habitats in either region. In the Boreal region, four coastal habitats had a ‘Favourable’ status (31%), five had an ‘Inadequate’ status (38%) and the remaining four had a ‘Bad’ status (31%). In the Continental biogeographic region, two coastal habitats  had a ‘Favourable’ status, four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (40%), and four had a ‘Bad’ status (40%). Marine species were assessed in both the Marine Atlantic and Marine Baltic regions. In the Marine Atlantic region, three species—all mammals—were assessed as follows: one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (67%).  In the Marine Baltic region, four species—all mammals—were assessed as follows: all four had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%267%133%00%00%3Marine BalticMarine habitats00%267%133%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats431%538%431%00%00%13ContinentalCoastal habitats220%440%440%00%00%10Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals133%00%267%00%00%3Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL133%00%267%00%00%3Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%00%4100%00%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusCoastal habitats did not include dune habitats (the “2000”) series for Sweden. According to the Swedish interpretation, \"coastal\" dunes can exist up to 5 km from the coast and thus no longer be influenced by the sea; the assessment of coastal habitats and dunes differs as their functions differ; as do the threats to the different types of habitats where the main threat towards dunes is regrowth. ','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','17/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_1_4','','Sweden reported that, in 2009, it had 113 surveillance stations and 132 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Sweden has 572 coastal water bodies. Approximately 10% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates as well as assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm. Programmes of measures for the period 2009-2015 were adopted by the five Swedish River Basin District Authorities in December 2009, along with adoption of environmental quality standards and river basin management plans. Geographically, the programmes of measures include the whole country and thus all water bodies. The programmes include a vast range of measures concerning eutrophication, physical changes, pollutants etc. and are aimed at authorities who will transpose the measures to different sectors and activities.  ','','The five Swedish River Basin District Authorities have recently submitted information concerning the programmes of measures, river basin management plans and environmental quality standards to the Swedish EPA, and will soon be reported to the European Commission through ReportNet.','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfProgrammes of measures (“åtgärdsprogram”) for the period 2009-2015 (in Swedish only) from the respective River Basin District Authorities websites: www.vattenmyndigheten.se/NR/rdonlyres/1C850716-E02C-4F65-AC44-F246A47FC6A2/163150/atgardsprogram_100126_BVD.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/NR/rdonlyres/82B658FA-C77C-47EC-937B-8805A0B1BD36/0/ÅP_BH_20092015.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheten.se/NR/rdonlyres/8B036D16-5E91-4196-8538-2F796EA33D63/0/Atgardsprogram.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/NR/rdonlyres/7C1CFA52-63E1-467B-A0BB-454AC4B485E4/162887/AP_SO_webb.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheten.se/NR/rdonlyres/D21FE02A-11AA-4A04-B368-BE4B489F507F/0/ÅP_VH_webb.pdf','09/02/2010','','','13/01/10','05/04/10'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_1_5','','No national plan/strategy exists for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). Coastal governance is very centralized, resulting in limited room for regional and local initiatives which goes beyond the national regulation. The existing \"Planning and Building Act\" governs all activities in coastal areas, and is the cornerstone for spatial planning processes. Rather strict and rigid central planning are implemented through this Act and limit local initiatives to develop economic activities in coastal areas.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe, National Reporting http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/evaluation/iczm_national_reporting_sweden.htm','09/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_2','','There are 252 coastal bathing areas in Sweden and 97.7% of these were in compliance with the mandatory water quality standards in 2008. This is a slight increase compared to the two previous years. The compliance rate with the more stringent guide values increased strongly, from 63.1% in 2007 to 83.3% in 2008. The relatively low compliance in 2007 can be explained by the fact that the summer of 2007 was exceptionally rainy for several areas which affected water quality. In terms of nutrient concentrations the majority of sampling sites in the Baltic Sea of the Swedish coast have shown no recorded change in nitrogen concentrations, but a small number (4 out of 37) have shown a decrease between 1985 and 2005. Recorded concentrations in the North Sea have also not changed over the same period, although one site has recorded an increase. Phosphate concentrations also remained relatively unchanged although five sites in the Baltic Sea and one site in the North Sea recorded a decrease between 1985 and 2005. (This data is from an EEA report that was compiled to proved comparable indicators between member states. Further information on the methodology and underlying data can be found here: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132008/IAssessment1204714151163/view_content) ','','-','','01/03/2010','','26/05/2010','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_4','','Sweden’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €22,777,001 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity (individual quotas for fishing vessels has been decided by the Swedish Government),  as well as improved gear selectivity and energy efficiency. An ITQ system is also under discussion for pelagic species. Axis 2 (€21,865,922) encourages sustainable aquaculture. Axis 3 (€38,265,362) supports the protection of aquatic fauna and flora and funding is given to pilot projects, and Axis 4 (€16,399,440) promotes the protection of natural and architectural heritage and values. A bottom-up approach is used to find the best options for strategic development in the region. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/14&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from un-assessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','22/02/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Sweden had 1,567 vessels and 5% were involved in a serious infringement (80 vessels). A total of 8 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €484 and maximum fine of €1079.','','2007 is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_5_2','','Salmon in Swedish Baltic waters were formerly managed under the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission\'s (IBSFC) Salmon Action Plan (SAP) for the years 1997-2010, but the IBSFC ceased to exist in 2007. The plan is currently being revised. In 2008, ICES provided scientific advice on the management of Baltic Sea salmon.The Swedish eel management plan was submitted to and approved by the Commission in 2009. The National management plan for eel can be found (in Swedish) at: www.fiskeriverket.se/download/18.7c5197de123343f05d280007183/%C3%85l_f%C3%B6rvaltningsplan_bilagor_beslut_20081211.pdf.For Sweden, there is not a single national fisheries plan, but a number of watercourses have ecosystem-based fisheries management plans. There is a national Fisheries Act whose objective is to promote the sustainable and responsible management of fisheries. Action Plans have been, or are in the process of being, drawn up for a number of mainly non-commercial fish species (including the wild spawning Baltic salmon as mentioned above). For more information on action plans for threatened species see Target 1.3.1.According to the Swedish Environmental Quality Objective \"Flourishing Lakes and Streams\" at least 25 per cent of valuable and potentially valuable rivers and streams will have been restored by 2010. About 700 watercourses that have nature conservation values and/or are valuable for fish and fishing, are judged to be in need for restoration, which means that 150-200 rivers and streams should be restored by 2010. Restoration work is ongoing in all parts of Sweden. Measures include restoration of habitats as well as removal of migratory barriers. Fishing of eel is prohibited, except for certain coastal fisheries. Stocking of eel and reared salmon is conducted. However, the Swedish National Board of Fisheries\' strategy stresses that habitat improvement to enhance the natural reproduction should be considered the first-hand alternative to stocking.','','',': www.miljomal.nu/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/ ','22/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_5_3','','Sweden’s fishing capacity has been reduced in terms of number of vessels and tonnage but fishing power reduced to a lesser degree. The number of fishing vessels declined from 2,073 in 1999 to 1,474 in 2008 (29% reduction) while tonnage decreased from 50,431 to 41,784 tons (17% reduction) and fishing power declined from 236,296 to 218,197kW (8% reduction). These are clear indications of overcapacity in some fish stocks and capacity reductions of up to 50% for the demersal segment and 30% for the pelagic segment are foreseen over the period 2007-2013.This is with the aim of improving production and economic performance of the sector. ','','2008 data: 1474 vessels; 41784 tons; 208197 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','22/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Sweden had 1,567 active vessels. There were 14 type D breaches in this year and 2 penalties imposed with an average fine of €500. There have also been activities to help reduce by-catch, for example a bilateral agreement was reached with Denmark in 2009 to close core spawning areas to all fisheries for the Kattegat cod permanently, as well as temporarily closure of a buffer zone around core areas, to avoid direct as well as unwanted by-catch of cod. In 2006 a closure to all fisheries was established around the national park Gotska Sandön in the central Baltic Sea. The closure will protect biodiversity and the integrity of the benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdfNB. New report should be available in November 2009 with 2007 data. Please check before completing','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_6_2','','Swedish Waterfowl Count has undertaken regular midwinter counts of waterfowl in Sweden since 1967, as a part of the International Waterfowl Counts (IWC). The Swedish Waterfowl Count covers adequate samples of both coastal and inland sites.No specific monitoring programme for sharks exists. However, sharks are monitored within the general sea-sampling programme in order to estimate discards and by-catches (see further details in additional clarifications). Monitoring is conducted in the Kattegat (since 1996) and the Skagerrak (since 1999).','','Monitoring of by-catches of sharks as well as other species is conducted within the yearly Swedish National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data. The collection is carried out in accordance with EC 1639/2001 (2002-2004), EC 1581/2004 (2005-2008) and 2008/949/EC (2009-2013). The monitoring is carried out by scientific observers onboard commercial vessels. All species (retained or discarded) are recorded.','Reference or title: Nilsson, L. 2008. Changes in numbers and distribution of wintering waterfowl in Sweden during forty years, 1967 - 2006. Ornis Svecica 18:135-226. Weblink: Swedish Waterfowl Count www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/waterfowl/index.htm','15/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','09/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Sweden has 210 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.There have been some modifications required to fisheries management measures in relation to marine 2000 sites outside of territorial waters. For example, a bilateral agreement to close core spawning areas for cod in Kattegat was reached with Denmark in 2009, and partly affects the Natura 2000 site Lilla Middelgrund. Notifications were made to the European Commission by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and subsequently by the Swedish Board of Fisheries, that the bilateral agreement with Denmark would be implemented through corresponding national legislation.In addition nine marine Natural 2000 sites within Sweden’s territorial waters have required changes to fishing regulations. This has mainly been the result of marine nature reserves or National Parks in addition to the Natura 2000 designation. In four areas, protection from fishing is regulated by the Environmental Code. In the remaining five, management measures have been additionally defined by regulations under the Fisheries Act. Measures and are site specific. Trawling is regulated in all areas but still allowed in two. In three areas fishing is closed within core areas. The Swedish Board of Fisheries, Swedish EPA and County Administrative Boards are currently evaluating the need for further protective measures in coastal Natura 2000 sites.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below: Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 263Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 6Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A3','A3_7_1','','Sweden has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. The annual surveys of the Swedish Fisheries Board will realise the data requirements for indicators 1-4 in Appendix XIII. The spatial and temporal coverage of data collection for the evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector will consist of Area IIIa (Skagerrak and Kattegat) in the first and third quarters and area IIId (Baltic Sea) in the first and fourth quarters 2009 and 2010. The data collection carried out by the research vessel ARGOS will be fishery independent using standard gear, thereby fulfilling the required precision level. The Research and Development Department of the National Board of Fisheries has full access to VMS data from all Swedish vessels in all waters. Positions are reported once every hour for boats 15m or longer. Data from VMS can be aggregated at metier level 6 for environmental indicators 4, 5 and 6 and processed accordingly.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' Swedish National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1841&folderId=94846&name=DLFE-15014.pdf ;Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','22/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Sweden','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Swedish EEZ waters in 2004 was 3.30. This represents a decrease of 0.03 since 1999 and an overall decrease of 0.31 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.The species list used to calculate MTI for Sweden is in many parts not relevant. For example cod (Gadus morhua), which is one of the main predators, is missing, and several other species in the list are not (normally) present in Swedish waters. It is not possible to judge the significance this discrepancy has had on the result.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','01/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','A4','A4_3','','The Swedish Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act holds requirements concerning the use of land and water areas and on the development and preservation of the built environment, which shall be applied in spatial planning. Although the phrase \"ecological networks\" is not used, planning shall promote a purposeful structure and an aesthetically pleasing design of built-up areas, green belts, routes of communication and other constructions. Planning shall take due regard to natural and cultural values, and aim e.g. at promoting good environmental conditions and a long-lasting and effective management of land and water areas.The Environmental Quality Objective \"A Good Built Environment\" states e.g. that areas of unspoiled nature and green spaces close to built-up areas needs to be protected, and that biodiversity will be preserved and enhanced.  According to an interim target of this Environmental Quality Objective, by 2010 land use and community planning will be based on programmes and strategies for e.g. preserving, maintaining and enhancing green spaces and water bodies in urban and suburban areas for nature conservation, cultural and recreational purposes. Monitoring of progress of the interim target is conducted yearly. Spatial planning is the responsibility of municipalities, and environmental considerations can be said to be monitored by the County Administrative Boards through mandatory consultation. Municipal comprehensive plans and detailed development plans can be appealed to the County Administrative Board and further to the Government, which makes its decision efter interministerial coordination. Although legislation is in place, the ecological coherence is far from satisfactory and measures to improve ecological networks are still needed on land and in the aquatic environment.','','','National Board of Housing, Building and Planning; 2006; \"Legislation – The Planning and Building Act, The Act on Technical Requirments for Construction works, The Environmental Code with ordinances of relevance – Current wording June 1st 2004\".  http://www.boverket.se/Global/Webbokhandel/Dokument/2005/Legislation.pdf Environmental Objectives Portal, weblink: http://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/15-A-Good-Built-Environment/','15/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism have not been formally implemented in Sweden.Municipalities are generally responsible for planning of tourism development. Moreover, tour operators that fulfill the Swedish Ecotourism Society\'s ecotourism principles can get certified as \"Nature’s Best\". ','','','','16/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Swedish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 15.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spending on the categories 55 and 56 are foreseen by the Swedish Structural Funds programme.','Sweden agrees with the data, however it also express concerns as it is difficult to verify the conclusion that Swedish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased in the period 2007-2008, especially since data is not available for 2006.','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','09/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','There is no general legislation in Sweden on invasive alien species (IAS) but there are various specific laws and regulations from other sectors that may deal with IAS. The key provisions  include: The Environmental Code of which Section 8 deals with the protection of animal and plant species; Hunting Law and Ordinance on Hunting (1987:905) of which Section 41 prohibits the introduction of mammals and birds into the wild without prior authorisation from the Environmental Protection Agency; The Act on the Import of Living Animals (SFS 1994:1830) regulates for the entry and spread of animals in order to prevent the introduction/transplantation of animal diseases that would adversely affect indigenous fauna; The Ordinance on Fishing, Aquaculture and Fishing Industry (SFS 1994:1716) prohibits the stocking and introduction of fish into the wild without prior authorisation from the country administrative board; The Forestry Law (SFS 1979:429) and the ordinance on forest care (SFS 1993:106) regulates the introduction and cultivation of alien tree species; Law on Plant Protection (SFS 1995:681), Ordinance on Plant Protection and Measures Against the Spread of Plant Pests (SFS 1995:94) regulating the control and limiting the spread of plant pests that can have serious adverse effects on plant cultures, forests, other land or plants; and The Swedish Chemical Inspections regulations on chemical products and biotechnical organisms (KIFS 2004:4) regulates the introduction of species as biological control agents.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, Swedish CBD Clearing House MechanismsWeblink: http://www.biodiv.se/eng/intr-art/lagar.htm ','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','According to the EEA, of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 44 are present in Sweden which equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2 (as last updated 30 June 2009) According to the updated information provided by the Member State, the total number and range of worst invasive alien species has since increased to 68, due to improvements in knowledge and new introductions. ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, NOBANISWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity www.nobanis.org ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_1_2','','A national strategy and action plan for IAS has been submitted to the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture in December 2008, but has of February 2010 not yet been adopted.According to the Member State, Invasive alien species (IAS) are dealt with comprehensively by the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO), which have been adopted by the Riksdag (parliament) and govern Sweden’s environmental policy. The EQO “A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life” in particular deals with IAS and states that “alien species or genetically modified organisms posing a potential danger to human health or threatening to deplete biological diversity in Sweden will not be introduced”. In addition, the corresponding aim concerning IAS is valid for six other EQOs addressing specific types of nature - and the associated biodiversity – i.e. wetlands, forests, lakes and streams, the agricultural landscape, mountain areas, and the marine environment. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkEnvironmental Objectives Portalwww.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal.','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_1_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, Sweden ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation (23 November 2009). ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, several elements related to early warning are under development as part of the Swedish National Strategy and Action Plan for Alien Species and Genotypes. In addition, an inventory/database of alien species is place. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Naturvårdsverket. 2009. Nationell strategi och handlingsplan för främmande arter och genotyper (National Strategy and Action Plan för Alien Species and Genotypes), Naturvårdsverket rapport 5910 (comprehensive English summary)Weblink: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-5910-1.pdf ','09/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, Regulations on precautionary measures for the cultivation of GM crops (SJVFS 2008:34) are established in Sweden through the Administrative provision of the Swedish Board of Agriculture, issued on 26th of June 2008. There are no actual bans on GMO cultivation at neither national nor regional level. However, the use of GMOs in Sweden has so far been restricted to field trials and contained use. Chapter 13 of the Swedish Environmental Code regulates the use of GMO, and is supplemented by a number of ordinances and regulations such as the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Ordinance (SFS 2002:1086) and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Ordinance (SFS 2000:271). The Swedish legislation is based on EC Directive 2009/41/EG on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, and EC Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm www.gmo.nu/gmoenglish.4.778a5d1001f29869a7fff935.html','15/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in April 2009. Sweden has not adopted a single National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; biodiversity is incorporated into a system of environmental objectives and targets that Government has adopted. The system is assessed every four years.Sweden had paid her annual contribution to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. As for the CBD, Sweden contributed SEK 1 million to a meeting about IPBES in 2009; and in 2008 Sweden contributed SEK 0.75 million to IPBES, SEK 1.75 million to the Working Group on ABS, and SEK 0.6 million to the technical meeting of the Expert group on traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in Hyderabad which was held in 2009. In previous years, Sweden has also supported participation of delegates from developing countries with SEK 0.5-1 million yearly.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/Environmental Quality Objectives: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/ ','22/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Sweden spent EUR0.24m in 2006 and EUR0.07m in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid; both figures amount to nearly 0.00% of the respective total multilateral annual aid budget.  However, Sweden has pointed out that the figures from the Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++) have found the figures from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System to be incorrect. The figures do not include bilateral aid canalized through multilateral organisations. The correct figures are: 2006 - SEK 0 million; 2007 - SEK 241 million; 2008 - SEK 252 million. Using the exchange rate for the 1st of July each year the result is 26 million Euro for 2007 and 27 million Euro for 2008. Data is not available for 2006. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. ','Reference or title: Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++); OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','05/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Sweden spent EUR12.3m in 2006 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.007% of the total annual bilateral aid budget. 2008 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid. However, Sweden has pointed out that the figures from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System for Sweden have been found to be incorrect. These figures grossly underestimate relevance for biodiversity in the bilateral aid. The statistics have a serious deviation in that the majority of biodiversity-relevant programmes have not been tagged with the Rio Marker and hence do not show in the statistics. This is a general problem and means in effect that there are no complete statistics on biodiversity funding. Thus, the percentage of total bilateral aid budget would be misleading. The correct figures from the Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++) are: Sweden spent EUR10.6m in 2006, EUR9.1m in 2007 and EUR10.5m in 2008 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. ','Reference or title: Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++); OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','09/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A7','A7_1_4','','Sweden contributed EUR84 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 3.44 % of the total replenishment. Sweden contributed EUR92 million to the 4th replenishment which is 4.88 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF website and national information.Weblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','09/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A7','A7_2_2','','Undertaking an environment assessment is mandatory during preparation of Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) contributions. When required a full-scale EIA/SEA will be undertaken.','','','','09/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A8','A8_1','','Sweden has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. Sweden does not have national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing but awareness of the Guidelines has been raised. National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development, and awareness of the Agreement has been raised. The national consumption of wood products is to 100% derived from sustainable sources. A low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no application denied; many items were seized. There is no information on national capacity development or on support to developing countries for implementing CITES. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Legislation implementing theCBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing does not exist. However, to raise awareness information material was published in 2007 in cooperation with other Nordic Countries. ','','',' www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2007-739/at_download/publicationfile','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','In 2008, Sweden provided EUR180,190  for the meetings of the ABS Working Group.','','The exchange rate for the 2008 contribution is that of 30 June 2008.','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','22/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development. Information has been disseminated through the national Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants (POM) and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), see A.2.1.11.','','','','22/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','A8','A8_1_4','',' At least 90 % of national consumption of wood products comes from sustainable sources, as all forestry production in Sweden is considered sustainable. Approximately 10 million m3 wood products are imported yearly, which corresponds roughly to 10% of the total consumption. However, statistics are not available concerning which proportion of imported wood products is derived from sustainable sources.','','In Swedish forest policy, production goals and environmental goals are given equal weight. The Swedish model for sustainable forestry assumes a mix of management directions on different areas in the range from no operations in the forests to intensive management for high timber production. The desired mix of areas managed with different objectives may vary over time as new knowledge on sustainability emerges. Also the management methods for different objectives evolve. In this setting, pointing out specific areas as not being sustainably managed is pointless. Currently, Swedish forestry policy aims at a change in the mix of management objectives towards increasing the area managed mainly for the conservation of biodiversity.','Swedish Forest Agency www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11518','16/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import and combined export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 666 and 259, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 is 7, 5 and 1, respectively. Regarding the number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens, they were 1553 in 2007 and 574 in 2008, representing a decrease of 979. As to capacity-building at the national level and financial contributions to developing countries the information was not available. Sweden paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','',''),
	('Sweden','A9','','','Sweden has no national strategy or action plan that adresses biodiversity adaptation to climate change. This issue is briefly addressed in government bill 2008/09:162 on climate and energy, which concludes that investigation is needed regarding measures to monitor and minimize negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Further, biodiversity adaption is adressed in the in-depth evaluation of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives, although no comprehensive strategy or action plan addressing this issue exists. ','','','The Environmental Objectives Council, 2008, Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose,  Report of the in-depth evaluation: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-1266-3.pdf ','16/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_3_2','','A National Renewable Action Plan is in development in Sweden, as well as legislation oncerning sustainability criteria biofuels and bioliquids. Requirements regarding consideration for biodiversity in biomass production for energy purposes is incorporated in e.g. the Environmental Code, Forestry Act and legislation concerning agriculture.A NREAP according to the Commission\'s model is in development by the Swedish Energy Agency. However, government bill 2008/09:163 includes an action plan for renewable energy and some decisions have already been processed by the parliament, e.g. targets for the electricity certificate system and national obejctives on 50 % renewable energy.','','','General provisions that apply to biomass energy production among other activities are included in e.g. the Environmental Code:www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/28/47/385ef12a.pdfthe Forestry Act:www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=12677 and regulations concerning environmental consideration in agriculture:www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/Forfattningar/1999/1999-119.pdf www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/Forfattningar/2004/2004-062.pdf','09/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_4_1','','Sweden has no national strategy or action plan that adresses biodiversity adaptation to climate change. This issue is briefly addressed in government bill 2008/09:162 on climate and energy, which concludes that investigation is needed regarding measures to monitor and minimize negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Further, biodiversity adaption is adressed in the in-depth evaluation of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives, although no comprehensive strategy or action plan addressing this issue exists. ',NULL,NULL,'The Environmental Objectives Council, 2008, Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose,  Report of the in-depth evaluation: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-1266-3.pdf ','16/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Sweden','A9','A9_4_3','','Scientific studies to support assessments of species and habitats at risk in Sweden have been and are being undertaken at universities and by the initiative of authorities. An example of a comprehensive synopsis available in English is: Swedish Commission onClimate and Vulnerability (2007).','','','Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability, 2007, Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities,Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2007:60http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/108/a/94595Swedish Commission onClimate and Vulnerability, 2007, Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities,Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2007:60: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/108/a/94595); Lennartsson & Simonsson, 2009, Biologisk mångfald och klimatförändringar, Centrum för biologisk mångfald; Nordic Council of Ministers, 2009, Signs of Climate Change in Nordic Nature, TemaNord 2009:551Lennartsson & Simonsson, 2009, Biologisk mångfald och klimatförändringar, Centrum för biologisk mångfald.','16/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','','','The UK Biodiversity Action Plan has, as one of its six priorities, embedding proper consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all relevant sectors of policy and decision-making.  In England, the England Biodiversity Strategy’s Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group is the platform for taking forward this priority in the business sector.  Its vision is that businesses automatically engage in the management of and reporting on biodiversity as an integral part of its operations and processes.  The group comprises of representatives from government, business, and NGOs.  It has a series of key deliverables and indicators to measure success, such as the target for 95% of sites of special scientific interest in business ownership to be in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. The group has also commissioned research and run a stakeholder workshop to identify the tools and methodologies available to business to manage its impacts on biodiversity.  The final report of this work will be available early 2010.A number of partnerships have been set up in England, for example:The Nature after Minerals (NAM) partnership has been set up between Natural England (NE), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (the 2 funding bodies) and the Minerals Producers Association (MPA), the umbrella organisation for the quarrying and cement industries.  The aim of the partnership is to facilitate biodiversity restoration on minerals sites, as the aggregate is extracted. The project will shortly appoint two technical advisers to work alongside the industry on specific restoration projects, and a national planning adviser who will help minerals planning authorities to integrate biodiversity restoration into industry planning applications. The partnership has  regular meetings, and the project was recently the subject of a Ministerial launch/reception attended by industry and biodiversity representatives at the House of Commons, hosted by Joan Ruddock MP, the then Minister for the Environment.At a regional level, Natural England and the North West Development Agency worked in partnership to set up “Natural Economy Northwest (NENW)” which sought to maximise the economic benefits of investment in the natural environment. The Natural Economy Northwest is involved in several further partnerships to take its work forward.   For example, ENWORKS (part of the Government’s Business Link) trains existing environmental management business advisers to advise businesses on the benefits to them of engaging with biodiversity. NENW works in partnership with the SITA Trust to fund conservation projects through its Enriching Nature programme.','','It is not possible to quantify the number of partnerships because many of these cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity.  The examples above are an indication of the type of partnerships that exist.','Reference or title: Nature after Minerals NAM  Weblink: http://www.afterminerals.com/index.aspx Reference or title: Natural Economy Northwest Weblink: www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk','26/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A10_1','','There are three main sources of publically-funded biodiversity research in the UK (ERFF 2007):1.	Research in universities and other institutions primarily  administered by the research councils;2.	Research budgets of Government Departments; and3.	Research budgets of Government Agencies.The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is the UK research council with principal responsibility for biodiversity research. NERC has a series of themed programmes addressing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the UK Government Department with principal responsibility for biodiversity policy and research. It has a dedicated biodiversity research programme as well as agricultural and marine environment research programmes with significant biodiversity components. The Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and Government agencies in Northern Ireland have separate biodiversity research programmes.There are a number of other Government Agencies where biodiversity is the principal or significant component of their research programmes. Finally, the UK Government supports a number of other world-renowned centres of excellence in biodiversity research and management such as the Natural History Museum and the Botanic Gardens of Kew, Edinburgh and Cardiff.','','','','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A10_1_2','','The UK is undertaking a National Ecosystem Assessment, assessing the terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems across the country in terms of the value that they provide to society and the economy.  This will follow the general approach of the Millennium Assessment and will report fully in the spring of 2011, with interim results being available ahead of that time.  This has been developed in consultation with the EURECA programme. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has an extensive work programme on developing tools and other resources to allow the value of the natural environment to be better taken into account in policies, strategies and decision making.  Much of this work is summed up in progress towards our Ecosystems Approach Action Plan, published in December 2007.   ','','Much of this work is summed up in progress towards our Ecosystems Approach Action Plan, published in December 2007.   http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm and the associated introductory guide to the valuation of ecosystem services.  The latest progress reports, including how this is interacting with Biodiversity policy and research is also available on our website','Reference or title: Weblink: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm; http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/research.htm ','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A10_1_8','','The United Kingdom’s National Biodiversity Research Platform is the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group. It exists to identify, promote and facilitate biodiversity research to support UK and individual country biodiversity action plan commitments; coordinate effective and efficient UK engagement with European biodiversity research issues, fulfilling the role of a national biodiversity research platform; contribute to effective biodiversity research networking in the UK, leading to increased interdisciplinary capacity; and support knowledge transfer activities in relation to biodiversity research.','','news items from 2009','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A10_1_9','','The United Kingdom has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since August 2001. The ‘Participant node’ for the UK is the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), who host the NBN Gateway. The NBN Gateway acts as a ‘data warehouse’ for biodiversity information in the UK and currently holds over 40million records from organisations all over the UK.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A total of 11 German organisations contribute to ENBI.Several organisations from the United Kingdom participate in ENBI.   The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew  are the main contractors for WP4: IPR, Copyrights & financial issues. The University of Reading, Centre for Plant Diversity & Systematics - School of Plant Sciences is the main contractor for WP5: Check lists and species banks. The Natural History Museum, Department of Entomology is the main contractor for WP6: Collections. The University of Wales, Cardiff, Dept. of Computer Science is both a contributor to WP8: Data management and a member of WP9: Interoperability and common access. The Species 2000 Secretariat is a contributor to WP5 Check lists and species banks and also a member of WP 11: Multilingual access. In addition, the following organisations participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of specific Work Packages:Natural Environment Research Council, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (member WP12: Info services on European data)Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh (RBGE) (member WP2: ENBI Forums)Freshwaterlife. Freshwater Biological Association (member WP12: Info services on European data)University of Essex, Dept. of Electronic Systems Engineering (member WP6: Collections)CAB International. Biosystematics & Molecular Biology (member WP5: Check lists and species banks)','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 2 of 4 (50%) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of remaining 2 of the 4 (50%) coastal habitats and of the single rocky habitat is unknown.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 50% or more of all habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. For grasslands, forests and bogs, fens and mires all habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of the 16 (17%) of the rocky habitats is unknown.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, all rocky habitats are in favourable condition. The condition of all coastal habitats is reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate.In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) coastal habitats, rocky habitats and forests are reported to be in favourable condition. 1 of 2 (50%) dunes habitats are also reported to be in favourable condition, the remaining 1 of 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of all Mediterranean sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be inadequate. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title  and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has designated 623 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 29,066 km², totalling 6.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 49 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 12,409 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 268 with a total area of 16,253 km², totalling 6.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 4, with a marine area of 901 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','83% of Natura 2000 sites have a management plan completed, 3% of sites have a management plan in preparation and 14% of sites do not have management plan completed or in preparation. There is no obligation to produce management plans under the Habitats Directive, although this is considered good practice. The UK has established conservation measures including appropriate management plans for SACs. Management Plans integrate the legislative provisions for both European sites and the underpinning national sites to ensure that all habitats and species present are given an appropriate level of protection and management. The plans reported under this section include ‘site management statements’ and ‘views about management’, both of which are types of document used to inform owners and occupiers of sites about the nature conservation interests of designated sites and how the statutory conservation agencies consider the qualifying interests should be managed. For marine sites, detailed management plans have been established under Regulation 33 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (‘Habitats Regulations’). For the purposes of this section comprehensive management plans have also been taken to include Forestry Commission plans (including forest design plans), National Nature Reserve plans, Natural Care Schemes with stated objectives, Marine Management Schemes, Catchment Management Plans and an Atlantic Salmon Catchment Management Plan.','','Second Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on the implementation of the Directive from January 2001 to December 2006: Annex A - General reporting format for the 2001-2006 report (Atlantic Biogeographic) RegionWeblink: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/FCS2007_General_report.pdf”','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/FCS2007_General_report.pdf”','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_2_3','','In development.  A research project for the development of an indicator of habitat connectivity, based on modelling functional connectivity and landscape information from Countryside Survey is approaching completion in early 2010, which could lead to further application of the methods to assess connectivity at regional and local levels for targeting of agri environmental schemes to enhance connectivity.  Further development has yet to be confirmed. Ref WC0704 at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15618. And Completed- In 2008, a review was completed of literature giving evidence of how species move through landscapes ( eg distances moved, using stepping stones or corridors), searched for empirical evidence, which identified knowledge gaps, particularly for BAP species and also gave a comprehensive glossary of terms. Which landscape features affect species movement? A systematic review in the context of climate change. REF. CR0389, 2008 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0705_7598_FRP.pdf. Northern Ireland has an ongoing programme of expansion for its network of protected areas; ensuring better geographic representation and enhanced coherence; improving representation of previously under-represented habitats and species; and using monitoring results to assist improved management.','','',':','26.2.2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_3','','Of the 265 regularly occurring bird species in the UK, 6 are globally Near-threatened and 3 are Red-listed (one of which, the Great Auk, is extinct). Note this refers to all bird species of the UK, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 6 of the 13 (46%) mammals is favourable. 8 of the 13 (8%) mammals and 2 of the 2 (100%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 1 of 1 (100%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 13 (46%) mammals is unknown. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 8 of the 22 (36%) mammals and 4 of the 18 (22%) plants were reported to be in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 6 of the 12 (50%) fish and amphibians and reptiles and 8 of the 18 (44%) plants was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 33% apiece, 5 of the 15 invertebrates and 2 of the 6 amphibians and reptiles, and 5 of the 18 (28%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 12 (25%) fish and 9 of the 22 (41%) mammals is unknown.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, all amphibians and reptiles and all mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) of mammals are in an unfavourable- bad condition.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: this is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%1100%00%1Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals646%18%00%646%00%13Plants 00%2100%00%00%00%2Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 117%350%233%00%00%6Fish 18%650%217%325%00%12Invertebrates320%427%533%320%00%15Mammals836%314%29%941%00%22Plants 422%844%528%16%00%18Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%2100%00%00%00%2Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%1100%00%00%00%1Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%1100%00%00%1Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','A1_3_1','RedList','See http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=54 and http://www.ukbap.org.uk/species.aspx for details of the 382 species which have had an action plan written for them.  In 2007, following a significant review, a new list of 1150 species was adopted.  The UK uses trends in populations of selected species (wild birds):  breeding farmland birds, breeding woodland birds, breeding water and wetland birds, breeding seabirds and wintering water birds as indicators. See http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3408 for a downloadable spreadsheet of conservation designations for UK fauna and flora, including new priority listing after a recent review.  Not all species now identified as a priority have an action plan. The UK has red data lists for birds, invertebrates and plants.','','',' http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3408','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B1_1_1','','Since 2000/01 there has been a year-on-year increase in biodiversity expenditure from the public sector in real terms, resulting in an overall increase of 112%. The increases in public sector expenditure in the UK should be considered in the context of the need to increase funding, in tandem with the appropriate policy and legislative measures, to a level sufficient to meet biodiversity targets. The environmental protection expenditure account (EPEA) is a formal framework for the collection and compilation of data on environmental protection expenditure that is closely linked to the National Accounts. It is part of the wider conceptual structure for a harmonised monetary description of environmental protection activities developed by Eurostat in the early 1990s, known as the European System for the Collection of Economic Information on the Environment (SERIEE). The accounts cover all spending on environmental protection, including spending on biodiversity, which is within the domain of spending on biodiversity and landscape.  Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, the UK spent up to EUR4,386,604 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. The UK spent up to EUR2,723,233 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from the UK’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the UK’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B1_1_4','','The UK’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR0.07m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR29m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR60m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. Note that the UK is unable to sign off this Measure of Progress without sight of data.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','Unable to sign off without sight of data','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B1_1_8','','The most recent assessment of direct spend on environmental research and training was published in 2007 (ERFF, 2007). This assessment was based on expenditure in the financial year April 2004 to March 2005 (04/05). This found that the total amount spent on Biodiversity Research by UK public bodies in 2004/05 was £33 million, out of a total expenditure on environmental research of £284 million.The expenditure was calculated by entering all publically-funded research projects into a central database and assigning a primary purpose to each project. Therefore, £33 million was the expenditure on publically-funded research projects which had biodiversity as their sole or primary purpose.  The amount for 2006 is given as approximately £33 million on the assumption that it would have been similar to the amount found in 04/05. The largest contributors are as follows (in order, largest contribution first): Natural Environment Research Council (c. £14 million), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (c £11 million),  Scottish Government (c. £3 million), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Agency (c. £2 million) and the Department for International Development (c £1 million).The expenditure from NERC and Defra, the two largest contributors has risen since the report was published. NERC expenditure on biodiversity research is given in their 08/09 NERC Annual Report http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/annualreport/2009/annualreport.pdf.•	2007/2008 - £20,665,000•	2008/2009 - £24,165,000Defra expenditure on terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity research, agri-environment research and Kew (Royal Botanic Garden) sponsorship has also risen over this period. Therefore, although it is not possible to give exact figures for more recent years, we can be confident that expenditure on biodiversity research in the UK is greater than £33 million (c. 36.5 million euros).','','The ERFF database has been updated since 2007 but the projects have not been categorised by primary purpose. It is therefore not possible at this time to provide an detailed update to the figures.','Reference or title:Weblink:Environmental Research Funders Forum (ERFF). 2007. Strategic Analysis of UK Environmental Research Activity.Weblink: www.erff.org.uk','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B2_4','','The UK BAP Partnership published in October 2007 a new strategic framework for the Plan which reflects the changing context brought about by devolution, climate change, the EU 2010 target and the findings in 2005 of the Millennium Ecosystem Approach.  Entitled “Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach”, it sets out a vision and shared purpose for tackling the loss and restoration of biodiversity, the guiding principles that will be followed, the priorities for action in the UK and internationally, and indicators to monitor progress.The priorities for action are: •	protecting the best sites for wildlife;•	targeting action on priority species and habitats;•	embedding proper consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all relevant sectors of policy and decision making;•	engaging people and encouraging behaviour change;•	developing and interpreting the evidence base;•	ensuring the UK plays a proactive role in influencing the development of multilateral environmental agreements and contributes fully to their domestic delivery.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://defraweb/environment/biodiversity/documents/conbiouk-102007.pdf','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B3_1_2','','There are 127 local biodiversity partnerships in England. These are not specific to farming or forestry issues, but cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity in the local area. Each work on the basis of partnership to identify local priorities and to determine the contribution they can make to the delivery of the UK’s national  biodiversity objectives. They have been facilitated through the engagement of the statutory delivery body for nature conservation, national guidance, some funding arrangements and through the overarching UK partnership approach. At regional level, in England, there are nine regional partnerships (covering the nine English regions).In England, workstreams  exist as part of the England Biodiversity Strategy, which seek to help embed consideration of biodiversity into both the agriculture and the forestry sector.  These workstreams comprise representatives of government, government agencies, conservation NGOs and respectively the farming industry, landowners and forestry industry.  In addition, there are a number of initiative-specific groups, such as those which seek to conserve and enhance hedgerows and arable field margins.','','The local biodiversity partnerships are not specific to forestry or farming issues, but cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity in each area.','Reference or title:Weblink:UK Biodiversity Action Plan website, pages on local biodiversity partnerships Weblink: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=57','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B3_1_5','','The Ministry for Environment, Defra has taken measures to integrate biodiversity and other considerations into the development of National Policy Statements (NPS) that Government departments are preparing for major infrastructure developments in sectors such as transport, energy, water and waste. Flagship “eco-towns” are an example of sustainable design and planning. Consultations are underway across the country. Each town should develop a strategy for conserving local biodiversityA Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and a linked legal Circular (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/2005/Defra Circular 01/2005) was published by the government of England in 2005.  It states that planning policies should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity interests. This was followed by a good practice guide to support the policy statement; including practical examples of how local authorities can plan for biodiversity. In Wales, standardised guidance on the development of local wildlife site systems has been completed.  The guidelines can be applied to a site for evaluation by various criteria including rarity, size, naturalness/typicalness and diversity as well as position in ecological unit, potential value, fragility and educational/social value. All relevant planning bodies and authorities can act according to information about the location and interest of the site.Scotland has recently developed a new planning system called the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. The changes introduced by the Act are stated to be substantial and have the overall aim of creating a more efficient process to enable sustainable economic growth. The consolidated Scottish Planning Policy includes considerations for biodiversity, replacing the National Planning Policy Guidance publication on Natural Heritage.There is also evidence of regional and local frameworks being set up for biodiversity and planning partnerships. For instance, a Biodiversity Planning Guidance Document for Norfolk was launched by the Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership in September 2004. It is aimed at developers, development control officers and planners. It is a practical tool which has been adopted by local authorities across the region in order to raise the standards of new development by encouraging companies and planners to protect existing biodiversity and looking for ways of enhancing biodiversity. The work of local and regional biodiversity partnerships feed into the preparation of local and regional planning strategies.','','','Reference or title: UK CBD 4th National ReportWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/Reference or title Wales Biodiversity Partnership website Weblink: http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/content/uploads/documents/Guidance%20Legislation/WS%20Guidance%20FinalWeb%20ver_Oct%2008Web.pdfReference or title: Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice 2006.Weblinks: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps9; and http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningbiodiversityReference or title: Norfolk Biodiversity PartnershipWeblink: http://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/BSPG%20for%20Norfolk/default.asp','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B3_1_6','','The UK Biodiversity Action Plan has, as one of its six priorities, embedding proper consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all relevant sectors of policy and decision-making.  In England, the England Biodiversity Strategy’s Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group is the platform for taking forward this priority in the business sector.  Its vision is that businesses automatically engage in the management of and reporting on biodiversity as an integral part of its operations and processes.  The group comprises of representatives from government, business, and NGOs.  It has a series of key deliverables and indicators to measure success, such as the target for 95% of sites of special scientific interest in business ownership to be in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. The group has also commissioned research and run a stakeholder workshop to identify the tools and methodologies available to business to manage its impacts on biodiversity.  The final report of this work will be available early 2010.A number of partnerships have been set up in England, for example:The Nature after Minerals (NAM) partnership has been set up between Natural England (NE), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (the 2 funding bodies) and the Minerals Producers Association (MPA), the umbrella organisation for the quarrying and cement industries.  The aim of the partnership is to facilitate biodiversity restoration on minerals sites, as the aggregate is extracted. The project will shortly appoint two technical advisers to work alongside the industry on specific restoration projects, and a national planning adviser who will help minerals planning authorities to integrate biodiversity restoration into industry planning applications. The partnership has  regular meetings, and the project was recently the subject of a Ministerial launch/reception attended by industry and biodiversity representatives at the House of Commons, hosted by Joan Ruddock MP, the then Minister for the Environment.At a regional level, Natural England and the North West Development Agency worked in partnership to set up “Natural Economy Northwest (NENW)” which sought to maximise the economic benefits of investment in the natural environment. The Natural Economy Northwest is involved in several further partnerships to take its work forward.   For example, ENWORKS (part of the Government’s Business Link) trains existing environmental management business advisers to advise businesses on the benefits to them of engaging with biodiversity. NENW works in partnership with the SITA Trust to fund conservation projects through its Enriching Nature programme.','','It is not possible to quantify the number of partnerships because many of these cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity.  The examples above are an indication of the type of partnerships that exist.','Reference or title: Nature after Minerals NAM  Weblink: http://www.afterminerals.com/index.aspx Reference or title: Natural Economy Northwest Weblink: www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk','26/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity. However, representatives of the finance sector have participated in the business and biodiversity workstream that exists under the England Biodiversity Strategy.  In addition, the British Government has been looking to foster stronger relations with the sector, particularly in light of the work being done on TEEB and on biodiversity offsets.  UK government scientific advisers have also produced material on the biodiversity footprint of UK foreign direct investment.  ','','','Reference or title:','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B4_1_1','','The Muck In4Life campaign aims to increase the number and diversity of citizens in England involved in conservation volunteering.  It ties in with a major health campaign Change4Life in communicating that being active in green spaces and the natural environment, through conservation volunteering, can offer physical and health benefits to those involved, especially families, who are the main focus of Change4Life, as well as biodiversity benefits. The campaign aims to engage families, including grandparents and children age 6-11, in new volunteering opportunities through a range of partners (around 30 organisations including non-governmental organisations, charities and government delivery bodies).  Muck-in-4-life relates to the EU Biodiversity Action Plan as it is a communications campaign that seeks to build public education, awareness and participation in biodiversity.  The campaign encourages citizens to get involved in biodiversity-related volunteering activities.  A wide range of national and local conservation organisations are involved as partners in the campaign and offer a range of conservation volunteering opportunities.  The government department, DEFRA has also contributed support for capacity-building so that organisations are equipped to deal with the additional volunteers.  The Muck-in-4-life website (http://muckin4life.direct.gov.uk/) provides information for the public on the conservation opportunities available and links to partner volunteering websites.Other actions include establishing a wide partnership of nearly 300 organisations to promote the importance of biodiversity to the public during the International Year of Biodiversity in 2010.','','','Reference or title: Muck In 4 Life campaign Weblink: www.direct.gov.uk/muckin4lifeReference or title: UK biodiversity indicator on volunteering  Weblink: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4253','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A1','B4_1_2','','The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (8/6/2005), Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) (10/13/2008), Countryside Council for Wales (5/8/2006), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)  (3/5/2008) and Natural England (10/1/2005) all made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initiative.Some of the activities proposed in support of the Initiative included the following:The JNCC communicated that it would significantly reduce the rate of global biodiversity loss through high-quality scientific input to CoPs. It also stated that it would give advice on nature conservation in the UK\'s overseas territories, focusing on priorities identified by the inter-departmental ministerial group of biodiversity and that it would develop and implement environment-related EU policies and legislation.    The CEH stated that it was committed to conducting research and long-term, large-scale monitoring to develop improved understanding of the biological processes and interactions underlying large-scale biodiversity changes. They proposed the undertaking of integrated assessments of the impact of the land-use change, including habitat degradation, on the reproductive success and dispersal of native and invasive populations to develop better conservation strategies. They also suggested the use of advanced DNA and molecular approaches to quantify the role of genetic diversity to explain how different functional types of organism respond to environmental change. By combining their data through robust statistical analysis and modelling, their aim was to will improve knowledge of how natural resource use affects biodiversity and ecosystem function. They proposed the development of reliable indicators for assessing environmental status across physical and biological scales. Overall their goal was to provide knowledge and science-based advice to support the implementation of policies including Environment Stewardship Schemes, Biodiversity Action Plans and EU Directives.From 2006 to 2008 DEFRA committed £3.8 million to a fund administered by Natural England which supported projects run by voluntary organisations that were contributing towards halting biodiversity loss in England. This fund was called the Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Action Fund and was closely branded to the IUCN initiative. During this time, 34 projects were supported covering all nine of the regions in England, and all of the projects included actions to protect or enhance priority species and habitats (UK BAP list).A further scheme was launched using Natural England’s core funding in 2008 which will run until March 2011. This scheme has awarded £5.0 million to 38 projects in England under the same scheme name (Countdown 2010 BAF). The projects are once again run by voluntary bodies and are supporting priority species and habitats across the country. The scheme is still running and there are plans to communicate the outcomes of this scheme during the International Year for Biodiversity using the IUCN initiative branding in the outputs.','','','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedReference or title: Natural England Countdown 2010.Weblink: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/funding/countdown2010.aspx','We will verify once changes have been incorporated.','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','C1_2','','The UK developed its indicators in parallel / in advance of the SEBI set and has used data which provide information on national progress towards meeting the 2010 target.  The indicators are closely aligned, but where the UK has better information available at a national level we have capitalised on that. The European Environment Agency has details of which SEBI indicators contain UK data. See also the review undertaken by the EEA in advance of the EIONET meeting in October 2009 for a correspondence between country indicators and the SEBI indicators.  ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the publication UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009, augmented by information provided by the UK. The indicators were updated on the website in 2008 and both web and hard copy update is in progress for publication in late May 2010. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009Weblink: www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','C1_2_1','','The UK developed its indicators in parallel / in advance of the SEBI set and has used data which provide information on national progress towards meeting the 2010 target.  The indicators are closely aligned, but where the UK has better information available at a national level we have capitalised on that.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the publication UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009, augmented by information provided by the UK. The European Environment Agency has details of which SEBI indicators contain UK data. See also the review undertaken by the EEA in advance of the EIONET meeting in October 2009 for a correspondence between country indicators and the SEBI indicators. ','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009Weblink: www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A1','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A1','C1_3_1','','A database allowing users to search the results from the UK surveillance and monitoring schemes is available in the Schemes and results section of the JNCC website. A summary of the results for each taxonomic group is also provided.  Further analysis of the results can be found under Analysis and trends.','','','http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3713  ','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `country_report` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('United Kingdom','A2','','','Standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.In addition there are other GAEC standards in England that may have biodiversity benefits relating to:GAEC 1 – Soil Protection Review (amalgamating the previous standards GAEC 1-4)GAEC 5 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)GAEC 6 – Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (i.e. a form of national protected area)GAEC 9 – Overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feedingGAEC 10 – Heather and grass burningGAEC 11 – Control of weedsGAEC 12 – Agricultural land which is not in agricultural productionGAEC 13 – Stone wallsGAEC 14 – Protection of hedgerows and watercoursesGAEC 15 – HedgerowsGAEC 16 – Felling of treesGAEC 17 – Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)GAEC 18 – Water abstraction (implemented from 1st January 2010)','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfFurther detail on each of these standards can be found under the “Guide to cross compliance in England” available on the Rural Payments Agency website at the following link: http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/293a8949ec0ba26d80256f65003bc4f7/21c99ddaeb3232a9802573aa004efa3e!OpenDocument   ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in the United Kingdom total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 4604.61 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 8244.75 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 3333.83 million EUR, and 6344.56 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 72.40 and 76.95 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in the United Kingdom was 2417.46 million EUR (4463.18 million with co-financing) and amounted to 52.5 per cent of the EAFRD (54.13 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 32.13 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.7 per cent of EAFRD) and 61.15 million EUR of public expenditure (0.74 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in the United Kingdom for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.According to reporting by the Member State, the England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 has, through its previous agri-environment schemes and the targeted element of Environmental Stewardship, made significant progress in improving the ecological condition of the highest value sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest or SSSIs).  Across the SSSI series (which includes all land-based Natura 2000 sites) the proportion of sites in target ecological condition has improved from 50% in 2000 to over 72% in 2006, following agreements made under agri-environment schemes under the first England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 (as modified). The Programme for England 2007-2013 will build on the achievements of the previous programme, using Entry Level Schemes (ELS) and from 2010, Uplands Entry Level Schemes to continue to improve the quality of the wider farmed environment, Organic ELS to secure the additional environmental benefits associated with organic farming and Higher Level Schemes to continue to concentrate resources on the most valuable features with the most complex requirements. Environmental Stewardship will remain the principal agri-environment mechanism to deliver the three EU priorities concerning biodiversity, water, and climate change in England.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)49.5776142.5064Forest environment payments (225)1.5342.451','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national action on farm animal genetic resources has been adopted and a number of actions are already underway. The National Standing Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources (NSC FAnGR) was established in 2008 as a UK body with participation from the devolved administrations and representation from animal geneticists, experts in conservation management, conservation Non-Government Organisations and mainstream species associations.  The Committee’s principal role is to provide advice to Government and interested parties on issues relating to farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR) and to oversee implementation of the UK’s 2006 National Action Plan on FAnGR.  The Committee and progress on the National Action Plan will be reviewed in 2011.The conservation of genetic resources in commercial tree species is promoted through the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations. In situ conservation measures are also being taken for 17 commercial tree species (with a value of 84,000 Euro). This is carried out by the formal registration of seed stands. Registered seed stands exist for the following commercial species: Ash, Beech, Cherry, Corsican Pine, Douglas Fir, Larch - European, Japanese and Hybrid, Grand Fir, Lawson\'s Cyprus, Lodgepole Pine, Noble Fir, Oak - sessile and peduncular, Scots pine, Silver Birch, Sitka spruce, Sweet Chestnut, Sycamore.Although there is no national strategy for the in-situ conservation of crop wild relatives of genetic resources and fruit and vegetable landraces, a number of projects have taken place that will help inform a future strategy or national plan including:•	A vegetable Landrace inventory of England and Wales. An initial scoping exercise for UK crop landraces (traditional varieties of crops largely developed by farmers over extended time rather than formally bred by plant breeders) indicated that there remains a significant wealth of landrace diversity in the UK, but that it is often highly geographically localized and critically threatened with extinction. The overall aim of the project is to systematically develop an inventory of English and Welsh vegetable landrace diversity to provide the baseline information needed to: a) ensure that this diversity is adequately conserved and b) promote its utilisation, both directly by local consumers of the varieties and indirectly by plant breeders to meet changing environmental and market demands, thus promoting UK food security.•	Natural England’s Higher Level Stewardship Programme encourages the maintenance of traditional orchards through 4 schemes:o	HC18 Maintenance of high-value traditional orchards o	HC19 Maintenance of traditional orchards in productiono	HC20 Restoration of traditional orchardso	HC21 Creation of traditional orchardsAlthough the Schemes in part aim to conserve historical landscapes and niche habitats for biodiversity they also encourage the preservation of rare varieties of fruit and nuts. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.* Nov 2006','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: FAnGR Website  http://www.defra.gov.uk/fangr/ Vegetable Land Race project: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=1&ProjectID=16377  Traditional Orchards:Further details for 2010’s scheme in the Higher Level Stewardship handbook (section 3) are available on this web page: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NE227 ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in the United Kingdom in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.Figures above do not include England.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','Unable to sign off without sight of data','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. The UK Forestry standard sets out that only native species of local origin will be used for planting native woodland. However, the UKFS is currently being revised, so this position may change. Non-native species are permitted for commercial use. A felling license is required to remove trees. If it is considered that this may have a significant impact and Environmental Impact Assessment is required.According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys (generally advised for protected species) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 5 ha for afforestation and 1 ha deforestation. These figures are for Forestry Commission England. The areas are less (2 ha and 0.5 ha respectively) in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or National Scenic Areas (NSA). In designated areas all applications would require an EIA. SEAs are used at the higher strategic level. A license may also be required if the afforestation or deforestation will impact on an EPS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: UK Forestry Standard and Forests and Biodiversity Guidelines (to be published in Autumn 2010), Country Forestry and biodiversity strategies. WWW.forestry.gov.uk ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to the Member State, in 2009 the United Kingdom had a total certified forest area of 1,283,000 hectares out of a total forest area of 2.841 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in the United Kingdom was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 45.1 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.According to the Member State, given the lack of agreement between the type of woodland and extent between FSC and that which is likely to be classified as HNV Forestry, the country is unable to sign off the MOP. The primary driver for woodland managers to seek certification is to ensure woodlands managed for commercial interests are managed sustainably. The motivation to attain certification for those woodlands with a high biodiversity value is less as commercial timber production may not be their primary motivation for management. There is no requirement for woodlands with high ecological value, which are likely to reflect the HNV definition, to be certified. In fact, woodlands with the highest ecological interest are very unlikely to be certified as requirements may conflict with management objectives.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self; http://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','Unable to sign off for the reasons given above.','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in the United Kingdom amounted to 5.16 million ha, representing a share of 26.7% per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to reporting by the Member State, original work in the UK on extent of semi-natural land cover that is dependant upon Hugh Nature Value Farming is still valid, but in England will underestimate the true extent. This measure relates low intensity or extensive farming to high nature value, but many HNV features exist on otherwise intensively managed farmland because of the approach that the UK has adopted in supporting the retention of patches of semi-natural habitat within farming systems.  The practical definition of HNV farming is still under development and has yet to be resolved.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, MS questionnaire','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_4','','Standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.In addition there are other GAEC standards in England that may have biodiversity benefits relating to:GAEC 1 – Soil Protection Review (amalgamating the previous standards GAEC 1-4)GAEC 5 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)GAEC 6 – Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (i.e. a form of national protected area)GAEC 9 – Overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feedingGAEC 10 – Heather and grass burningGAEC 11 – Control of weedsGAEC 12 – Agricultural land which is not in agricultural productionGAEC 13 – Stone wallsGAEC 14 – Protection of hedgerows and watercoursesGAEC 15 – HedgerowsGAEC 16 – Felling of treesGAEC 17 – Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)GAEC 18 – Water abstraction (implemented from 1st January 2010)',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfFurther detail on each of these standards can be found under the “Guide to cross compliance in England” available on the Rural Payments Agency website at the following link: http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/293a8949ec0ba26d80256f65003bc4f7/21c99ddaeb3232a9802573aa004efa3e!OpenDocument   ','26/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Information on such events is advertised by Natural England on their website in relation to Environmental Stewardship (see links below).','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/landmanagementadvice/events/default.aspx ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member States’ response monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for HNV forestry. Monitoring has not been out in place for HNV farming (the HNV farming definition is still being clarified), but surrogate figures are available, based upon extent of semi-natural land cover and designated nature conservation areas. Tree species composition is not being monitored.No response is provided relating to the monitoring of population trends of farmland birds, but the UK has long-established a detailed bird monitoring schemes and England has a specific farmland bird indicator. Figure: Breeding farmland birds index for the UKThe breeding farmland birds index for the UK (19 species) was 47 per cent lower in 2008 than its 1970 level. Most of the decline in the farmland birds index occurred between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s, but the index increased by 2 per cent between 2007 and 2008.The indicator has been compiled in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), principally the Common Birds Census (from 1966 to 2000) and the BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey (from 1994 to 2008). ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/national/20.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wildlife/kf/wdkf03.htm  ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 482 million € has been added to UK’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, the United Kingdom attributed € 235 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 49% per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','Unable to sign off without sight of data','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, national monitoring programmes have been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity, and parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory.The Countryside Survey is an audit of the natural resources of the UK’s countryside. The Survey has been carried out at regular intervals since 1978, and the UK is therefore able to detect gradual and subtle changes that occur over time. The soils work package for the last (2007) survey included indicators of invertebrate diversity, and research is now being undertaken to scope out further indicators of soil biodiversity for inclusion in future monitoring programmes.  ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 25 per cent of the Atlantic fresh water habitats in the United Kingdom have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 75 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8620075%25%0%0%U11  U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Details on Protected Areas can be found in Annex D in each of the environment agency links below:Anglian RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/anglian/Intro.aspx Dee RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/dee/Intro.aspx Humber RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/humber/Intro.aspx Northumbria RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northumbria/Intro.aspx North West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northwest/Intro.aspx Severn RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/severn/Intro.aspx Solway Tweed RBD: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx South East RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southeast/Intro.aspx South West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southwest/Intro.aspx Thames RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/thames/Intro.aspx Western Wales RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/westernwales/Intro.aspx  ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in the United Kingdom oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 1.78 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.45 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a decrease from 0.17 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.08 mg N/l in 2005. Values were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 5.03 mg N/l in 2002 to 4.91 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 5.41 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly above weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 27.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 18.5 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 29.1 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.325 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.346 mg P/l in 2005, being at the lowest level of 0.239 mg P/l in 2004.  The 2005 value was clearly above the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA). Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe Further details of Environment Agency data can be found at the links below.  Anglian RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/anglian/Intro.aspx Dee RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/dee/Intro.aspxHumber RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/humber/Intro.aspx Northumbria RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northumbria/Intro.aspx North West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northwest/Intro.aspx Severn RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/severn/Intro.aspx Solway Tweed RBD: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx South East RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southeast/Intro.aspx South West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southwest/Intro.aspx Thames RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/thames/Intro.aspx Western Wales RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/westernwales/Intro.aspx ','Unable to verify without sight of all data','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 the United Kingdom had a total number of 3 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 25 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage decreased.According to reporting by the Member State, in 2009 4 inland bathing waters passed guideline standard (33.3%).  From 2012 UK will reduce the number of parameters being monitored to 2 (E.coli and intestinal enterococci) , in line with the requirements of the revised Bathing Water Directive.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the United Kingdom developed three out of four biological assessment methods for transitional waters and nearly all three for coastal waters (regarding macro-algae and angiosperm assessment this depended on the district). No phytoplankton assessment was available for rivers and fish fauna analysis was either developed or undeveloped for lakes or partially under development or not developed for rivers, depending again on the districts. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 1560 in the United Kingdom.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#secondSee details on plans and programmes in the links below:Anglian RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/anglian/Intro.aspx Dee RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/dee/Intro.aspx Humber RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/humber/Intro.aspx Northumbria RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northumbria/Intro.aspx North West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northwest/Intro.aspx Severn RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/severn/Intro.aspx Solway Tweed RBD: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx South East RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southeast/Intro.aspx South West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southwest/Intro.aspx Thames RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/thames/Intro.aspx Western Wales RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/westernwales/Intro.aspx  ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 the United Kingdom had a total number of 3980 IPPC installations and issued 3976 permits. 4 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPCC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 the United Kingdom’s emissions of ammonia, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) were already lower than the relevant ceilings. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides were still well above the targets set. The United Kingdom is expected to meet its NECD 2010 objectives for three pollutants, but not nitrogen oxides, though slight improvements to previous years have taken place. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007 figures, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in the United Kingdom the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 39 and 26 per cent respectively, considering an area of 8,1815km2 and 9,2244km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 19 and 15 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 7 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 19 per cent in 2010 and 17 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 9 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, the United Kingdom’s gross nitrogen balance was 43 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 23 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).According to the Member State, in terms of the figures on Nitrogen balance the following applies•	The soil nitrogen balance approach provides a useful high level measure of the environmental pressures from nitrogen loadings.  However it does not tell the fate of the N surplus so we do not know whether these loadings result in damage to water or losses to air as nitrous oxide or ammonia.•	There is not a strong link between pesticide use and the nitrogen balance so it is surprising  to see the two elements within this one indicator•	The nitrogen balance uses a large range of data and we are still seeking to refine and improve the estimates for the UK.  These early estimates by OECD should be treated with caution and more recent estimates are significantly higher (85 kg/ha for 2007).•	Having said that, the OECD figures are likely to be fairly robust in terms of long term trends and the 23% fall will likely be much more reliable than the absolute levels quoted.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/research/pdf/nutrientbalance.pdf ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, the United Kingdom’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. In 2006 the indicator was at 68.7 per cent, a 31.3 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 17 species were assessed.Please consult A2.1.8 for UK’s national farmland birds indicator.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U10  U29       Status of forest habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U10  U210       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage101000%100%0%0%U10 U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6510083%17%0%0%U10  U25       Status of peat land habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U10  U29       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','26/02/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for the United Kingdom provided information on the status of marine habitats in the Marine Atlantic and Marine Mediterranean regions. In the Marine Atlantic region, five habitats were assessed—two had a ‘Bad’ status (40%) and three had an ‘Unknown’ status (60%). In the Marine Mediterranean region, two marine habitats were assessed—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (50%) and the other had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%). Coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic and Mediterranean biogeographic regions. In the Atlantic region 11 coastal habitats were assessed, two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (18%) and the remaining nine had a ‘Bad’ status (82%). One coastal habitat was assessed in the Mediterranean region and it had a ‘Favourable’ status.Marine species were assessed in both the Marine Atlantic and Marine Mediterranean regions. A total of 16 marine species, including reptiles, mammals and plants, were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region—six had a ‘Favourable’ status (38%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (19%), and seven had an ‘Unknown’ status (44%). A total of three marine species were assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region: two reptiles and a mammal. All three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (100%).','','‘An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%00%240%360%00%5Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats150%150%00%00%00%2AtlanticCoastal habitats00%218%982%00%00%11MediterraneanMarine habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals646%18%00%646%00%13Marine AtlanticPlants00%2100%00%00%00%1Marine AtlanticTOTAL638%319%00%744%00%16Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanMammals00%1100%00%00%00%1Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%3100%00%00%00%3The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','29/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_1_4','','The UK reported that, in 2009, it had 384 surveillance stations and 460 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. The UK has 578 coastal water bodies. Approximately 10% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. Information concerning a method for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm was incomplete or being developed.The UK reported that a programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD had been adopted.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/ ','26.02.10','','','13/01/10','05/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_1_5','','In the UK each of the four administrations carries out their own ICZM functions. The British-Irish Council (Environment) Integrated Coastal Zone Management subgroup meets regularly to share best practice and to ensure that delivery mechanisms are integrated where administration boundaries meet. In England, the implementation of ICZM within England falls to the UK Government and is led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The document ‘A strategy for promoting of an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England’ was published in January 2009. The Strategy’ briefly explains the variety of work being taken forward by the UK Government which will contribute to the implementation of ICZM. The Strategy contains a vision for the process of coastal management and sets this set of objectives:•	To integrate coastal policies and provide a clear strategic direction to coastal managers;•	To ensure a consistent, joined-up approach to regional and local planning and decision making;•	To promote the benefits of coastal local initiatives which bring together coastal stakeholders;•	To promote awareness and understanding of the value of the coast and the issues facing it; and•	To improve the quality and co-ordination of information about the coast to improve management practices.In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is responsible for leading on ICZM. ICZM is being delivered through a 20 year strategy. The Strategy ‘An Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy for Northern Ireland -2006 – 2026’ was launched in June 2006. The strategy adheres to the ICZM principles and outlines around 50 objectives relating to the three pillars of sustainable development as well as several on integration. In Scotland, the Scottish Government produced ‘Seas the opportunity:  A strategy for the long term sustainability of Scotland’s Coasts and Seas in 2005. This built upon the Scottish Coastal Forum’s strategy for Scotland’s coast and inshore waters and marine elements of the Scottish Biodiversity strategy. The Scottish Ministers introduced the Marine (Scotland) Bill into the Scottish Parliament in April 2009 and it is anticipated that it will complete parliamentary scrutiny early 2010.  The legislation will include provisions which will enable ICZM through Scottish Marine Regions.In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government\'s strategy Making the Most of Wales’ Coast 2007 outlines the values of ICZM including the 8 principles described in the EU recommendation. The Strategy explains how these principles are being put into practice in Wales through promoting and supporting partnership working, including the Wales Coastal &  Maritime Partnership, the Welsh Assembly Government’s key advisory body, and regional coastal forums.  ','','England:Under each Objective of the Strategy were a series of actions and an overview of the relevant work already being taken forward. This included aspects of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill (which became an Act in November 2009), such as the marine planning provisions but the reform and streamlining of the marine consents regime. It also included the Local Democracy, Economic Regeneration and Construction Bill (became an Act in November 2009) which will provide for the integration of regional strategies into a single integrated regional strategy, a combination of the regional planning strategy, regional economic strategy and other regional strategies, and also enables greater participation from the local level in the development of this regional strategy. The Strategy also contains a commitment to work with stakeholders to review the effect of the work, to identify any further actions, and to publish a review two years after publication.Northern Ireland: A key aspect of the implementation of the Strategy was the establishment of a Northern Ireland Coastal and Marine Forum (CMF).  This is an independent, non-statutory body made up of a cross-section of interests ranging from local government, business, agriculture, fishing and environmental bodies.   The Forum aims to provide meaningful stakeholder input into strategic policies affecting the coastal area, as well as raising awareness on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. It also provides expert advice, co-ordinates research, and provides support towards the achievement of the strategy objectives. It is also responsible for monitoring progress and reporting against the strategy objectives and targets. Good progress is being made in implementing the strategy and the CMF first report to Government on progress is due early 2010.Under its remit to promote an understanding of ICZM in Northern Ireland, the Forum has undertaken a number of activities.  They include the development of a website (www.coastalmarineni.org) and production of the following documents for public circulation and an article in NIEA’s magazine, The Coast, describing the approach to ICZM in Northern Ireland.•	A brochure describing the EU principles of ICZM, the Northern Ireland Strategy and the work of the Forum.   •	The second describes the maritime cultural heritage of the Northern Ireland Coast and is designed as a brochure and poster. In addition,.The second area of activity in awareness-raising has been in the organisation of a number of events to promote ICZM.  These included:•	A conference on ‘Planning Challenges and Opportunities for Ireland’s Coast’ was jointly organised with ICONet, the Irish Coastal Network.  This event, attended by over 100 delegates was held in the City Hotel, Londonderry on April 10-11 2008.  The conference, which was opened by the Minister of the Environment, focused on the emerging role of marine spatial planning in the regulation of human activities and interactions. This was examined from European, national and local perspectives. A representative of DG Mare gave a keynote presentation.•	A Conference entitled “The Coast: Are we Managing” was jointly organised with the Strangford Lough Management Advisory Group in November 2008.  It was attended by over 100 delegates, most of whom were directly involved in aspects of coastal management in a local authority or government capacity.•	In addition, the Forum convened a number of workshops on specific themes within ICZM.  These included:•	A workshop on ICZM indicators was held in March 2007 facilitated by Clive Gilbert of the EU expert Group on indicators, and a representative of the European Environment Agency who gave an overview of the recent EEA Report on the State of Europe’s Coastal Environment.  This was attended principally by CMF and NI government representatives. A workshop on marine data collection and storage was organised at Crawfordsburn in Februrary 2009.  This involved NI government departments plus invited speakers from MEDIN and the Channel Coast Observatory.  It was designed to stimulate discussion on coastal data collection, storage and sharing with particular reference to the INPSIRE Directive and other initiatives.  Scotland: The Scottish Ministers launched a consultation on Scotland’s first marine bill ‘Sustainable Seas for All’ in July 2008. The consultation included details on ICZM and regional planning through Scottish Marine Regions.  A majority of the respondents believed that the Scottish Marine Regions should be responsible for ICZM and that it should be guided by the EU eight principles of ICZM.The Bill will introduce legislation to ensure the sustainable management of Scotland’s coasts and seas to balance the competing interests for use and protection of the sea.  There will be a three tier approach to marine planning.  International, EU and national interests will be met through the National Marine Plan while regional marine planning and ICZM will be met through Scottish Marine Regions.  The Scottish Ministers agreed to publish the range of characteristics upon which Scottish Marine Regions will be created.  The Scottish Coastal Forum, carried out a stakeholder workshop in March 2009 to advise Scottish Ministers of the views on how the Scottish Marine Regions should be formed.  Wales: The Welsh Assembly Strategy outlines the issues Wales’ coast faces - from tourism and fisheries to conservation and climate change -and it sets out how ICZM can be used to tackle these. The strategy also explains some objectives that aim towards achieving ICZM ideals focusing on: promoting ICZM at national and local levels; policy integration; integrated planning and decision-taking; better information; promoting awareness of the value of the coastal zone and of ICZM; joining up with our neighbours; and monitoring the ICZM process.Annual progress reports are being produced; the latest is at http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/consmanagement/marinefisheries/iczm/progress/?lang=e Good progress is being made in implementing the strategy, including the work by the Wales Coastal & Maritime Partnership on indicators. The aim of the indicators is to provide a way of consistently reviewing the progress of ICZM across Wales. They will be considered by the Welsh Assembly Government in its review of the strategy scheduled for 2010, which will focus on how IZCM can be integrated with the marine planning functions under The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (UK wide legislation).','England: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/iczm/iczm-strategy-england.pdf; Northern Ireland: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/iczm_document-2.pdf Scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/26102543/25444;Wales: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/consmanagement/marinefisheries/iczm/welshstrategy/?lang=en','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_2','','The UK has 596 coastal bathing areas. In 2008, 95.9% of these complied with mandatory guidelines on water quality. This was a decrease compared to 2007 (96.5%) and 2006 (99.6%). However in 2009 the situation improved and 97.6% of bathing waters reached the mandatory guidelines. In 2008 69.5% of the bathing waters met the more stringent guide values, which is also a decrease from 2007 (76.4%) and 2006 (80.4%).  However, in 2009 the situation again improved and 80.4% of bathing waters reached the stricter voluntary guidelines. 2006 data was good as it was an exceptionally dry year where as 2008 was an exceptionally wet summary and a number of bathing waters were affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture and urban sources. In terms of nutrient concentrations in coastal waters off the UK, there has been no recorded increase in concentrations of nitrogen or phosphate between 1985 and 2005.','','','','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_4','','UK’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €73,960,645 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and improving gear selectivity. Axis 2 (€57,566,891) encourages the use of aqua-environmental measures in aquaculture. Axis 3 (€87,882,476) promotes the sustainable exploitation of resources and the minimisation of environmental impacts, and Axis 4 (€21,126,088) supports the diversification out of fisheries. ','','The UK is not convinced that this is a useful indicator since it has not been possible to distinguish funding going specifically to promote environmentally friendly fishing.','Reference or title: Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_61_en http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm ','','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','26/02/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 the UK had 6,761 vessels and 2.5% were involved in a serious infringement (170 vessels). A total of 169 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €5,271 and maximum fine of €26,380.','','2007 data is not currently available.   ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','26/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_5_2','','In the UK, the Environment Agency is responsible for regulation and management of all inland fisheries in England and Wales. The UK has specific management plans for Salmon and Eel populations, and habitat restoration is undertaken as part of these plans. Removal of migratory barriers is undertaken for eels and is planned for Salmon (May 2011). Stock enhancement is not directly undertaken but is achieved through reducing fishing effort. Salmon Management Plan: Salmon Action Plans (SAPs) are the means by which the Environment Agency (EA) aims to meet the objectives of its National Salmon Management Strategy (launched in 1996) at a local level. The programme of SAPs for the 62 principal salmon rivers in England and Wales was completed in April 2004. The SAPs set specific spawning targets for individual rivers, against which stock and fishery performance are assessed. This has been advocated by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) to facilitate salmon management in the international context.  Each river\'s SAP contains a range of actions to help achieve spawning targets, such as reducing exploitation, improving habitat and water quality and minimising obstructions to migration.Eel Management Plan: Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2007 establishes measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. The UK submitted 15 Eel Management Plans (EMP) to the European Commission, covering the River Basin Districts, as defined under the Water Framework Directive, in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.  These plans outline the current situation and how the UK intends to achieve the targets that are required by the EU Regulation. The Eels Order will provide the Environment Agency with the necessary powers to regulate the eel fisheries and improve their passage both up- and down-stream. Measures in the plan will: reduce fishing pressure (through closed seasons); introduce a scheme to trace eel catches; require installation of eel passes and screens; and require fishers to submit data on catches and on the destination of sold stock. The UK’s EMPs have yet to be approved by the European Commission; however clearance is expected in January. Related actions: Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009: The UK will use the Act to give new powers to the Environment Agency to conserve and manage migratory and freshwater fish, including powers to make emergency byelaws to respond to unforeseen threats to fish stocks as well as powers to introduce a new regulatory systems for the movement of live fish where necessary to protect national and local biodiversity. The current fishing licensing regime will also be modernised, through the introduction of an authorisation scheme for some fishing activities. The related powers, penalities and obligations of the Agency will also be modified.EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC: The River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) for England & Wales were approved for publication on the 22nd of December 2009. These RBMPs will ensure that statutory agencies, businesses, public sector bodies and individuals work together to protect the water environment and address significant impacts by co-ordinating all aspects of water management. This will enable the UK to meet its obligations of aiming to achieve Good Ecological Status for water bodies.','','','Reference or title: Weblink:Salmon management plan: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/33965.aspxEel management plan: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/freshwater/fishman.htm#EELS','26/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_5_3','','UK’s fishing capacity has reduced consistently from 1999 to 2008. Vessel numbers have decreased from 7865 to 6777 (14% reduction); tonnage from 267,571 to 212,878 tons (20% reduction); and fishing power from 974,881 to 859,699kW (12% reduction). Decommissioning schemes have led to the removal of 380 vessels, 127,067Kw and 40,452 gross tonnage between 1997 and 2007. More recently, the Marine and Fisheries Agency initiated a £5m fishing vessel decommissioning Scheme for the South West of England in 2007, mainly for the removal of 8 beam trawlers over 10m. In 2008/9 a decommissioning scheme was also conducted for the under-10m fleet, removing 65 vessels (457 tonnes). As well as decommissioning schemes there has also been voluntary departure from the industry due to economic conditions. The operational programme for fisheries 2007-2013 indicates an expectation of a further reduction of UK’s total fleet capacity by 10-15% by 2015.  ','','2008 data: 6777 vessels; 212878 tons; 859699 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enUK Fleet Report sent to contractors by Member State on 26.2.2010','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 the UK had 6,761 active vessels. There were 61 type D breaches in this year and 61 penalties imposed with an average fine of €570. The UK is undertaking a number of specific actions to reduce by-catch or harm to non-target species. This includes: A ban on the use of tooth dredges within Scallop fisheries to reduce impact on the benthic environment A number of actions to reduce cetacean by-catch including regulation to protect porpoises, dolphins and whales; and research and monitoring to better understand fisheries responsible for high levels of cetacean by-catch and mitigation measuresWorking alongside RFMOs to reduce sea-bird by-catch by UK vessels operating in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans; Implementation of the EC Shark Plan of Action through monitoring; research;  reducing in special fishing permits for finning; and related fisheries and management measures (e.g. setting TACs; listing species on CITES where justified; and working through RFMOs to implement shark action plan. A UK-wide report is currently in preparation for publication in July 2010 which will include a section on a scientific assessment of the current status of benthic habitats. The UK Government will publish a response to the report which will detail any planned courses of action to address the problems highlighted.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','26.02.2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_6_2','','Seabird monitoring:  The UK has carried out significant amounts of seabird monitoring, both at colonies and at sea.  The Seabirds at Sea programme stated in 1979, and the Seabird monitoring programme (including productivity counts) in 1986.  See www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4461.  Monitoring seabird by-catch: There is no official by-catch monitoring programme, however data is collected in relation to seabird by-catch.  Since 2003, as part of its data collection in relation to discards (600 observer days per year) CEFAS has collected data on observed seabird by-catch.  This data is presently logged but not externally published.   For UK vessels mitigation measures are in place to prevent the by catch of seabirds by long line vessels fishing in certain areas of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. UK is working within the Management organisations responsible for these oceans to strengthen the measures both in terms of the mitigation devices that should be used and to broaden the sea areas to which they are applicable.The UK is aware that a lack of data at the EU level in relation to the extent and location of seabird by-catch remains a problem and is fully supportive of the need to improve this.  The UK will push for data collection to be a key part of the EU Seabird by-catch Plan of Action. The UK supports fully the need for an EU Seabird By-catch Plan of Action and has strongly encouraged the EU Commission to bring this forward as soon as possible in 2010.   The UK feels strongly that a plan of action is needed urgently so that there can be proper discussion and consultation throughout the community.  The Plan must follow best practice technical guidelines and be wide in its scope so as to address seabird by-catch by EU vessels regardless of where they are fishing.  Shark by-catch monitoring:  Commercial landings information (to species-level where possible) is collected by the MFA (soon to become the Marine Management Organisation (MMO)), and this organisation also assists with the enforcement of EC regulations, including the non-retention policy for various threatened elasmobranch species. (See further information on actions to protect sharks in Target 3.6.1). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4461 http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/protect/sharks.htm','26/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','NOTE: The number of marine 2000 sites within territorial waters that have required changes in fisheries measures is an estimate based on information given by the UK. ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.cumbriasfc.org.uk/contents/images/File/cockle%20closure%20notice%202008.pdfhttp://www.nsfc.org.uk/byelaws.html','26.02.2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_6_3','Offshore','UK has 105 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However, there are different ways of defining marine sites and methods used by the UK suggest there are 154 European Marine sites with marine components consisting of: 76 inshore SACs and 78 inshore SPAs. The UK also has 5 offshore Sites of Community Interest and is working to designate additional sites over the next two years to complete the Natura 2000 network. Outside of territorial waters, the Darwin Mounds (in the north west of Scotland) are sites where there have been specific fisheries measures put in place to provide protection from the effects of trawling of deep-water coral reefs. In 2003 and 2004 the Commission adopted under emergency procedures two Commission Regulations (EC) 1475/2003 and (EC) 263/2004. In 2004 these measures were made permanent (Council Regulation (EC 602/2004)). Within territorial waters, a number of marine natura 2000 sites have had fisheries management introduced.  Types of management measures are listed below. There are also fisheries management measures which have been undertaken, for which the primary purpose was fisheries management, but may have had positive implications for biodiversity. However further analysis would be required in order to give details of these. Several and Regulating Orders.Several and Regulating Orders are granted by Defra which restrict access to/by the owner/s of the Order rather than open access to all fishermen. Because Orders are regarded as subject to the provisions of the Habitats Directive, an appropriate impact assessment is carried out (where necessary) before an Order is granted. As a result fisheries management measures has been modified within some Orders to avoid adverse impacts on marine 2000 sites. Examples of marine natura 2000 sites which overlap with Several and/or Regulating Orders include: Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA, Essex Estuaries SAC, the Wash and North Norfolk SAC, the Wash SPA, Foulness, Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA and the Thames Estuary Marshes SPA. Within these sites measures have included: i) Total Allowable Catch (TAC) which does not reduce populations below a level from which they can provide sufficient food for SPA birds; ii) limitations on the numbers, location and frequency of boats fishing to prevent damage to sensitive habitat features; and iii) limitations on the type, location and size of fishing gear used to avoid adverse impacts on SAC habitats and site features. Other licence applicationsApplications for licences required for some fishing activities, for example, those under the Coast Protection Act (CPA) or Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) – required for the use of infrastructure in shellfish culture – are also subject to the provisions of the Habitats Regulations. For a licence to be granted, it must be demonstrated that the proposal will not cause an adverse effect to marine natura 2000 site features. SFC byelawSea Fisheries Committees have powers to implement byelaws for the conservation and management of local stocks and have some limited powers to implement byelaws to protect features of conservation interest. These powers will be increased by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 when SFCs are replaced with Inshore Fishery and Conservation Authorities in Aril 2011. Examples are provided below: Flamborough Head SAC is designated for several features including reefs and sea caves. In 2007, it was identified that 70-90% of the site was subject to some degree of trawling activity. In order to prevent damage to the reef a new byelaw was introduced in 2008 to manage trawling activity; establishing a non-trawl zone; introducing a special permit scheme limiting the number of licences available to trawl within the SAC; issuing licenses based on the demonstration of a track record; and the prohibition of beam trawling and multi-rig trawling.   Longer-term plans to monitor the condition of the site are currently being developed.Ministerial OrdersThe Fal and Helford candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was identified in 1996 under the Habitats Directive and has subsequently been designated for a number of priority habitats and features.  The features include sandbanks and maerl bed communities.  Beds of maerl, (the collective name for several species of calcified red seaweed) are of particular value because of the diversity of species they support. Historically, fishing activity in the Fal & Helford Bay had been low, but in 2006 significant increase in scallop dredging in the Bay led to calls for greater protection of the SAC.  Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee with the help of the local fishing community developed a Voluntary Agreement, which provided a degree of protection to the SAC throughout 2007 and 2008 through limited scallop dredging activity in the months of November and December only. However, to afford permanent protection to the SAC, the UK put in place a Statutory Instrument (SI) to prohibit dredging for shellfish and demersal trawling in the outer part of the Fal and Helford SAC.  The Order came in force on 1st October 2008.  To assess the impacts and consequences of the proposed SI, Defra carried out a six-week public consultation from 7 March to 18 April 2008.  The Order is currently being enforced by British sea-fishery officers but no monitoring has been undertaken to assess the extent to which the prohibition has been beneficial to the scallop stocks and marine habitats and features within the SAC. The Solway Firth Special Area of Conservation & Special Protection Area was designated in October 1996. A byelaw was introduced to protect the site by Cumbria SFC (Byelaw 18) which temporarily bans the taking of shellfish. Lundy Special Area of Conservation was designated in January 1996. Devon SFC introduced byelaws to protect the site which includes a ‘No Take Zone’ and the prohibition of trawling and netting. Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation was designated in January 1996. North Eastern SFC is introducing byelaws to protect the site which will be implemented within the next 6 months. The Humber Estuary candidate Special Area of Conservation & Special Protection Area, were designated in August 2007. North Eastern SFC introduced XXIV Humber Estuary Cockle Fishery Byelaw to protect the site.Coquet Island Special Protection Area was designated July 1995. Northumberland SFC introduced Byelaw 4: Fixed engines, to protect the site.Tweed Estuary Special Area of Conservation was designated in March 2001. Northumberland SFC has created byelaws regarding:•	Application and Saving for Scientific Purposes•	Trawling and Size of Vessels•	Fixed Engines•	Purse Seine Net•	Protection of ‘V’ Notched Lobsters•	Berried (Egg Bearing) or Soft Shelled Crab (Cancer pagurus) or Lobster (Homarus gammarus)•	Parts of Shellfish•	Prohibition on Use of Edible Crab (Cancer pagurus) for Bait•	Redepositing of Shellfish•	Marking of Fishing Gear and Keep Boxes•	Dredges•	Permit to Fish for and Sell Lobsters, Crabs, Velvet Crabs, Whelks and Prawns•	Multi-rigging, Pair Trawling and Pair Seining    ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 119 Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 5Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','The UK has not verified this measure of progress as they do not agree with the method used to define marine sites. ','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A3','A3_7_1','','The UK has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, the UK will collect data for ecosystem indicators listed in Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. For ecosystem indicators 1-4, the UK will use IBTS coordinated trawl surveys in the North Sea and North East Atlantic to collect the required data to support development of these indicators. Additional data will be collected on coordinated beam trawl surveys. For ecosystem indicators 5 – 7, VMS speed and position data for fishing vessels with LOA in excess of the 15m statutory minimum are currently logged by the UK authorities using a 2-h transmission interval. Spatial resolution is better than the 2n.mile grid cell specified by the DCR. Algorithms for filtering data to include only positions during fishing, and to link individual records to the UK Fleet Activity Database to identify fishing gear and other métier-related variables are currently under continuous development within the UK.  CEFAS and FRS have completed their separate development of algorithms linking VMS data to log-book records for all vessels > 15m, and have moved towards implementation.                         Further development will entail efficiency improvements and harmonisation of methods rather than additions to functionality. In view of Lot 2 - Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis (Studies for carrying out the common fisheries policy - Open call for tenders No MARE/2008/10), this subsequent development will take place within the international context of that contract, and report with respect to its agreed timelines.  For ecosystem indicator 8 the UK at-sea observer programmes carried out by AFBI, FRS and CEFAS will provide estimates of discarding rates of commercially exploited species by fleet métier.   By-catches of seabirds, reptiles and marine mammals are recorded during these trips.   For ecosystem indicator 9 fuels costs will come from the economic survey. This will be related to the information on fishing activity of the vessel during the corresponding period of economic activity, taking into account period of non-fishing related time at sea (e.g. time spent on pipeline guard duty, support for oil and gas rig operations, etc.) to allow fuel consumption and fishing activity to be directly compared.  Account will be taken of the differing levels of fuel intensity in cases where vessels report using more than one type of fishing gear to ensure adequate accuracy in the estimation of this indicator at the métier level In addition to the indicators above, the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has funded a 5-year research programme at CEFAS (2007 - 2012; Project code MF-10-1) to develop and pilot an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), supported by indicators and management tools. Specifically, it will involve (i) the development, testing and reporting of indicators that allow managers and stakeholders to assess the status of the ecosystem and the impacts of fishing, and (ii) the development of decision tables that allow managers and stakeholders to see the effects of different management options and to choose among them. The form of indicators required by the DCR will be investigated in the project. The project will focus on the development of a pilot application of the EAF in the southwest of England.  The project will establish the links between these indicators of ecological state and indicators of fishing pressure (effort and mortality), as measured for the main fisheries in the southwest and taking account of environmental variation and change. From knowledge of the links, the project will determine the management actions needed to achieve the desired values of indicators and hence the desired state of vulnerable species, vulnerable habitats, and the fish community. This information will be used to develop decision tables that allow managers and stakeholders to see the consequences of different management options for the fishery, target species, and other parts of the ecosystem. Although some DCR time is included by the UK in Financial Tables C to deal with specific requests for data and analysis, it is expected that considerable additional development of the ecosystem indicator approach will take place within the Defra contract MF10-1.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','26/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for UK EEZ waters (not including Overseas Territories) was 3.44 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.03 since 1999, and an overall increase of 0.01 since 1984. ','','Not including OTsFrom Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially over aggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.The UK also indicate that the UK has not adopted the Marine Trophic Index at UK level. We have a long history of fisheries research, providing us with more robust data to calculate changes in the seas around the UK. After wide consultation with the scientific community we have adopted an alternative indicator on Marine Ecosystem Integrity. This is based on the proportion of large fish in standardised samples from research vessels. The indicator is available here: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4248.’','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','29/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A4','A4_3','','The statutory system of development control in the UK has for some years taken an holistic approach to balancing competing sectoral requirements. Government issues national planning policy statements which provide a framework within which local planning authorities are expected to undertake their functions. These statements are material issues or planning authorities and can be taken into account by the Courts in looking at any challenges to planning authorities’ decisions. Planning policy guidance on the natural environment is currently under revision, with an updated version issued in early 2010 for consultation. This will stress the need for planning authorities to give due weight to designated sites, including Natura 2000 sites where mandatory Artilce 6 appropriate assessments are required, species and wider biodiversity interests.The Planning Act 2008 set up a new body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will make decisions on some major infrastructure projects. The Commission’s work will be framed by National Policy Statements, which, similar to national planning policy guidance, will be material issues for the Commission and will contain the same policies on the protection of the natural environment as are included in national planning policy guidance for local planning authorities( including Article 6 appropriate assessment for Natura 2000 sites).The UK suite of nationally designated sites is regarded as virtually complete but policies in relation to those sites are under consideration in relation to the need to adapt to the anticipated changes that climate change will bring for those sites and the interests for which they have been designated. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan process is also looking at the scope for the restoration of some habits and species','','','UK Planning Act:  http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyimplementation/reformplanningsystem/planningbill/UK Biodiversity Action Plan:http://www.ukbap.org.uk','26/02/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A4','A4_4_1','','The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the UK government department responsible for supporting and promoting the tourism industry in England, published a strategy paper in 2007 entitled “Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond”, which among other things stressed the importance of taking a sustainbale approach to tourism and fully integrating sustainbaility into policies and practices. This was followed  in March 2009 with a new national framework for sustainable tourism” Sustainable Tourism in England: A framework for action’ which set out six key challenges that the tourism industry must address to become sustainble. The Framework recognises that tourism uses a large amount of environmental resources and that there is potential to reduce this by ensuring that all new tourism policies and strategies are designed so that they have minimum impact on the environment. It also stresses the importance of ensuring that local communities benefit and are not disadvantaged by tourism in their areas, are consulted about tourism developments, and can benefit from jobs created by tourism. Progress against these challenges will be monitored on a regular basis with a full review with stakeholders in 2012. VisitEngland, the UK’s national marketing body, also provides help and advice for businesses to help them to meet their environmental responsibilities through “Green Start”. The programme  also encourages tourism businesses to join accreditation schemes such as the Green Tourism Business Scheme and the David Bellamy Conservation Awards. All of these activities support the visions and goals set out in the CBD guidelines.','','UK is note able to answer this question as the planning of tourism development is taken forward at the regional and Devolved Authority levels and it is not possible to gather information at that level of detail. ','www.green-business.co.ukwww.davidbellamyconservation.org.ukwww.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Tourism/tourism_policy/sustainable_development_of_tourism.htmwww.tourismtrade.org.uk/aboutvisitbritain/whatwedo/sustainabletourism.asp?url=/greenwww.tourismtrade.org.uk/aboutvisitbritain/whatwedo/stlinks.aspwww.ukbap.org.uk/','26/02/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Great Britain direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 89 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','Unable to sign off without sight of data ','No data available for 2006. Estimates of 2007 and 2008 are under the estimate that biodiversity spending strictly follows the planned 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy annual spending provided by DG REGIO. The annual data from MSs on biodiversity spending under current cohesion policy are expected to be available in early February 2010. This information will be completed by the Contractor from Official sources.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','Unable to sign off without sight of data ','','','04/01/2010','06/04/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The United Kingdom does not have general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, it does have specific legislation that addresses the issues of import, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) prohibits the introduction of animals into the wild that are not normally resident in the UK (or are not regular visitors in a wild state) or that are listed in Schedule 9 to the Act. This also applies to the planting of plants listed in Schedule 9 to the Act. Two Acts added to the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981): the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (England and Wales) and the Nature Conservation Act 2004 (Scotland) prohibit the trade and possession for the purpose of trade of specified non-native species (plants or animals including seeds, eggs, etc.) Article 15 of the Wildlife Order 1985 of Northern Ireland contains similar provisions to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 provides provisions for possibly prohibiting the importation and keeping of non-indigenous mammalian species. The Act also contains explicit provisions for possibilities to control / eradication of non-indigenous mammals, i.e. a reference to  destruction of any mammalian species covered by the Act or an Order made under it. The import, possession and  release of certain fish species in England, Wales and Scotland is prohibited under the Import of Live Fish Act 1980, while section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 prohibits the introduction into any English or Welsh waters, of any fish or fish spawn without written consent from the water authority. In Scotland, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Act 2003, as amended by the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007) stipulates that all introductions and transfers of fish into Scottish inland waters require consent from the appropriate authority. Furthermore, the Import of Live Fish Scotland Act 1978 and the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) Scotland Orders prohibit or licence the import, possession or release of non-native fish species.  Finally, in Scotland there are also proposals to provide powers to control invasive non-native species through a Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill.  These include proposed powers for specified persons to enter land, control or eradicate (or require control) of invasive non-native species.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 63 are present in the United Kingdom which equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_1_2','','The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain was launched on the 28th May 2008 by the Non-Native Species Programme Board following a non-native species policy review in 2003. The Strategy covers England, Scotland and Wales and sits alongside their respective national biodiversity strategies.  This gives IAS a specific focus.  The actions in the Strategy are documented in an Implementation Plan with a priority rating and progress status which is periodically reviewed.A similar review was carried out in Northern Ireland in coordination with the Government of Ireland to produce an All-Ireland-Review. With regards to the introduction of alien marine species for targeted fisheries, the UK government follows the principles and measures outlined in the ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms. Knowledge on the presence of non-native species in UK Overseas Territories has been assessed and summarised by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC Report 372, 2006). It is not clear whether invasive alien species are comprehensively dealt with as part of a national/sub national biodiversity strategy or action plan. As regards the Overseas Territories (which are outside the EU with certain exceptions) - the UK Government has adopted a biodiversity strategy for the territories in 2009, with IAS is one of the strategic priorities for action.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy and progress status of the Implementation Plan of the GB Non-native Species Framework StrategyWeblink: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/index.cfm?sectionid=55    ','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_1_3','','The United Kingdom has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. However, according to the recent information from the Member State, the UK intends to ratify and implement the Convention at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, the UK in favour of the Convention and chaired the diplomatic conference and associated working group that developed the Convention text.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, a dedicated IAS database and rapid response framework are under development in the UK. Some previous research work has already documented information on the presence of non-native and invasive non-native species and work began in January 2009 on development of a GB Non-native Species Information Portal (GB NNSIP). This is currently a 3 year project and if successful, it would also be intended to form the basis for a focal point for networking information and, in due course, for creating an early warning system.  It would also generate alerts/incident lists for a rapid response mechanism.A GB rapid response framework is being developed that will form the basis of an operational agreement between relevant Government departments and their related agencies in Scotland, England and Wales for the implementation of rapid response.  It is proposed that a rapid response core group would act as an operational co-ordination mechanism while the GB Non-native Species Programme Board acts as the overarching policy co-ordination mechanism.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A5','A5_2_2','','In the UK the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops is being considered at regional level.  The relevant authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have each undertaken a public consultation on proposed coexistence measures for their respective territories, while the authority in Scotland is reserving its position on this issue.  Further research is being done in the UK to obtain evidence to better inform coexistence policy, and the UK authorities will want to take due account of the crop-specific guidance that is being produced by the European Coexistence Bureau established by the Commission.  As commercial GM cultivation is not expected in the UK for some years at least, there are no immediate plans to implement the regional coexistence measures that have already been proposed.    According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in the UK.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)  ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in May 2009. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan was launched in 1994. Between 2004 and 2007, its targets and priority habitats and species were reviewed. Following devolution, the four countries have adopted their own biodiversity strategies: England (2002), Scotland (2004), Wales (2006), Northern Ireland (2002).The UK had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, the UK spent EUR0.07m in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid spending, which amounts to nearly 0.00% of the total multilateral aid spending. The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related multilateral aid spending by the UK for 2006.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','20/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, the UK spent EUR8.9m in 2006 and EUR1.4m in 2007 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.001% and nearly 0.00%, respectively, of the total biodiversity-related bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_1_4','','The UK contributed EUR193.23million to the 3rd replenishment which is 7.93% of the total replenishment. The UK contributed EUR202.37million to the 4th replenishment which is 9.47 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_1_6','','Substantial funding for overseas territories is provided through the Darwin Initiative. In addition, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and International Development Department co-fund a €1.1 million per annum Overseas Territories Environment Fund (OTEF), much of whose funds eventually go towards biodiversity aims.','','It is difficult to quantify exactly the annual level of funding by the UK towards biodiversity in the OTs, because such statistics are not collected centrally. However, we can say that, in addition to the OTEF run by FCO and DFID, which provides between half a million and one million Euros per annum towards OT projects with a biodiversity focus, Darwin is contributing an increasing amount year on year, devoting from 2009-10 at least an earmarked figure of €1.7 million towards OT biodiversity per annum.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_2_2','','   The SEA Directive is transposed into United Kingdom law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, and in Scotland by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.  The requirements for EIA come from a European Directive (85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC) and have been transposed into domestic legislation by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293)','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A7','A7_2_5','','Examples exist of EIAs being carried out - St Helena has done an EIA for a Wharf Improvement Project, which is EDF-funded.','','','','26/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A8','A8_1','','While the UK has not provided funding for the ABS Working Group and no national legislation implementing the CBD Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing exist, public awareness of the Guidelines is being raised through informing stakeholder groups, the promotion of the Bonn Guidelines by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and information on Defra webpages. Similarly, no legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exists, but awareness is being raised: The contracts for the main gene banks funded by Defra require the use of the SMTA for annex 1 material and genebanks are encouraged to use the SMTA for other GRFA; and Defra also promotes the use of the SMTA by other genebanks at the meeting of its stakeholder group, the UKPGRFA. The annual proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is estimated to have risen from 67% in 2006 to 88% in 2009. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The UK does not have national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists. However, the UK has national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing; •	Stakeholder groups are informed of progress of ABS negotiations at 6 monthly meetings.•	The Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) Kew promote use of Bonn Guidelines in their training courses and material. •	Defra’s web pages reference the Bonn Guidelines','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.kew.org/data/cbdbotanists.html http://defraweb/environment/quality/biodiversity/geneticresources/index.htm','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A8','A8_1_3','CBD','The UK has not provided funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The UK does not have legislation on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. However, the UK has implemented national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources: •	The contracts for the main gene banks funded by Defra require the use of the SMTA for annex 1 material and genebanks are encouraged to use the SMTA for other GRFA. •	Defra also promotes the use of the SMTA by other genebanks at the meeting of its stakeholder group, the UKPGRFA.','','','','26/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A8','A8_1_4','','The UK government developed a definition for sustainable timber and timber derived product sources in the context of its public procurement policy on timber. The Government’s Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET) has assessed available forest certification schemes and found the two major international certification schemes the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) as meeting the UK government’s sustainability criteria. Timber and timber derived products sourced from FSC and PEFC certified forests are therefore accepted as being from sustainable sources. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources can be reflected by the current availability of certified material on the UK market. In 2006, a study initiated by the UK Timber Trade Federation (TTF) showed that 66.7% of all domestically produced and imported wood in 2005 was certified. This study was followed up in 2009 and showed that the proportion of certified timber had now risen to 83.6% of all domestically produced and imported wood in 2008. This report is available here: http://www.ttf.co.uk/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=7D2AC347-5C05-4AAB-B7A9-B78C70CE77EC Based on the percentages in this report, the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources are estimated to be in 2006: 67%, 2007:76%, 2008:84% and 2009:88%. ','','It should be noted that these percentages reflect what has been purchased by the timber trade industry only, however the trend and proportion is expected to be indicative for other wood consuming industries such as the furniture and paper industry.  In early 2009, Defra undertook a pilot study to look at the reporting of timber procurement by government bodies.  The pilot study focused on Defra and its agencies and considered different processes and methods which served as the basis for the recommendations suggested.   The report was published in July 2009 and the full recommendations can be found here:  http://www.proforest.net/cpet/implementation-in-practice/timber-reporting-pilot-study.Central Government departments are estimated to purchase 20% of all timber bought in the UK.  This figure rises to 40% when including LA’s and other government bodies. (according to EAC figures 2006)Defra and the Central Point of Expertise in Timber (CPET) are working with the Timber Trade Federation and WWF on a joint approach to encourage local authority uptake and implementation of a timber procurement policy. ','Reference or title:Weblink:Reference or title: UK Timber Industry Certification, Timber Trade Federation, Nov 2009Weblink: http://www.ttf.co.uk/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=7D2AC347-5C05-4AAB-B7A9-B78C70CE77EC','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export applications documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 31.065, 4158 and 15926, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 is 30, 12 and 7, respectively. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 360 for 2007 and 431 for 2008, representing a net increase in seizures of +71. As to capacity-building at the national level, activities to enhance CITES implementation at the national level: computerisation. Other national-level capacity-building activities by national CITES authorities include: Staff of Scientific Authority, Staff of Management Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities were provided with oral/written advice, technical assistance and training. Specific capacity building activities provided include regular CITES training for Police and Customs authorities in Metropolitan UK and HM Wildlife Inspectorate , UK Border Agency (UKBA) enforcement training given to UKBA detection officers, police, MA’s and SA’s,  training given to Wildlife Inspectorate staff on CITES plants issues and post CoP14 changes. Assistance was given to India in the establishment of their Wildlife Crime Bureau. Enforcement training (Indian forestry officials and Polish enforcement officers) CITES & plants issues (Trinidad and Tobago), general CITES plants enquiries from EU member states. UKBA enforcement has provided CITES enforcement training (including working with the UK Scientific Authority on technical training on timber issues) in Poland x 2, Romania x 2, Slovakia x 2, Cayman Islands and China. As part of the UK/India Sustainable Development Dialogue (SDD). Defra has contributed financially to the development of a training plan for Indian wildlife law enforcers including a module on illegal trade in CITES specimens. SDD funding was also made available to fund an exchange trip of Indian officials to the UK to exchange good practice and gain knowledge of CITES implementation in the UK. Coordination of police efforts to target wildlife crime is undertaken by the UK\'s National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). The priorities for the Unit are set annually and have consistently included CITES. The Unit liaises with the UK MA and the UKBA as well as the Defra and NWCU coordinated Partnership Against Wildlife Crime forum of Government and Non-Governmental stakeholders in carrying out intelligence based enforcement activities. The SDD inspired work with India involved the NWCU directly and its officers visited India as part of the processes.  Additionally, in 2009-2010 Defra initiated an enforcement focussed exchange programme with China, again under the SDD progrogramme.  Scientific Authority and licencing training additionally took place in 2009 with Monserrat. Payments to the CITES Trust Fund in recent years has totalled:  2008 €206,427.86 ; 2009 € 252, 372.3  ;2010 €242,813.08.  Additional voluntary sums have been given in 2008 and 2009. The UK paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. Voluntary sums, in addition to the annual payment to the CITES Trust Fund were given in 2008 and 2009.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','A9','','','In December 2008 Defra published a set of climate change adaptation principles which are being adopted across all the workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) in order to embed climate change adaptation.  Once fully implemented EBS will become the Adaptation Strategy for Biodiversity for England.The forthcoming Defra Climate Change Plan notes the importance of the linkages between sectors, especially the inter-relationship between Biodiversity and Food, Farming and Forestry. The Plan has developed 5 adaptation principles with the first one being that any adaptation action must be sustainable i.e. our responses should not add to climate change or limit the ability of other parts of the natural environment to adapt. The Plan has 3 clear priorities - enhancing the resilience of ecosystems, building adaptive capacity, and securing the basics for human well-being.The UK is an active member of the EU AD Hoc working group on climate change and biodiversity with representation by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee as well as government.  UK hosted the first meeting of the CBD AD Hoc technical experts group on climate change and biodiversity and provided one of the co-chairs for the process.  Findings have been fed into the Copenhagen UNFCCC processIn Northern Ireland, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill (2010) is currently progressing through the NI Assembly.  This will include a statutory biodiversity responsibility for the first time in NI.The NI Biodiversity Group reviewed the delivery of Biodiversity in NI in 2009 and provides further guidance of climate change impacts.','','Climate Change Adaptation Principles published in 2008 and though their integration into the various workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy is building into a comprehensive approach.Scotland\'s Climate Change Adaptation Framework was published in December 2009. This framework sets the strategic direction and contains a number of sector summaries including - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience, Agriculture, Forests and Forestry. This is supplemented by Scottish Natural Heritage\'s (SNH) Climate Change and the Natural Heritage – SNH\'s Approach and Action Plan.  This sets out the strategic priorities and the key actions for delivering them over the next few years.  This was published on 21 July 2009. The statement makes clear SNH\'s concern about climate change being the most serious risk to the natural heritage over coming decades. It sets out SNH\'s strong support for mitigation and adaptation measures, and identifies our objectives with respect to each.Northern Ireland (NI) are working towards a Northern Ireland climate change risk assessment and adaptation strategy.The Climate Change Strategy for Wales (due for publication mid-2010) will contain targets for integrating adaptation measures within biodiversity action. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is promoting the use of the adaptation principles through the Local BAPs and has collated exemplars of local adaptation projects addressing biodiversity to assist the sharing of knowledge and development of best practice.   In addition, many of the environmental agencies in England and the Devolved Administrations are developing their own climate change action plan e.g. NI Environment Agency is taking forward its own climate change action plan in relation to its Natural Heritage work, following an assessment of risk; in England agencies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England producing plans for later in 2010. Defra has supported research to provide guidance on landscape scale initiatives and demonstration of application of the EBS adaptation principles in a series of case studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains) that will report in 2010. Defra has also initiated a project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change. It will be based on selected habitats and case studies and report in 2011. ','An illustration of the biodiversity adaptation actions being undertaken by the Environment Agency in England is given at:http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/108363.aspxCase studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains), REF WC059:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16830&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Cambrian%20Mountains&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#DescriptionOther study (REF WCO775):http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17123&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=West%20Weald&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Defra project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change (REF. WC 0751): http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16732&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Priority%20habitats&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description','19/03/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_3_2','','1.The UK Biomass Strategy published in May 2007 provides a framework for increasing sustainable supply of biomass for heat, power, transport fuels and renewable materials. The Strategy makes clear that underlying aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming the environment, whilst maximising benefits to biodiversity, agriculture and employment. A UK Renewable Energy Strategy was published in July 2009, and provides updated details of UK’s approach to biomass sustainability (see in particular chapter 4 of the document ).2. In accordance with Article 4 of the EU ‘s Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009), UK  is developing  a NREAP which will include biomass. 3. The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) introduced in April 2008, is one Government’s key tools for promoting the use of  transport biofuels. The scheme is administered by the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA). To encourage suppliers to source sustainable biofuels, suppliers are required to submit reports on both the net GHG saving and the sustainability of the biofuels they supply, in order to receive Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates (RTFCs). These reports address the direct impacts arising from biofuel cultivation that are potentially within the influence of companies sourcing or producing biofuels though effective supply chain management. The RFA separately monitors the potential indirect impacts of biofuel production such as indirect land use change or changes to food and other commodity prices. Sustainability standards are expected to become  mandatory by 2011, in accordance with the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive.','','','The UK Biomass Strategy (May 2007) and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009)Weblink: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/explained/bioenergy/policy_strat/policy_strat.aspxRFA website:  http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/reportsandpublications/carbonandsustainabilityguidance.cfm','26/02/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_4_1','','In December 2008 Defra published a set of climate change adaptation principles which are being adopted across all the workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) in order to embed climate change adaptation.  Once fully implemented EBS will become the Adaptation Strategy for Biodiversity for England.The forthcoming Defra Climate Change Plan notes the importance of the linkages between sectors, especially the inter-relationship between Biodiversity and Food, Farming and Forestry. The Plan has developed 5 adaptation principles with the first one being that any adaptation action must be sustainable i.e. our responses should not add to climate change or limit the ability of other parts of the natural environment to adapt. The Plan has 3 clear priorities - enhancing the resilience of ecosystems, building adaptive capacity, and securing the basics for human well-being.The UK is an active member of the EU AD Hoc working group on climate change and biodiversity with representation by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee as well as government.  UK hosted the first meeting of the CBD AD Hoc technical experts group on climate change and biodiversity and provided one of the co-chairs for the process.  Findings have been fed into the Copenhagen UNFCCC processIn Northern Ireland, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill (2010) is currently progressing through the NI Assembly.  This will include a statutory biodiversity responsibility for the first time in NI.The NI Biodiversity Group reviewed the delivery of Biodiversity in NI in 2009 and provides further guidance of climate change impacts.',NULL,'Climate Change Adaptation Principles published in 2008 and though their integration into the various workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy is building into a comprehensive approach.Scotland\'s Climate Change Adaptation Framework was published in December 2009. This framework sets the strategic direction and contains a number of sector summaries including - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience, Agriculture, Forests and Forestry. This is supplemented by Scottish Natural Heritage\'s (SNH) Climate Change and the Natural Heritage – SNH\'s Approach and Action Plan.  This sets out the strategic priorities and the key actions for delivering them over the next few years.  This was published on 21 July 2009. The statement makes clear SNH\'s concern about climate change being the most serious risk to the natural heritage over coming decades. It sets out SNH\'s strong support for mitigation and adaptation measures, and identifies our objectives with respect to each.Northern Ireland (NI) are working towards a Northern Ireland climate change risk assessment and adaptation strategy.The Climate Change Strategy for Wales (due for publication mid-2010) will contain targets for integrating adaptation measures within biodiversity action. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is promoting the use of the adaptation principles through the Local BAPs and has collated exemplars of local adaptation projects addressing biodiversity to assist the sharing of knowledge and development of best practice.   In addition, many of the environmental agencies in England and the Devolved Administrations are developing their own climate change action plan e.g. NI Environment Agency is taking forward its own climate change action plan in relation to its Natural Heritage work, following an assessment of risk; in England agencies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England producing plans for later in 2010. Defra has supported research to provide guidance on landscape scale initiatives and demonstration of application of the EBS adaptation principles in a series of case studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains) that will report in 2010. Defra has also initiated a project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change. It will be based on selected habitats and case studies and report in 2011. ','An illustration of the biodiversity adaptation actions being undertaken by the Environment Agency in England is given at:http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/108363.aspxCase studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains), REF WC059:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16830&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Cambrian%20Mountains&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#DescriptionOther study (REF WCO775):http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17123&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=West%20Weald&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Defra project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change (REF. WC 0751): http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16732&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Priority%20habitats&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description','19/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'06/04/2010',NULL),
	('United Kingdom','A9','A9_4_3','','Defra and partners sponsored an assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on species and habitats, which included an assessment of the level of risk to BAP Habitats based on expert opinion. This England Biodiversity Strategy Towards Adaptation to Climate Change report was used to inform other strategic documents such as the Forestry Strategy and also led to further research focused on meeting needs indicated by the risk assessment, such as the impact on wetlands and coastal habitats.  Defra developed the UK Climate Programmes, the latest is UKCP 09, which provides probabilistic models of future climate change scenarios, which have been used in research projects to assess the likely impacts of climate change on biodiversity, both species and habitats.Earlier versions of UKCP were used to assess impacts on 50 selected species associated with particular habitats (MONARCH).Defra commissioned a research project that uses the UKCP09 projections to develop the tools and to identify risks to wetland habitats near the English coast as a result of climate change and sea level rise, which included an assessment of the ease of re-creation of these habitats. It will report in 2010.Defra commissioned a project to assess the impacts of climate change on the ornithological interest of SPAs, which will report in 2011. Defra and UK partners also commissioned an project to detect signals of impacts of climate change on species range and abundance, in the BICCO-net Project, that will deliver through 2010 to 2011 and provide valuable information for improved modelling of possible future changes and this guide decisions on providing for adaptation.Natural England have several projects to assess risk and determine priority action. Many of the Defra projects were reported in the last BAP round. • Defra is a founding partner of the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership, which provides a coordinating network for UK scientists and policy makers.• High level annual reports convey the key messages to decision makers, backed up with more detailed analysis. These reports are a unique and innovative approach towards working with a wide range of partners and communicating with a wide range of decision makers.• Along with issues such as melting Arctic sea ice, one of the key issues that this year’s report (launched on 28 April) gets across is increased.','','All parts of the UK have undertaken at least a preliminary assessment of habitats and species at risk.For example Northern Ireland Environemnt Agency is working with government and GB colleagues to ensure outputs of UK projects are relevance to Northern Ireland. In mplementing the Water Framework Directive Climate Change issues have been incorporated into the first phase of the River Basin Management Plans (Dec 2009); and further collaboration will be part of the ongoing development of these plans. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has carried out research (in collaboration with partners) to map functional networks for a range of habitats, and hence to identify existing connectivity. These maps are being used range of projects to inform conservation action. In particular they are being used to explore the degree to which protected sites are functionally connected, and hence form an interactive series rather than a compilation of independent sites. This information is being employed to target action to improve connectivity within, for example, the new agri-environment scheme, Glastir. They are also being used to help develop a strategic ‘green infrastructure’ within the Wales Spatial Plan; a number of pilot projects in southeast Wales are taking these ideas forward. ICCW are also undertaking an assessment of climate change vulnerability of terrestrial sites within the European and national site networks. This assessment has been based on a qualitative assessment for habitat and species features combined with consideration of site condition, identified management issues, habitat connectivity and an evaluation of the size and vulnerability of the soil carbon store within the sites in Wales. The outputs from this work will be used to inform selection of sites that should be a priority for adaptation actions. It will also provide a resource for local staff to inform management decisions. CCW has also used the UKCIP02 climate change projections data to assess the vulnerability of key coastal SACs, such as Bosherston Lakes and Dyfi Estuary,  to sea-level rise in separate projects. Finally, Wales CCW has, using professional judgement (based on the advice of the Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group  methodology), assessed quantitatively risk (H/M/L) for all species that are features on European and national designated sitesNorthern Ireland is considering the impacts of the latest climate change projections - UKCIP09. Consideration is being given to undertaking an assessment for the whole of Ireland.Scotland has reported on the state of biodiversity in 2010.','REF: Mitchell et al., 2007, CR0327: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC02019_5259_FRP.pdfhttp://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php and http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=287Monarch project:http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=330&option=com_content&task=view REF WC0726/CR0422:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16071&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Developing%20tools%20to%20evaluate%20the%20consequences%20for%20biodiversity%20of%20options%20for%20coastal%20zone%20adaptation%20to%20climate%20change&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description ‘Chainspan’, REF CC0750:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16731&FromSearch=Y&Status=2&Publisher=1&SearchText=British%20Trust%20for%20Ornithology&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Descriptionhttp://www.bicco-net.orgNatural England, RP122, ‘Priorities for woodland conservation’, RP295 ‘Are the population dynamics of seabirds in the west of Britain driven by climate change ?’ and RP296 ‘Impacts of climate and land use change on the UK cuckoo population’ link:  http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/biodiversity.aspxUK BAP round:http://www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk/plans/target.asp?X=%7B74525FA3-4F13-4076-8402-9A8CDD1D3272%7D&AP=%7B0DA0A0F4-F82F-4B50-A07E-C5BAB622D2EA%7D&EBS=1ocean acidification:http://www.mccip.org.uk/elr/default.htmScotland state of biodiversity: http://www.snh.org.uk/scottish/2010yearofbiodiversity.asp','19/03/2010','','','06/04/2010','');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `country_report` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table Narrative
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `Narrative`;

CREATE TABLE `Narrative` (
  `Country` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `Objective` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `Ident` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `MOP` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `Narative` text,
  `MSComments` text,
  `Clarifcations` text,
  `DataSource` text,
  `MSVerrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EC1Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `EC2Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CO1Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `CO2Verrified` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`),
  KEY `Country` (`Country`),
  KEY `Ident` (`Ident`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `Narrative` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `Narrative` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Austria','MandE','C1_2','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','MandE','C1_2_1','','The list of monitoring of biodiversity in Austria (MOBI) indicators structured along themes/cross-sections is as follows:Species and habitatsAL1 - Status und Trend ausgewählter Lebensräume inkl. FFH (Status and trend of selected habitats including Habitats Directive); AL2 - Extensivgrünland (Magerwiesen und –weiden) (Extensive grassland (rough meadows and pastures)); AL3 - Vogelartengruppen als Zeiger für Lebensraumqualität (Bird species groups as indicators of habitat quality); AL4 - Libellen als Zeiger für Feuchtgebietsqualität (Dragonflies as indicators of wetland quality); AL5 - Arten- und Lebensraumvielfalt auf Almen (Diversity of species and habitats at alpine pastures); AL6 - Alte Bäume als Lebensräume (Old trees as habitats); AL7 - Fledermäuse (Bats); AL8 - Ziesel (Ground squirrels); AL9 - Flora (Flora); AL10 - Orchideen als Zeiger für Lebensraumqualität (Orchids as indicators of habitat quality); AL11 - Pilze (Makromyzeten) (Fungi (Macromycets)); AL12 - Moose (Mosses); AL13 - Bodenorganismen (Raubmilben) (Soil organisms (Gamasidae)); AL14 - Laienmonitoring allgemein bekannter Arten (Monitoring of commonly known species by amateur biologists); AL15 - Artenmonitoring durch Landwirtinnen und Landwirte (Monitoring of species by farmers); AL16 - Veränderung der Flora auf Alpengipfeln (Change of flora on summits of the alps)ForestsW1 - Natürlichkeit der Baumartenzusammensetzung (Naturalness of composition of tree species); W2 - Totholz (Deadwood); W3 - Verjüngung (Regeneration); W4 - Verbisseinwirkung auf die Verjüngung (Impact of browsing by game species on regeneration)Alpine mountainsA1 - Bergbauernbetriebe (Alpine agricultural holdings); A2 - Viehbestand auf Almen (Livestock on alpine pastures); A3 - Geförderte Bergmähder (Funded meadows on steep slopes); A4 - Freiwilligen-Einsätze auf Almen und Bergbauernhöfen (Voluntary activities on alpine pastures and alpine farms); A5 - Gletscherausdehnung (Extent of glaciers)Cultural landscapeKL1 - Viehdichte (Livestock density); KL2 - Biologisch bewirtschaftete, landwirtschaftliche Fläche (Agricultural area under organic farming practices); KL3 - Größe landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftungseinheiten (Schlaggröße) (Size of agricultural managed units (land parcel size))Water systemsGW1 - Indikatoren gemäß Wasserrahmenrichtlinie / Wasserrechtsgesetz (Indicators according to the EU Water Framework Directive/Austrian Water Act)SoilBO1 - Biomasse und Aktivität (Biomass and activity); BO2 - Eutrophierung und Versauerung durch Stickstoffverbindungen (Eutrophication and acidification by nitrogen compounds)Settlement areasS1 - Parkanlagen – Zustand des Öffentlichen Grüns (Parks – state of public green area); S2 - Lichtemissionen (Emissions of light)Nature protectionN1 - Naturschutzrechtlich verordnete Schutzgebiete (Areas protected by law on nature protection); N2 - Naturwaldreservate (Natural forest reserves); N3 - Schutzgebietsbetreuung (Management of protected areas); N4 - Rote Liste ausgewählter Artengruppen (Red list of selected species groups); N5 - Rote Liste ausgewählter Biotoptypen (Red list of types of biotopes); N6 - Status und Trends ausgewählter gebietsfremder Arten (Status and trend of selected alien species)GeneticsG1 - Erhaltungs- und Samenplantagen (ex situ) (Plantation for preservation and seed orchards (ex situ)); G2 - Gehölzpflanzungen mit natürlichem Pflanzgut (Plantation of woody plants with natural seed stocks); G3 - Funktionsfähige sexuelle Reproduktion bei Pflanzenarten (Sexual reproduction able to function by plant species); G4 - Genetische Vielfalt in Populationen von ausgewählten Arten (Genetic diversity in populations of selected species); G5 - Obstsortenvielfalt (Diversity of fruit species); G6 - Erhaltungswürdige Nutztierrassen (Productive livestock worthy of preservation)FragmentationF1 - Flächenverbrauch durch Verkehr und Siedlung (Versiegelung) (Use of land by transport and settlement (sealing))AwarenessB1 - Aktivitäten zur Förderung der Biodiversität (Activities fostering biodiversity)','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Measure1','B1_1_1','','In Austria, biodiversity funding allocations are made through federal agricultural and environment budgets. Since 1995, in line with EU Regulation No. 2078/92 in situ protection runs under the Austrian Agri-Environmental Programme (ÖPUL). Since 2001 the new regulation ÖPUL 2000 has been in force, based on EU RL 1257/99. In addition, all nine Austrian Provincial Governments have individual annual budgets allocated to nature conservation. All government expenditure is being monitored, including biodiversity spending.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Austria spent up to EUR10,886,959 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Austria’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Austria’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.LIFE Nature projects in Austria have also spent money outside the Natura 2000 network, either as strategic actions or in species-related projects.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Measure1','B1_1_4','','While there is no allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013, Austria’s allocation for category 55 (protection of natural assets) is EUR0.18m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR2m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','03/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Measure1','B1_1_8','',' From 2006-2009, Austria has spent between EUR1,300,000 and EUR1,956,872 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure.','','','','25/01/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Measure2','B2_4','','No new national environmental policy or strategy has been created in Austria in light of the Communication Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’; however, the goals and targets from the Communication have been taken into account in the national outcome-oriented targets to achieve the 2010 Biodiversity Target in Austria (2007).','','','','08/03/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Measure3','','','Under a campaign related to the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben, a group called \"Alliance of diversity of life\" has been established.  The alliance includes the development of partnerships within various sectors of society, such as the business sector, landowners, interest groups, etc. In 2009, 10 partnerships had been established with commercial enterprises.    ','','',' www.vielfaltleben.at ','09/03/2010','','','22/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Measure3','B3_1_2','','Under the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben”, 10 biodiversity & forest partnerships have been established between the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and various forest owners.Under a related campaign called \"Alliance of diversity of life\", members of the alliance have entered a MoU to commit themselves to set out measures with the aim of biodiversity conservation. The union \"BIOSA\" (a voluntary group of forest owners) is member of the Alliance.','','','www.vielfaltleben.at  ','09/03/2010','','','22/03/10',''),
	('Austria','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No forum or similar platform/framework has been set up by Austria for biodiversity and planning partnership at national level. Information concerning partnerships at the regional and local levels was unavailable.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','03/03/2010','','','','22/03/10'),
	('Austria','Measure3','B3_1_6','','Under a campaign related to the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben, a group called \"Alliance of diversity of life\" has been established.  The alliance includes the development of partnerships within various sectors of society, such as the business sector, landowners, interest groups, etc. In 2009, 10 partnerships had been established with commercial enterprises.    ','','',' www.vielfaltleben.at ','09/03/2010','','','22/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','Measure3','B3_1_7','','Under a campaign related to the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben, a group called \"Alliance of diversity of life\" has been established.  The alliance includes the development of partnerships within various sectors of society, such as the business sector, landowners, interest groups, etc. In 2009, 1 partnership had been established with a national bank (Raiffeisen).   ','','','www.vielfaltleben.at','09/03/2010','','','22/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','09/03/2010','','','22/03/10',''),
	('Austria','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Measure4','B4_1_1','','In January 2009 the national biodiversity campaign \"vielfaltleben\" was launched and will run until the end of 2010. The campaign is being implemented by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management in cooperation the NGOs (Naturschutzbund, WWF Austria, BirdLife Austria). The campaign aims are to: - contribute to the protection of most endangered species and ecosystems in Austria. In total, 24 protection projects are being carried out.- establish a local biodiversity network in order to involve local authorities and people in biodiversity protection projects. - establish the \"alliance for diversity of life\" under which partnerships with various groups and sectors are being created. Members of the alliance commit themselves to specific biodiversity projects or contribute to the implementation of the campaign by sponsorships.- carry out communication activities in order to raise public awareness on biodiversity and its importance for in every daily life.','','','www.vielfaltleben.at','08/03/2010','','','22/03/10',''),
	('Austria','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management made a declaration to support the 2010 countdown initiative on 15th December 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, the Austrian government contributed over 50,000 Euros for Countdown 2010 Initiative projects.The Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management contributed 25,000 EUR for project \"Countdown 2010 in Austria\" in 2006 and  40,000 EUR in total  over 2007 -2009 project \"Austrian Regions for Biodiversity 2010\".','','The data concerning the funds between 2006 and 2008 uses the figures for the \"Austrian Regions for Biodiversity 2010\" project. The total sum has been divided equally over the three years (13,333 EUR /year).','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','18/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','22/03/10'),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 6 of the 8 (75%) of bogs, mires and fens and 1 of 1 or 100% of sclerophyllous scrub habitat are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. A large proportion of alpine forests, 15 of the 19 (79%) are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. 2 of the 3 (67%) and 8 of the 11 (73%) of alpine health and scrub and rocky habitats are in favourable condition respectively. Of the total freshwater habitats in the alpine biogeographical region, the condition of 4 of the 9 (44%) is unknown. With the exception of rocky habitats (2 of the 5 or 40%), no favourable conditions are recorded for any of the other continental habitat types. 8 of the 15 (53%) alpine forests are recorded to be in favourable condition. 100% of all coastal, dunes, health and scrub, and sclerophyllous scrub habitats in the continental biogeographical region are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 4 of the 8 (50%) continental freshwater habitats is unknown.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:        Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats00%222%333%444%00%9Heath & Scrub267%00%133%00%00%3Sclerophyllous Scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands19%655%327%19%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%113%675%113%00%8Rocky habitats873%19%19%19%00%11Forests211%1579%211%00%00%19ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%00%450%450%00%8Heath & Scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Sclerophyllous Scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands00%538%754%18%00%13Bogs, mires & fens00%00%571%229%00%7Rocky habitats240%120%120%120%00%5Forests00%853%640%17%00%15',' Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Austria has designated 168 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 8978 km², totalling 10.7% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 96 with a total area of 9867 km², totalling 11.8% of the country’s area.','','. Details on marine sites do not apply for Austria.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','At least 20% of Natura 2000 sites in Austria should have a management plan, e.g. financed by LIFE. More information should have been given in the Art. 17 report.','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 306 regularly occurring bird species in Austria, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 9 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Austria, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 2 of the 21 (10%) amphibians and reptiles are in a favourable state, 14 of the 21 (67%) are in an inadequate condition and 5 of the 21 (24%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. As for fish, 1 of 18 (6%) are in a favourable state, 6 of the 18 (33%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 10 of the 18 (56%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 18 (6%) the fish is unknown. 3 of the 43 (7%) invertebrates are in a favourable state, 16 of the 43 (37%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 20 of the 43 (47%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 43 (9%) invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 11 of the 38 (29%) are in a favourable condition, 18 of 38 (47%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and 7 of the 38 (18%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 38 (5%) the mammals was reported as unknown. Regarding the conservation status of plants, 6 of the 31 (19%) are in a favourable state, 13 of the 31 (42%) are in an unfavourable- inadequate condition and 10 of the 31 (32%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 31 (6%) plants is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 15 of the 22 (68%) of amphibians and reptiles are in an inadequate condition and 7 of the 22 (32%) are an unfavourable-bad condition. There are no amphibians and reptiles in a favourable condition. As for fish, 8 of the 24 (33%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 58% are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 24 (8%) the fish was reported as unknown. 3 of the 38 (8%) invertebrates are in a favourable state, 12 of the 38 (32%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 20 of the 38 (53%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 38 (8%) invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 10 of the 36 (28%) are in a favourable condition, 21 of the 36 (58%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and 4 of the 36 (11%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 36 (2%) of the mammals was reported as unknown. Regarding the conservation status of plants, 2 of the 20 (10%) of are in a favourable state, 8 of the 20 (40%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 10 of the 20 (50%) are in a unfavourable-bad condition. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title, http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Information on species action plans could not be provided. Austria uses the common farmland bird indicators for the evaluation of the Rural Development Programme. Red lists do exist for plants and 19 taxa of animals, these lists were published in the publications listed above. ','','','BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2005): Zulka, K. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Säugetiere, Vögel, Heuschrecken, Wasserkäfer, Netzflügler, Schnabelfliegen, Tagfalter. Grüne Reihe Band 14/1, Wien;     BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2007): Zulka, K. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Kriechtiere, Lurche, Fische, Nachtfalter und Weichtiere. Grüne Reihe Band 14/2, Wien;       BMLFUW - Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2009a): Zulka, K. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Flusskrebse, Köcherfliegen, Skorpione, Weberknechte, Zikaden. Checklisten, Gefährdungsanalysen, Handlungsbedarf. Grüne Reihe Band 14/3, Wien;      BMUJF - Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1999): Niklfeld, H. (Red.): Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs, 2. Auflage. Grüne Reihe, Band 10.','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective10','A10_1','','Austria does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, but biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. The Research Programme PFEIL 10, under the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Water Management, covers research in biodiversity. There are also research programmes of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, ProVision research initiative of the Ministry of Science, and climate change research programme ACRP that may incorporate biodiversity research. In addition, the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung – FWF in Austria is a partner in the ERA-net project BiodivERsA under the EU’s 6th Framework Programme for Research. The aim of BiodivERsA is to achieve an efficient research cooperation in the field of biodiversity research funding in Europe.  ','','','Research Programme PFEIL 10: www.dafne.at; Austrian Biodiversity Platform: http://www.biodiv-forschung.at ; BiodivERsA: http://www.eurobiodiversa.org/; ProVision Research initiative: http://www.provision-research.at/cms/scripts/active.asp; Austrian Climate Research Programme: http://www.era.gv.at/space/11442/directory/12765/link/12823.html ','08/03/2010','','','23/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Austria does not currently have plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.  The findings of the MA provide useful information and are taken into account when implementing the Austrian National Strategy on Biodiversity. Since a review and revision of the National Strategy has not been carried out since 2005 the findings and the framework of the MA have not been used in reviewing or revision this strategy as yet. However, the MA framework will be taken into account in future reviews and revisions.','','','','08/03/2010','','','23/03/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The \"Platform Biodiversity Research Austria\" was established to provide a network for biodiversity research in Austria and to provide for more effective communication on biodiversity.  The platform also aims at linking Austrian biodiversity research more closely to international networks and programmes such as EPBRS, DIVERSITAS or EUROSITE, to promote communication between research and practical implementation, NGOS and managers of protected areas. Furthermore, it should also provide for better communication of strategically important research issues and results of national, EU and international research to the public.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Austria has been an Associate Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since September 2001. GBIF Austria is Austria’s ‘Participant Node’, involved in promoting, coordinating and facilitating the publication, sharing and use of biodiversity data amongst relevant people and organisations within the Participant’s domain. GBIF Austria has a portal available at: http://www.biodiv.at/gbif/, which provides more than 2.8million records on the distribution of over 40,000 native species of plants (including lichens) and fungal species available.The European Network of Biodiversity Information is the European contribution to the GBIF. The European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.There are two organisations involved in the ENBI consortium from Austria: the Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum, Vienna (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) and the Biology Centre of the Upper Austrian State Museum (Biologiezentrum des OÖ Landesmuseums). The Department of Botany at the Natural History Museum, Vienna is involved as a Member of ENBI work package 10. This Work Package comes under the ‘Data integration, interoperability and analysis cluster’, and WP10 specifically is the ‘general analysis tools and data mining’. The Biology Centre at the Upper Austrian State Museum is the Work Package leader. The general objectives under this Work Package are to 1)  Explore and select potential applications of generic analysis tools that can be used with the common access interoperable system defined under WP8 and WP9; 2) To ensure that these tools are able to analyse a variety of biodiversity data and combine or plot these data with a-biotic information (weather, geology, etc.); 3) Explore the application of selected analysis tools in a web environment; and 4) Design description of the integration of these functional analysis tools with the common access system for interoperability of databases as provided by WP 8 and 9 and to provide a demonstrator system. The Biology Centre at the Upper Austrian State Museum was also involved in WP7: Observational data, WP8: Data management in large distributed biodiversity database systems, and WP9: Interoperability and common access.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented in Austria:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.There are also the following additional GAEC requirements:Arable land not used for agricultural production must have a green cover and be maintained throughout the growing season (normally April to September).Areas used for horticulture, wine production or growing hops which are left fallow for at least one growing season between grubbing-up and replanting in order to treat the soil must have green cover throughout the fallow period.It is not permitted to work the soil on agriculturally utilised land with agricultural machinery, if the ground is frozen, waterlogged, flooded, or covered in snow.A minimum distance must be kept when working land close to water. Farms with a stocking rate below 0.5 LU/ha and over 5 ha of arable land may grow cereals and maize on 85 % of their arable land.Burning straw on stubble fields is forbidden, except (as a result of weather or cultivation conditions or for plant health reasons) by authorisation on a case-by-case basis by the competent authority.The clearance of vegetation as a minimum maintenance measure is only permitted on a maximum of 50% of the arable and permanent grassland areas on the farm. On all other arable and permanent grassland areas, the vegetation must be used each year by harvesting or using as pasture.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','03/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Austria total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 4025.58 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 8018.94 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 2918.53 million EUR, and 5817.86 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 72.49 and 72.55 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Austria was 1823.69 million EUR (3635.39 with co-financing) and amounted to 45.3 per cent of the EAFRD (45.33 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 1.81 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.04 per cent of EAFRD) and 3.61 million EUR of public expenditure (0.04 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 2.18 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.05 per cent of EAFRD) and 4.34 million EUR of public expenditure (0.05 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 7.44 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.18 per cent of EAFRD) and 14.84 million EUR of public expenditure (0.19 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasuresEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)511.0371015.057Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title  ','12/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has been adopted that addresses the conservation of genetic resources. There are in situ conservation measures for crop varieties and livestock breeds, such as through the LIFE+ programme, and the European cooperative programme on plant genetic resources (ECP/GR). Their aim is the utilization of rare used species and old ecological adopted varieties to promote the on farm conservation of old varieties and to prevent the loss of knowledge of cultivation and utilization of different crops, breeds and races. These measures cover approximately 70 crop varieties and 31 livestock breeds and amount to an expenditure of some 1.5 and 3.9 million € respectively. ','','','','17/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Austria in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. Afforestation with non-native tree species is excluded from national Rural Development Programmes (RDP). No further details were available.In addition, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. According to the Austrian Forest Act (Forstgesetz), clearing (deforestation) is generally forbidden by law. No further details were available.According to the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are not used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Results of biodiversity surveys are incorporated in afforestation operations. Their application is not limited to the size of an area affected.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','15/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Austria had a total certified forest area of 1.96 million hectares out of a total forest area of 3.862 million hectares. 5086 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 1.956 million hectares of forest in Austria was certified. In total, 50.77 per cent of the forest area in Austria was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','15/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Austria amounted to 2.45 million ha, representing a share of 68.4 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to the Member State, Austria has just started to discuss \"HNV\" from a scientific perspective. Therefore, major changes to existing figures are still possible. Updated reports will then be available every year based on on-going-evaluations.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, MS questionnaire','12/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented in Austria:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.There are also the following additional GAEC requirements:Arable land not used for agricultural production must have a green cover and be maintained throughout the growing season (normally April to September).Areas used for horticulture, wine production or growing hops which are left fallow for at least one growing season between grubbing-up and replanting in order to treat the soil must have green cover throughout the fallow period.It is not permitted to work the soil on agriculturally utilised land with agricultural machinery, if the ground is frozen, waterlogged, flooded, or covered in snow.A minimum distance must be kept when working land close to water. Farms with a stocking rate below 0.5 LU/ha and over 5 ha of arable land may grow cereals and maize on 85 % of their arable land.Burning straw on stubble fields is forbidden, except (as a result of weather or cultivation conditions or for plant health reasons) by authorisation on a case-by-case basis by the competent authority.The clearance of vegetation as a minimum maintenance measure is only permitted on a maximum of 50% of the arable and permanent grassland areas on the farm. On all other arable and permanent grassland areas, the vegetation must be used each year by harvesting or using as pasture.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','03/03/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. In particular, training services are offered to land owners within Natura sites as well as information services to support requirements for habitats, specific birds and the establishment of special hedges. Specific Plans are also developed to optimise environmental protection within holdings and develop contracts to achieve this. Training courses are offered in cooperation with environmental protection and agricultural educational institutions, and the environmental protection plans are linked to continuing education events.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','16/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Regional and national monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition (i.e. area of forest by forest type and percentage coniferous, broadleaved and mixed).Austria has an own concept to evaluate the Farmland-Bird-Index on hand. The country has started broader research resulting in a yearly report. This is designed by BirdLife Austria. One of the study’s main objectives is the design of time lines. The results are then compared with data form the national agri-environmental programme. ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Gruener BerichtWeblink: http://www.gruenerbericht.at/cm2/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=387&Itemid=27 http://www.gruenerbericht.at/cm2/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=237&Itemid=27     ','16/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 97 million € has been added to the Austrian national Rural Development programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Austria attributed € 21 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 22 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','R Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. Austria rejects the identification of risk areas concerning the different soil degradation processes. Besides other aspects, the foreseen identification of risk areas is a particularly important reason for which Austria rejects the proposal on a Soil Framework Directive. It believes that the administrative and financial burden related to the identification of such areas would be higher than the benefits it brings. Given the small scaled structure, in Austria the identification of such areas is neither possible nor does it make sense, because even on the same parcel you can have very different degrees of soil endangerment.This opinion is not shared by the European Commission.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, MS suggestion on evaluation study: \"Comparative Animal Ecological Valuation of High and Low Nature Value Farmland\"     Weblink: ','23/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_3','','According to Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, in Austria 56 per cent of the alpine and 50 per cent of the continental freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remainder is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Freshwater habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage17908053%0%47%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9504056%0%44%0%U12  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8404050%0%50%0%U10   U24       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ andhttp://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, In Austria, oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, going from 1.22 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.23 mg O3/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a slight decrease from 0.07 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.06 mg N/l in 2003, with no change up to 2005. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.37 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.31 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.40 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly below weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally showed a more or less stable trend from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 27.9 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 27.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 28.6 mg NO3/l in 2003. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.026 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.023 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly below weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a clear upward trend, increasing from 0.009 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.021 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values still below the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.According to reporting by the Member State, the above figures on phosphorous concentrations in lakes do not correspond to national data. Phosporus concentrations in natural lakes larger than 50 ha amounted to less than 0.008 mg/l for the period 2003 - 2005. Currently, no upward trends are observed nor does the Member State expect it to happen in the future, as waste water is usually collected in the catchment area of the lakes, redirected and after appropriate treatment discharged further downstream of the lakes. Furthermore, it is reported that an advanced nutrient removal is in place.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water – partly unpublished\"Trophie - Gütebild der großen Seen Österreichs, Stand 2005\"Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe http://publikationen.lebensministerium.at/publication/publication/view/3117/28607 ','25/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Austria had a total number of 192 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 71.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in April 2009, Austria developed three out of four biological assessment methods for rivers and lakes, with no method developed or no information available on phytoplankton assessment for rivers and benthic invertebrates for lakes.According to reporting by the Member State, due to high flow velocity of Austria’s rivers no autochthonic phytoplankton can develop and therefore Austria has not developed a specific method for this biological parameter in rivers.Benthic invertebrate of Austria’s alpine lakes show a high natural variability. As the remaining three biological parameters (phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, and fish fauna) provide better and sufficiently robust results, the Member State has not developed and according method for benthic invertebrates in lakes. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','25/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 105 in Austria.According to reporting by the Member State, the territory partly covers three river basin districts (RBD): 80,565 km² or 96.1% of Austria belong to the RBD Danube, 2,365 km² or 2.8% to the RBD Rhine and 921 km² or 1.1% to the RBD Elbe. Austria has reported 7.244 river water bodies > 10 km², 62 lakes > 50 ha and 136 groundwater bodies or groups of groundwater bodies. ','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaire, Austrian National River Basin Management Plan, 2009','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, at the end of 2008 Austria had a total number of 572 IPPC installations and issued 518 permits. 47 permits were still outstanding. 263 was the number of permits that was considered but not updated given the permits already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. A “pre-IPPC permit reconsidered but not updated” takes those cases into account where the conditions were reconsidered, but no update has taken place because the conditions were considered to already comply with the requirements of the Directive. “Pre-IPPC permits reconsidered and updated” requests data on those cases which were reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account.  The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaire, Reporting under the IPPC DirectiveWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/at/eu/ippc/envss3ola/ippc-q2-template_DE1_1_.xls','05/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, Austria’s emissions of sulphur dioxide and ammonia were all below NEC Directive ceilings in 2008 and it is projected that they will remain below these levels in 2010, based on implemented and adopted measures. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are still well above NECD ceilings, though decreased compared to 2007. However, it is expected that the emission ceilings targets for nitrogen oxides will not be met. Regarding non-methane volatile organic compounds, the country is currently on target to comply with the ceilings set out in Annex I of the directive, but expects to be above targets in 2010.According to the Member State, Austria reports on national emissions calculated on the basis of \"fuel used\", which can be very different from figures provided above. Data below provide an overview of related emissions in 2008.NOxNMVOCSOxNO3227.45186.7028.9466.01','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Austria the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 2 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 35,746 km2 and 40,255 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 1 and 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 94 per cent in 2010 and 78 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 5 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Austria’s gross nitrogen balance was 48 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 27 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','25/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','No data on Austria exists as regards the index on trends in common farmland bird species by the European Census Council and Birdlife International. According to reporting by the Member State, Austria has developed an own concept for producing a Farmland Birds Index. This includes a comprehensive study resulting in a yearly report and is designed by BirdLife Austria. For further information please consult 2.1.8.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','12/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Austria generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitat with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the alpine heath and scrub habitats, where 67 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 33 per cent is unfavourable). All of the continental heath and scrub habitat in Austria has an unfavourable conservation status. The highest percentages of unfavourable conservation status are found in the alpine and continental forest habitats of Austria (88 and 93 per cent respectively). The remaining forest habitats in Austria have an unknown conservation status. 82 per cent of alpine grasslands in Austria have an unfavourable status, 9 per cent of these grasslands have a favourable status (the remaining 9 per cent is unknown). Of the continental grasslands in Austria, 92 per cent has an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 8 per cent has an unknown status. The vast majority of both the alpine and continental peat land habitats in Austria have an unfavourable conservation status (88 and 71 per cent respectively), the status of the remaining peat land habitat is unknown. See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Grassland habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage242112088%4%8%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11911082%9%9%0%U16  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131201092%0%8%0%U15   U27       Forest HabitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage322921091%6%3%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage171520088%12%0%0%U113  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151401093%0%7%0%U18   U26       Heath and Scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4220050%50%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3120033%67%0%0%U10  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U10   U21       Peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151203080%0%20%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8701088%0%13%0%U11  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7502071%0%29%0%U10   U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective3','A3_4','','Austria’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 2 is €10,203,753 includes promotion of sustainable exploitation of inland waters and organic aquaculture production. Axis 3 (€100,000) supports measures to avoid overfishing (e.g. minimum landing sizes and closed areas). There are no activities or funding under Axis 1 or Axis 4 as Austria only has an inland fishery and being land-locked no marine fishery. ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_10_en.htm; http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','04/03/10','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Austria has a trout management plan for lake trout (www.vorarlberg.at) and has undertaken a number of activities under LIFE funding to support the Danube Salmon (Hucho hucho). Austria also has a National River Basin management Plan under the Water Framework Directive which has a number of actions that are of benefit to diadromous species including the morphological restructuring of rivers; removal of migratory barriers; measures to ensure fish migration through adequate technical solutions and stock enhancement of lake trout. (Source: Austrian National River Basin Management Plan, 2009).','','','wisa.lebensministerium.at','25/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective4','A4_3','','Under the given criteria of the Habitats and Bird´s Directive, Austria holds the opinion that the network is completed. Neither AT network of sites according to Birds nor according to Habitats Directives is completed yet http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/docs/spa.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/docs/sci.pdf','','','','03/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism have been taken into account in the Austrian National Strategy on Biodiversity. The Strategy includes the following measures on tourism and leisure industry: - Development of strategies to ensure the protection on nature and landscapes; - Measures in the field of education and research; - Measures to ensure cooperation between all stakeholders concerned; - Measures aiming at ensuring sustainable development of tourism support systems; - Mesures related to international tourism policy. Thus the CBD Guidelines are taken into account when planning tourism development. It also has to be noted  that the building of tourism infrastructures has to follow an EIA procedure. No legal provions exist for considering the CBD Guidelines in tourism development. Finally, Austria has not produced a report on the usage of the CBD Guidelines.  ','','','www.biologischevielfalt.at','09/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Austrian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 2.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spending on the categories 55 and 56 are foreseen by the Austrian Structural Funds programme. Furthermore its biodiversity-related spendings under the Structural Funds are also concentrated in cross border programs such as INTERREG. The complete list of funded projects can be found on the respective websites of the different programmes (see below).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy direct and indirect spending on biodiversity (table provided by EC). Reference or title: Cohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdfAustrian’s cross border programs under EU Structural funds:http://www.sk-at.eu/at-hu http://www.interreg-bayaut.net http://www.interreg.org http://www.interreg.net http://www.si-at.eu/start_de http://www.sk-at.eu http://www.at-cz.eu','03/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','30/04/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Austria has no general federal legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), however, the introduction of IAS is covered under specific legislation. Firstly, the Austrian Law on Plant Protection (1995) covers IAS that are plant pests. IAS are also covered under regional federal states (Länder) jurisdiction (Lebensministerium (Austria) 2005). Introduction of alien plants is restricted in eight of nine federal states; introduction of animals is restricted in all nine federal states. In some federal states, there is an exception for species introduced for fisheries, agricultural and forestry purposes. Austrian legislation does not address import and export, possession and trade or control and eradication of IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 66 are present in Austria. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_1_2','','There is no national strategy on invasive alien species (IAS) in Austria but a national action plan for IAS was published in 2004. The action plan is part of the National Biodiversity Strategy and serves as a tool to implement the goals and objectives on IAS set out in the National Biodiversity Strategy. The plan covers four thematic areas: 1) education and awareness rising, 2) capacity building, 3) research and monitoring, and 4) legal and organisational implementation.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','08/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Austria has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','03/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, an inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects was implemented. An early warning and information system for IAS is under development, which will cover aspects such as incident lists and a focal point network. A National Focal Point on IAS has been established at the Austrian Federal Environment Agency.    No detailed information on the database was available.Austria supports the establishment of an early warning and information systems for IAS at the EU level (as foreseen in the Council Conclusions on the EU IAS Strategy in June 2009), seeing such a Community-wide system as an effective way forward. Consequently a national system will have to be established as soon as EU system will be in place. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:www.umweltbundesamt.at  ','08/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Austria has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. In Austria, the competence lies at the regional level. The titles and references of the co-existence legislation in Austria are as follows: Salzburger Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 75, dated 10.9.2004; Kärntner Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 5, dated 28.1.2005; Burgenländisches Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 64, dated 29.07.2005; Tyroler Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 36, dated 9.3.2005; Niederösterreichisches Gentechnikvorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 81, dated 31.8.2005; Wiener Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 53, dated 21.9.2005; Oberösterreichisches Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 79/2006, dated 6.7.2006; Steiermärkisches Gentechnik-Vorsorgegesetz, LGBl. Nr. 97/2006, dated 11.8.2006; and Vorarlberger Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftsentwicklung, LGBl. Nr. 22/1997, deals with the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). With regards to restrictions for the cultivation of genetically modified crops, authorisation will only be granted by the competent regional authority in certain protected areas. Protection of these areas must be guaranteed and/or wild fauna and flora and natural habitats must not be damaged. Some regions have specific protected areas which include alpine and/or mountain pastures, glaciers and their catchment areas and areas managed under contract nature protection schemes. Cultivation of GM crops is not permitted in areas of organic farming or areas where there is a risk of out-crossing with non- genetically modified production. In 2008, Austria adopted a ban on Maize MON 810 (Verordnung BGBl (Nr.181/2008, dated 30. Mai 2008).','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','04/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective6','A6_1_1','','','','','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Austria spent EUR0.16m in 2006 and EUR0.07 in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which amounts to a total of 0.006% and 0.002%, respectively, of the total multilateral annual aid budget. However, Austria has questioned the above data, specifically, the citation of OECD DAC and whether the methodology used corresponds with the data from the Rio Markers. The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW); this methodology has been applied consistently across all 27 Member States.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD marker, Austria spent EUR3.2m in 2006 and EUR2.4m in 2007 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.004% and 0.002%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget. However, Austria has questioned the above data, specifically the citation of OECD DAC and whether the methodology used corresponds with the data from the Rio Markers. The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW); this methodology has been applied consistently across all 27 Member States.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009, 09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Austria contributed EUR22.81 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.94% of the total replenishment. Austria contributed EUR24.38 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.14 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','09/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Austria has implemented the SEA Directive and EIA Directive. In addition, it has ratified the Espoo Convention and the SEA Protocol.EIA is manadatory for all bilateral programmes and projects. There is no standardized SEA process yet established.SEA is not systematically applied for plans and programmes (e.g. lack of strategic planning in hydropower policy). ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:http://www.umweltnet.at/article/archive/7241www.strategischeumweltpruefung.athttp://www.umweltnet.at/article/archive/7237http://www.entwicklung.at/en/funding-and-tenders/country-regional-programmes/projekt-zyklus-management.html  ','03/03/2010 und 09/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective8','A8_1','','Austria has provided 40,000 € in total for the 6th meeting of the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing in 2008 to support participation of representatives from developing countries as well as indigenous representatives. No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing exists in Austria, but awareness was raised in particular through several national workshops/ meetings. In addition, the Austrian Botanical Gardens are partners of the International Plant Exchange Network IPEN, which was developed as a model for the acquisition and the exchange of living plant material within the botanic gardens community in respect of the ABS requirements of the CBD. IPEN is a voluntary registration system intending to facilitate the botanic gardens plant exchange in accordance with the CBD provisions. The general provisions on implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources in Austria are laid down in Federal Law Nr. 98/2006 (part III) (Ratification of the ITPGR). Workshops/conferences to raise the awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the ITPGR with key stakeholders and users are regularly organised. The Austrian Forest Act as well as the PEFC and FSC certification schemes provide for the total wood consumption deriving from sustainable sources. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, while no applications were denied. A large number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','03/03/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing exists in Austria. Austrian Botanical Gardens are partners of the International Plant Exchange Network IPEN, which was developed as a model for the acquisition and the exchange of living plant material within the botanic gardens community in respect of the ABS requirements of the CBD. IPEN is a voluntary registration system intending to facilitate the botanic gardens plant exchange in accordance with the CBD provisions. Several national  workshops / meetings have been organised with key stakeholders to raise awareness of the Bonn Guidelines. Information of stakeholders, breeders and seed industry.','','In Dec 2008 Austria organised an international workshop in Vienna to facilitate effective participation of indigenious representatives in the ongoing negotiations on an international ABS regime (€ 15.000 in total). ','','17/02/2010 and 09/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Austria has provided 40,000 € in total for the 6th meeting of ABS Working Group in 2008 to support participation of representatives from developing countries as well as indigenous representatives.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','No specific national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exists in Austria. However, general provisions on implementation of the IT in Austria are laid down in Federal Law Nr. 98/2006 (part III) (Ratification of the ITPGR).Workshops/conferences to raise the awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the ITPGR with key stakeholders and users are regularly organised.  Information of stakeholders, breeders and seed industry.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Austria','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The Austrian Forest Act as well as the PEFC and FSC certification schemes provide a total wood consumption from sustainable sources.','','','','15/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 4312, 282 and 7092, respectively. No import, export or re-export applications were denied. There were 6597 and 7178 seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008, respectively. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance for staff of Management Authority, Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities and financial support for the information campaign of the WWF-Austria to traders and the public. Austria provided financial assistance for the CITES-Trust funds for the participation of other countries at the CoP14 (€ 10.000). Austria paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The 2007 -2008 biennial report indicated that there were a significant number of seizures and confiscations. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','03/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Austria','Objective9','','','Austria has just recently started to pave the way for a National Adaptation Strategy. A “policy paper” laying down main strategic principles and formulating some recommendations in selected key sectors (agriculture, forestry, electricity, tourism and water management) was drafted and is under discussions. Further sectors will be analysed in the course of the next months, and one of these will be the sector “Natural ecosystems/Biodiversity”.','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','25/01/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Regarding biofuels and bioliquids, Austria is currently working on the implementation of Sustainability Criterias based on EU Directive 2009/30 and 2009/28 into national laws. The transposition of the EU directives has to be finished until the end of 2010. Requirements addressing biodiversity problems in relation with biomass production are also under development.','','','','25/01/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_4_1','','Austria has just recently started to pave the way for a National Adaptation Strategy. A “policy paper” laying down main strategic principles and formulating some recommendations in selected key sectors (agriculture, forestry, electricity, tourism and water management) was drafted and is under discussions. Further sectors will be analysed in the course of the next months, and one of these will be the sector “Natural ecosystems/Biodiversity”.',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','25/01/2010',NULL,NULL,'30/04/2010',NULL),
	('Austria','Objective9','A9_4_3','','There are no finished risk assessments of habitats under climate change in Austria. However, a current project elucidates climate-change induced risks to mire Austrian habitats – this study (“MoorClim”) will be finished in February 2011 and is coordinated by the Austrian Federal Environment Agency (Dr. Franz Essl). There are no comprehensive nationwide assessments of species under risk of climate change. However, the monitoring project GLORIA (www.gloria.ac.at) investigates climate change driven mountain species range shifts. Besides, climate change induced risks for endemic plant and animal species has been assessed in studies (Dirnböck, Essl, Rabistch).','','','The monitoring project GLORIA www.gloria.ac.at ','08/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','MandE','C1_2','','In Flanders, since 2005 a yearly report has been published on the SEBI biodiversity indicators that are being followed up and extended every year; information is also available on website: www.natuurindicatoren.be  - with pages in English.  The Brussels Capital Region reports regularly on the state of biodiversity. The SEBI indicators are up to now not as such fully integrated into those reports. They nevertheless include data of that type, among others on abundance and distribution of selected species, national designated areas, Natura 2000 network, and invasive species etc.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: www.natuurindicatoren.be; http://www.bruxellesenvironnement.be/Templates/etat/informer.aspx?id=3072&langtype=2060','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','MandE','C1_2_1','','10 of the SEBI indicators are applied directly in both Wallonie and Flanders, 3 SEBI indicators are directly applied in either Wallonie or Flanders and amended to the subnational circumstances in the other. One indicator (Public awareness) is amended in both Wallonie and Flanders. 4 SEBI indicators are applied directly in either Wallonie or Flanders and not used in the other. 2 indicators are amended in Wallonie or Flanders and not used in the other, while 6 indicators are not used in either jurisdiction. There are 12 and about 20 additional biodiversity indicators in Wallonie and Flanders, respectively.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','Monitoring programmes are mainly carried out by the regions - therefore the numbers are given per region if they have relevant monitoring programme running.FL : A project \"habitat mapping\" is running for all habitat types (linked to the project Biological valuation map). It is a field survey at a rather detailed scale (1/10.000) covering the whole of Flanders, concerning the distribution and area of habitat types. It is not a real monitoring system but gives the baseline data for upcoming monitoring. Running monitoring programmes are either  focused  on specific regions (e.g. Scheldt Estuary) or  are thematic (e.g. forest reserves). None of the surveillance / monitoring programmes mentioned are specifically designed for monitoring of Natura 2000 habitats and species, certainly not at the biogeographical level. Together they can cover more or less the needs for some habitat groups (e.g. coastal and dune habitat types, most forest habitat types).Surveillance on abiotic environments links to different habitat types: hydrological monitoring in Nature Reserves (WATINA); BioSoil - Biodiversity part.BHG:In collaboration with the Institute for Nature and Forest Research a monitoring strategy has been developed for the Brussels Capital Region. In this strategy the information needs are determined and prioritized, and the necessary survey and monitoring projects are designed. W:In Wallonia, the State of the Walloon Environment provides access to all publications prepared by the Cellule Etat de l’environnement wallon and published by the Direction Générale de l\'Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et de l\'Environnement (Department for Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment) of the Service Public de Wallonie.  http://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/default.aspxIn 2006, the Walloon Region set up a permanent network to evaluate the ecological quality of watercourses. It is made up of more than 400 monitoring points. In 2007, more than 65 % of the 54 sites in the surveillance network presented water of good or high ecological quality. While water is generally of a (very) good quality in forest areas, it often becomes bad where there is a high level of urbanisation, a lot of industry and intensive farming. TBE 2008 map water 16-1 fig 16-1.  http://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/rapportProblematique.aspx?id=p089   ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.inbo.behttp://environnement.wallonie.be/dnf/inventaire/ http://www.aves.be/files/manager/avesnamur/Notice2008_pointsecoute_Wallonie.pdfhttp://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/default.aspxFl: ttp://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring/  (for most of the above mentioned programmes)http://environnement.wallonie.be/eew/rapportProblematique.aspx?id=p089   ',' 23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Measure1','B1_1_1','','FL:In the framework of the 5-year Environment & Nature Policy Plan overall budget allocations are also included. Objectives and measures for Nature, Forests and Green Spaces are mainly included in the chapter on Biodiversity - under the coordination of the Agency for Nature & Forests, besides measures related to biodiversity under the other environment themes.  A detailed overview of budget allocations for Natura 2000 was submitted to EC in the framework of the study on \'financing Natura 2000\'.  An estimated budget for one-off costs for projects, mainly restoration and nature development projects, comes to ca 90 mio € , and for yearly budget needs for the next 5 years to ca 44,5 mio € and 6,5 mio €  for staff - including estimated budgets and staff of partner administrations and organisations, but do not include EU co-financing. W:The Walloon Region has developed a specific funding tool for Natura 2000: The Walloon Government Decree of 30/04/2009 on compensation and subsidies in Natura 2000 :http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?mod=voirdoc&script=wallex2&PAGEDYN=indexBelgiqueLex.html&MBID=2009203045. The budgets for nature development have been recently going up slightly in Wallonia: + 54 % for the period 2005-2008. More than 40 % of the budgets are allocated to protection and management measures for sites of biological interest (purchase and management of natural reserves, LIFE Nature programmes for the conservation of Natura 2000 habitats etc,). The relative significance of budgets for the support of themed operations management should also be noted («attics and steeples», roadsides, PCDNs etc.). They represent around 10 % of the total budget, depending on the year. Many others supporting measures exists in Wallonia : Grants for planting and maintenance of hedges, orchards and rows of trees :http://environnement.wallonie.be/dnf/dcnev/consnat/Subventions_haies.htmGrants for the “week of the tree”; grants to the natural parks, rivers contracts.BHG:The yearly budget for biodiversity management and restoration in the BCR approximately mounts to € 800000 (calculation based on biodiversity projects - policy planning - management - collaborators wages).Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Belgium spent up to EUR3,167,425 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Belgium spent up to 11,307,092 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Belgium’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Belgium’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Belgium’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR1.05m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR15.4m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR8.7m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','29/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Measure1','B1_1_8','','In 2009, Belgium spent EUR3,190,000 in Wallonia and EUR16,000,000 in Flanders for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure ','','','','29/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Measure2','B2_4','','In Flanders, a new Environment and Nature Policy Plan is adopted every five years. The Environment and Nature Policy Plan MINA 3 (2002-2007, extended to 2010) includes a specific chapter on Biodiversity with overall objective to halt biodiversity loss by 2010 - most actions that are included in the EU Action Plan have been taken up in this chapter on Biodiversity or in other relevant chapters on other environment issues such as water management, land management, cooperation with stakeholders. A new plan MINA 4 (2011-2015) has been drafted and is in procedure for consultations. Since 2006, the Agency for Nature and Forests also has its own Strategic Plan and a yearly operational plan giving more detailed information on objectives, actions and indicators related to actions and processes for the conservation and management of nature, forests and green spaces. The Wallonia region is currently developing its action plan for nature. This is an elaboration of a Nature Plan aiming at a better integration of nature issues in all relevant sectors, and at encouraging exploitation and management methods favourable to wild species. This plan should involve all public and private stakeholders. It will define the general objectives for recovery/restoration of nature/biodiversity and to achieve the goal of stopping the loss of biodiversity in Wallonia. It should be ready by the end of 2013.','','Flemish Region: Environment and Nature Policy Plan 3+ (2007-2010);The Flemish objectives for the conservation of biodiversity are included in the Policy Plan for Environment and Nature (2003-2007, extended to 2010) under a specific chapter ‘Biodiversity’ as well as specific measures under other environment themes. See also http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/beleidsplanning. The follow-up of the implementation of this policy plan is carried out using CBD-relevant indicators. These can be found at http://www.biodiversityindicators.be. Pages in English are available. Some of the most important operational objectives are given below.- Extension of the area with conservation management. The Flemish Environmental Policy Plan (2003-2010) targeted 50,000 ha with active conservation management by 2007. These areas include the officially recognised nature and forest reserves managed by non-governmental organisations, local authorities or private owners, the nature and forest reserves managed by the Flemish government and the military sites mainly managed for conservation. A method of quantifying the effectiveness of this conservation management is still under development. It is clear that biodiversity within these areas is much higher than outside of them. At the start of the planning period (end 2002) the area with conservation management covered 29,480 ha, or 59% of the target. By the end of 2007, 39,365 ha, or 79% of the target had been reached. Nearly half of the increase was achieved via recognised nature reserves which are managed by non-governmental organisations. If the present trend continues, the target will be achieved by 2013. However, if the decline in funds for nature acquisition continues, there will be a further delay. - Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. In Flanders, 24 Special Protection Areas have been designated with a total area of 98,423 ha, or 7.3% of the Flemish territory. There were 38 sites designated and put on the list of Sites of Community Interest by the European Commission. The Sites of Community Interest have a total area of 104,888 ha, or 7.8% of the Flemish territory. The total Natura 2000 area comprises 166,187 ha (12.3% of the Flemish terrestrial area). Marine areas are not included, as they are under the jurisdiction of the Belgian federal government. In 2008, there was a limited increase in the Sites of Community Interest, when the main channel of the Sea Scheldt and IJzer were included. An international comparison shows that 12.3% is low in comparison to the European average, but high when compared to neighbouring densely populated regions.- Spatial planning for nature and forest areas. The land destination maps are being actualised to include the designation of the Flemish Ecological Network that supports and enhances Natura 2000, and to extent green destinations for nature and for forest.- Site-specific instruments. These instruments give a framework for conservation measures and for setting up partnerships:      - development of conservation objectives for SCI and SPA sites (Natura 2000)     - site-specific Nature Objectives Plans     - projects for nature development and restoration, especially in Natura 2000 sites     - development and implementation of management plans for nature reserves, forest reserves, parks and green spaces- Species protection. Development and implementation of species protection plans, measures for restoration of living spaces and habitats for endangered species, update of Red Lists.- Acquisition of land to safeguard the most vulnerable and important natural values, with priority on Natura 2000 and VEN sites with high nature values. - Support of local authorities (provincial and municipal authorities), regional landscape groups, NGO’s to enhance local actions for conservation measures and participation.- Transboundary cooperation for ensuring harmonised approaches for the management in transboundary nature and forest areas.- Cooperation with stakeholders to enhance their sense of responsibility in conservation and management efforts: management agreements with private and business sector; agri-environment agreements; financial and technical support for forest owners, hunting groups, fishermen groups. - Enhance the knowledge basis and monitoring to support and evaluate policy issues, deliver data for communication and reporting and develop the science-policy interface.- Promote communication on conservation of nature, forest and green spaces to enhance public awareness and participation.','Fl: http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/beleidsplanning; http://natuurenbos.be; http://www.biodiversityindicators.be ','26/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Measure3','','','In Flanders, consultation committees for planning and follow-up of partnerships have been set up between the Agency for Nature & Forests and: Drinking Water Companies, Waste Water Management (Aquafin), Waste Handling Companies (Remo), the Departments Waterwegen & Zeekanaal (Waterways and Sea Canal) and De Scheepvaart (Shipping), Port Authorities.The aim of these committees is to discuss environmental impact assessments and other approaches, finding best solutions for limited impacts and for mitigation and/or compensation measures and to identify voluntary practices to enhance natural carrying capacity and ecosystem functions.  Cooperation agreements have been signed with businesses including SIBELCO, REMO, Wienerberger, Bayer. NGOs, such as Natuurpunt also have bilateral agreements with businesses for enhancing biodiversity on their compounds however their number has not been communicated.In 2007, long term agreements for cooperation were established between the NGOs Natuurpunt (FL) and Natagora (Wallonia) with the electricity company Electrabel & GDF-Suez for several actions on biodiversity.In the Walloon region, several agreements exist between electricity companies (Elia) and the nature and forests department of the Walloon region for the ecological management of areas located under electrical power lines. Several hydroelectric power station companies have been involved and equiped with protection netting to avoid fish from being caught in their engines. Fish ladders have also been installed to enable fish to migrate up and down the watercourse. Quarries and cement companies are required to rehabilitate sites when extraction is finished. Quarries are required to pay compensation when enlarging their extraction area.','','The numbers given reflect only the formally established frameworks or agreements','http://www.natuurpunt.be','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Measure3','B3_1_2','','In Flanders 19 \'forest  groupings\' have been approved, controlled by the Flemish government and financially supported in order to promote sustainable forest management, which includes integrating biodiversity concerns into forest management. Any forest owner can apply for membership of the forest grouping and can benefit from specialised advice and support. Two \'agro-nature management groups\' were established in 2009 in a pilot project, and four more are in the process of becoming established during 2010.A regional policy committee, AGNABIO, was set up end of 2009 between the administrations of environment and agriculture to develop a vision and action plan for agro-nature management and biodiversity. During 2010, a stakeholder’s platform will be added to this committee. The action plans of the 14 Regional Landscape Groups include awareness raising and educational activities to enhance cooperation with farmers. The Nature & Environment project BoerenENnatuur and the Interreg project SOLABIO give a platform for the exchange of expertise and information for farmers and nature groups. Furthermore, sector specific Regional Advisory Boards are in place in order to discuss and evaluate biodiversity policies with different stakeholders, such as for hunting, freshwater fisheries, agriculture, forestry.In Walonia, municipalities\' plans for nature conservation and river contracts are participatory processes in which farmers are occasionally involved.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Fl:http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Bos/Bosbeleid/Bosgroepen.aspx http://www.regionalelandschappen.be/ http://www.lne.be/themas/natuur-en-milieueducatie/algemeen/nme-projecten/subsidieprojecten/subsidieprojecten-2009#kenniscirkelwww.vlm.be http://www.rlnh.be/watdoenwij/Solabio.htm ','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','Measure3','B3_1_5','','One of the overarching principles of Belgium’s national strategy is sectoral integration. Objective 5 of the strategy focuses specifically on sectoral integration and targets stakeholder partnerships. This includes the involvement of the private sector and the land use planning for biodiversity.The regions are in charge of territorial matters and take responsibility for biodiversity-related issues including land use and spatial planning. The regional and the federal government administrations are the main implementation bodies for the national strategy. The provinces and the municipalities also play an important role at the local level, in accordance with regional policy.In the Flemish region, under the Cooperation Framework with local authorities municipalities receive financial and technical support for projects they submit for nature conservation actions. Half of these projects concerned acquisition and restoration of nature of forest areas. The other projects included species protection, installation of green roofs, development and implementation of management plans for parks and for road or river verges. An inter-departmental working group has been established for consultation on the review/development of the spatial plans for land use.  New executive spatial land use plans are being developed on regional, provincial and municipal level. For the over-arching regional level, Flanders has been divided in 15 regions. Several plans have been drafted based on the region\'s spatial vision that takes into account the proposals from the various sectors and identifies the key issues to be further discussed.Consultation groups on administrative level and on stakeholder level have been formally established for the development of the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 sites to ensure a full participatory approach in this process. These consultation groups are active on a regional level following the overall regional process, as well as on the local level.In Wallonia, the 23 land use plans  (‘plans de secteur’) are aimed at managing the pressure from urbanisation by defining zones which can be built on (270,000 ha) and zones which should be reserved for agriculture, forests, or wildlife (1,400,000 ha). For the implementation of every urbanisation project under the framework of the ZACCs (zones d’aménagement communal concerté), an urban and environmental report evaluates the potential impacts.A participatory approach has been taken in Wallonia which contributes to biodiversity protection. Examples include:  Municipality plans for Nature development (PCDN), Nature Parks, and River Contracts (Contrats de Rivières). These include actions for biodiversity conservation on a local level. Other nature development programmes also exist which focus on “roadside management” (e.g. through delayed mowing). In 2007, 62 % of municipalities were involved in one or two programmes and 18 % in three programmes. Four were involved in all of the programmes. However, 47 municipalities were not yet involved in any programmesRiver contracts are an example of participatory management structures with the aim of bringing stakeholders together in water catchments in order to define a programme for restoring watercourses and their surrounding areas. 196 Walloon municipalities have become partners in a river contract. A platform has been set up to identify what could be improved for biodiversity conservation in the CWATUPE (Code wallon de l’aménagement du territoire, de l’urbanisme, du patrimoine et de l’énergie). In the Region of Brussels urbanization is a significant threat to biodiversity. The integration of biodiversity in land use policy presents a challenge.  Spatial planning in the Brussels Capital Region is organised by the Brussels code on spatial planning. This code specifies that environmental needs must be taken into account for the elaboration of the Regional Development Plan (art.17). This non restrictive plan establishes the Green & Bleu Network and is translated into a restrictive Regional Spatial Plan which includes special requirements for the protection of mapped high valued nature areas. Consultation of the interested stakeholders is organised by the Government for the elaboration of the RDP (the High Brussels Council for Nature Conservation).The management of green spaces is carried out in order to favour biodiversity. For instance, native species are used; dead trees are maintained as long as possible. Initiatives have been taken to encourage Eco-construction. A guide book on eco-construction for professionals was published with several chapters concerning biodiversity such as how to maximise ecological productivity, how to build green roofs, and how to set up green walls. Training workshops have also been organised for professionals. ','','FlandersThe protocol of the Federal Ministry of Defence for cooperation for the management of the nature and forest areas on military domains was renewed in 2007 and received a boost for action through the LIFE project DANAH.An agreement was established with the organisation for youth concerning their recreational activities in nature and forest areas. Several actions directly or indirectly related with business sector have been set up in the framework of the Environment Policy Plan 3+ (2008-2010). -	Sector-specific platforms have been established under the Department for Environment, Nature and Energy for exchanging information and sharing experience between administrations of the regional environment authority and user groups such as: Environment and Agriculture, Environment and Industries, Environment and Consumers. The main objectives of these platforms is to look into (1) possible common programmes in which the actors agree to take up their responsibilities and through which the environmental performance can be improved; (2) cooperate for improving jurisdiction and instruments and sector specific objectives. The objectives of the Agency for Nature & Forests include other specific actions to enhance the integration of biodiversity concern and measures for conservation with socio-economic objectives:-	Aspects that are being explored include the development of incentive measures such as green taxes, support for land rehabilitation and restoration of nature and landscape values, support for private – public partnerships for biodiversity conservation actions-	New ways are being explored for effective integration of biodiversity into sectoral economic activities, such as improving the biodiversity content of environmental impact assessments, site management and conservation of biodiversity on domains of private companies, sustainable provision of raw materials, sustainable harvests and resource management, certification schemes,…-	Consultation group between Agency Nature & Forests, the Department Natural Resources and the Quarry Companies for sand and gravel exploitation to explore relation with biodiversity values and the proposed locations for the quarries, and discuss options for finding best solutions for limited impacts in the framework of EIAs, and for compensations and rehabilitation of natural values after their exploitation. For example with the sand mining company SIBELCO a cooperation agreement was developed to restore the natural values after the sand winning.-	With the private sector in energy production from biomass ways are explored for effective production and retail of biomass from the Agency’s nature and forest areas.-	Formal advisory boards have been established with several sector groups to enhance integration of biodiversity issues into their policies: agriculture, river fisheries, foresters, hunters.Wallonia:A certification scheme called PEFC involves all forest stakeholders: owners, industries, environment organizations, scientists, and other forests users. Consultation groups have been set up within the Walloon administration to provide clear indications on which agricultural lot can benefit of agricultural financial aid. A new group has been set also within the Walloon administration to better take into account the environment in cross compliance. A specific cooperation protocol was established with the Federal Ministry of Defence.','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for BelgiumWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','20/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','Measure3','B3_1_6','','In Flanders, consultation committees for planning and follow-up of partnerships have been set up between the Agency for Nature & Forests and: Drinking Water Companies, Waste Water Management (Aquafin), Waste Handling Companies (Remo), the Departments Waterwegen & Zeekanaal (Waterways and Sea Canal) and De Scheepvaart (Shipping), Port Authorities.The aim of these committees is to discuss environmental impact assessments and other approaches, finding best solutions for limited impacts and for mitigation and/or compensation measures and to identify voluntary practices to enhance natural carrying capacity and ecosystem functions.  Cooperation agreements have been signed with businesses including SIBELCO, REMO, Wienerberger, Bayer. NGOs, such as Natuurpunt also have bilateral agreements with businesses for enhancing biodiversity on their compounds however their number has not been communicated.In 2007, long term agreements for cooperation were established between the NGOs Natuurpunt (FL) and Natagora (Wallonia) with the electricity company Electrabel & GDF-Suez for several actions on biodiversity.In the Walloon region, several agreements exist between electricity companies (Elia) and the nature and forests department of the Walloon region for the ecological management of areas located under electrical power lines. Several hydroelectric power station companies have been involved and equiped with protection netting to avoid fish from being caught in their engines. Fish ladders have also been installed to enable fish to migrate up and down the watercourse. Quarries and cement companies are required to rehabilitate sites when extraction is finished. Quarries are required to pay compensation when enlarging their extraction area.','','The numbers given reflect only the formally established frameworks or agreements','http://www.natuurpunt.be','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity. However, some actions organised by NGOs are being supported by the banking sector. Cooperation with financing sector is therefore currently project based.','','','','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','03/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Measure4','B4_1_1','','When the National Biodiversity Strategy was adopted, an extensive communication campaign was held, organised by the Natural History Museum in cooperation with the regions, and a brochure with the summary was published as well as other brochures on biodiversity in Belgium: The communication activities on biodiversity are mostly carried out in the framework of actions in the field (opening of a new reserve, tree planting actions, events in a specific area) in a specific region. During the International Year of Biodiversity many more communication activities and products are planned.Relevant actions of the EU BAP were integrated in the Flemish Environment & Nature Policy Plan (2002-2007, 2008-2010) for which a specific communication campaign was organised. Specific objectives, such as Natura 2000, species protection, nature conservation on military domains, forest conservation have their own specific communication campaigns. Every 2 years, the research institute INBO, publishes the Flemish Nature Report NARA, highlighting status and trends of biodiversity based on the SEBI indicators, and also includes a communication activity around the report. Throughout the year several communication actions for biodiversity are held by the agency, local authorities or NGOs - where relevant reference is made to the European framework and objective.This year, the Walloon Region has launched a communication campaign called “52 weeks of biodiversity” to celebrate the International Year of Biodiversity. Each week, a specific theme is presented. It aims to show the variety of biodiversity present in the Walloon region (from genetic to ecosystem diversity). For several years, the Walloon Region has created, developed and coordinated a network of education centres for environment. This network is now composed of eleven Regional Environment Education Centers (CRIE). The Brussels Capital Region will develop a whole new and holistic vision for his communication during the first half of this year. ','','For the moment, the Brussels Capital Regional centres for ecology initiation receive funding to develop training programs for schools. Communication actions for schools also exist. The Brussels Centre for Nature Education organises every two years a new touring workshop/exhibition for schools in Brussels. From 2008 to 2010 the workshop focuses on “Birds”. From 2010 to 2012, the workshop will focus on “Biodiversity in cities”. The biodiversity theme is integrated in the general education and public awareness programmes of the Brussels Institute for Environmental Management (brochures, leaflets, presence at fairs and other public events, actions oriented towards families, schools, citizens, etc.). The Institute has a well-developed website with extensive information in French and Dutch. Financial and logistic support is given to NGO\'s for awareness and educational programmes. Among others, there is a programme called “Nature in the garden” which helps city dwellers develop a nature-based approach to their gardening practices. Public consultation and information campaigns for biodiversity action are organised (e.g. on the extension of protected areas in forests).','Reference or title:Weblink:BHG: www.ibgebim.be ; www.natureaujardin.be http://www.biodiv.be/implementation/docs/leafletswww.natuurenbos.bewww.biodiversite52.behttp://www.crie.be/ ','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Belgium','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Belgian Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment made a declaration in support of the Countdown 2010 initiative on 22 May 2007 in Brussels to strengthen the contribution of Belgium and Environment in relation to the 2010 biodiversity target, particularly through the implementation of the Belgian National Biodiversity Strategy. This included among other objectives: to ensure the follow-up to the Message from Paris on mainstreaming biodiversity into development cooperation; to establish a structural collaboration with international organizations covering areas such as species conservation the marine environment as well as forest certification and sustainable management; provide support to the Countdown 2010 Secretariat to implement governments\' commitments from the biodiversity related conventions; limit the introduction of invasive alien species and mitigate the impact on biodiversity when promoting production and use of biofuels. ','','The Flemish Ministry of Environment & Nature signed the Countdown Charter in 2008, including measures to enhance biodiversity conservation and restoration, enhance partnerships and cooperation with other administrations, private land owners and users, private sector, and enhance communication and awareness programmes.  In March 2009, the Brussels Capital Region committed to participate in the Countdown 2010 initiative. The commitment of the Region is structured in 3 pillars: to plan, to manage and to raise awareness, to educate, to raise participation.Belgium contributed funds for the Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Lounge, Belgrade in 2007. This was a joint contribution with the Netherlands and Norway.The Brussels Capital Region took part in the LAB (Local Action for Biodiversity) programme of the ICLEI which involved a programme support equal to 55 000 $ (round 44 000 €) for 3 years','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedhttp://www.natuurenbos.be/Home/Activiteiten/Campagnes/Countdown_2010.aspx','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data. 1 of 1 (100%) coastal habitats (sandbanks permanently covered by seawater) in the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 7 of 7 (100%) of all freshwater, health and scrub and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 9 of the 10 (90%) and 4 of the 5 (80%) of dune and coastal habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. Large proportions of grassland (4 of the 6 or 67%) and forest habitats (6 of the 10 or 60%) are also in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of all rocky habitats in this biogeographical region is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 80% or more of all heath and scrub habitats (2 of the 2), forests (10 of the 10), grasslands (8 of the 9), rocky habitats (4 of the 5) and bogs, mires and fens (5 of the 6) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. A large proportion of freshwater habitats, (4 of the 6 or 67%) are also reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of one of the two dune habitats is unknown, with the other one being in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 2 (50%) dunes habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition, the condition of the remaining dune habitats is unfavourable-inadequate.Belgium provides the following comment: The Walloon Minister for Agriculture, Rural Affairs, Environment and Tourism drew the attention of the Commission through a letter dated February 25, 2008 to the antagonism between some indicators used to assess the conservation status. Given the criteria, it seems to be difficult to develop in a positive way the state of conservation of several habitats in the Walloon Region. A new calibration of indicators will be needed before the second assessment of the conservation status linked to the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive reporting.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Belgium has designated 280 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 3269 km², totalling 10.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. There is 1 site with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 181 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 234 with a total area of 3282 km², totalling 8.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 3, with a marine area of 306 km². ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ',' 02/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Some tools are in place to support connectivity, others are in development - depending on the region.       FL: An important part of the Flemish Natural Structure, the Integral Interweaving and Supporting Network, is meant to ensure connectivity across the landscape to support and enhance connectivity between the sites of the Flemish Ecological Network (VEN) that comprises the core nature areas with a higher protection status. Only 2 %of the proposed 150,000 ha Interweaving area is designated till now, and ca 89.000 ha of the core sites under VEN out of the targeted 125.000 ha. To strengthen coherence and connectivity in the development of the Flemish Ecological Network Structure (see above) the areas with important natural value or with potential value have been mapped and about 433 connective zones or nature corridors identified – to be consulted on the website www.natuurindicatoren.be under the indicator ‘corridor areas’. Provincial authorities are developing designation and management plans for the corridor areas – 17 pilot projects are now in process. Other instruments to strengthen nature values that enhance ecological connectivity include: establishment of nature reserves, public and private forests, protection of river banks, management of road verges, hedges and other small landscape elements being protected by law, establishment of parks and green areas in and around urban areas,… all being important as stepping stones and corridors. The construction of “eco-tunnels” and “eco-passages” in fragmented habitats and now also as mitigating and compensatory action in various construction projects support connectivity. A project for the construction of two eco-passages in the most important natural site of Brussels, the Sonian Forest, is under study. In the Flemish Region 15% of 193 known barriers for amphibian passages are neutralized till now, while two large ecoduct-projects and 17 ecotunnel-projects have been implemented. De-fragmentation of rivers (cfr BENELUX agreement): Inventories of the obstacles for fish migration have been compiled and measures for restoring migration passages are included in the river basis management plans. In the Flemish Region 116 of 796 (15 %) of known barriers are neutralized till now.       Walloon region : The general concept of the ecological network has been transposed in the ‘Main Ecological Structure’ (Structure écologique principale or SEP) and has been mapped. This structure contains two types of areas: 1) Core areas: the Nature department of the Walloon Region continues to strictly protect natural sites through the following status: government nature reserve (Réserves Naturelles domaniales (RND)), chartered nature reserve (Réserves Naturelles agréees (RNA)), forest reserve (Réserves Forestières (RF)), wetlands of biological interest (Zones Humides d’Interêt Biologique (ZHIB)), and underground cavity of scientific interest (Cavités Souterraines d’Interêt Scientifique (CSIS )), in order to protect important sites for species and habitats. The target of this process is to protect all sites of great biological value on the Walloon territory. 2) ecological development areas: areas where human activities are less intensive in order to obtain a balance between nature conservation and economic incomes. Furthermore the “Code wallon de l´Aménagement du territoire, de l´Urbanisme et du Patrimoine” (CWATUP) provides the possibility to include the \"ecological connection perimeters \" as an additional layer to the “plan de secteur” (art. 40, 2 of CWATUP): \"ecological connection perimeter aims to ensure transition area’s to animal and plant species between their biotopes. Actions and works subjects to work permits may be either prohibited or subject to special protection conditions.      BHG: The Green Network Programme of the Brussels Capital Region intends to gradually build a network of green spaces (parks, woods, forests and gardens) linked together by green corridors (green avenues, road and railway embankments, etc). The programme emphasises the cohesion and continuity of green spaces and semi-natural areas in the urban environment. Its purpose is to integrate the scenic, aesthetic, social, recreational and ecological functions of green spaces and develop their interconnectivity. One of the prime objectives of the Green Network Programme is to increase biodiversity. New green areas are intended to be created (mostly in the very centre of the town), green walls, green roofs and other greenery of buildings and public spaces are promoted. The Blue Network Programme aims to have an integrated, durable and ecologically justified management of open waterways in Brussels. The \"blue network\" is made up of small rivers, ponds and marshes. It is dedicated to the enhancement of natural values and biodiversity while maintaining the access of the public to the areas concerned.','','A revision of the ecological network for Brussels is currently in preparation. Several studies on fauna in Brussels consider the connectivity aspects and concrete actions are proposed.','Fl:  http://www.natuurindicatoren.be/; W: http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/sites/sgib_txt.html; BHG:  http://www.prd.irisnet.be/fr/priorites/priorite09.htm#4','20/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 263 regularly occurring bird species in Belgium, 5 are globally Near-threatened and 1 (Aquatic Warbler) is Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Belgium, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 2 of 2 (100%) fish are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 4 (50%) mammals is classified as unfavourable-inadequate while another 2 of the 4 (50%) was reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 5 of the 11 (45%) amphibians and reptiles are in a favourable state, 3 of the 11 (27%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 11 (27%) amphibians and reptiles was reported as unknown. As for fish, 1 of the 10 (10%) are in a favourable state, 3 of the (30%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 6 of the 10 (60%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 1 of the 10 (10%) of invertebrates are in a favourable state, 2 of the 10 (20%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 3 of the 10 (30%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 10 (40%) invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 9 of the 26 (35%) are in a favourable condition, 5 of the 26 (19%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and 7 of the 26 (27%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 26 (15%) mammals was reported as unknown and 1 of the 26 (4%) were not reported. 2 of the 8 (25%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 6 of the 8 (75%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition.In the Continental biogeographical region, 3 of the 9 (33%) amphibians and reptiles are in a favourable condition, 2 of the 9 (22%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 3 of the 9 (33%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 11% of amphibians and reptiles was reported as unknown. As for fish, 4 of the 6 (67%) are in a favourable state, 1 of the 6 (17%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 6 (17%) of the fish was reported as unknown. 2 of the 16 (13%) invertebrates are in a favourable state, 6 of the 16 (38%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 16 (50%) of invertebrates is unknown. In terms of mammals, 7 of the 25 (28%) are in a favourable condition, 5 of the 25 (20%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, and another 5 of the 25 (20%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 25 (32%) mammals was reported as unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title, http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','20/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','In Flanders (FL), the existing action plans are listed on the above website per species group. There are no specific indicators deriving from common bird monitoring schemes. In Wallonia (W), action plans are completed for the following species. Mammals : Cricetus cricetus and Rhinolophus hipposideros. Amphibians & reptiles : Lacerta agilis and Bombina variegata. Action plans are being prepared for mammals:  Lutra lutra ; amphibians : Epidalea calamita; reptiles: Vipera berus and invertebrates : Euphydryas aurinia, Lycanea helle and Lycanea dispar.Population trends of common bird species are computerized in Wallonia since 1990. The method consists of \"listening points\" of five minutes to repeat from year to year in similar conditions of time and weather. It is easy to apply and it combines a relatively high informal input with methodical observation. Indices are given for 79 species with some basic statistics, test results for regional or habitats variations and a short comment on the quality of observation. The final discussion also tackles the question of data quality and representativeness.In Brussels Capital Region (BHG), since 1992, 49 bird common species are monitored in the Brussels Capital Region by the help of listening points. The index of global health of common avifauna shows a moderate increase (+1,2  %/an  ±  0,23 ; p<0,01)Due to the spatial scale of the Brussels Capital Region the development of specific Red Data lists is of poor scientific and policy use. We refer to Red Data list from neighbouring regions and MS.In the Federal Government (FoD), there is no red data for marine species.','','','Weblink: Fl: http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Soortenbeleid/Rode_lijsten.aspxhttp://biodiversite.wallonie.be/especes/ecologie/plantes/listerouge/liste.aspx http://www.cible.be/eew/index.php?mact=tbe,mcf57a,default,1&mcf57awhat=fiches&mcf57aalias=Statut-de-conservation-des-especes&mcf57areturnid=16&page=16','2/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective10','A10_1','','Although Belgium does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, there are regional research programmes included in the National Biodiversity Strategy, as most research programmes are developed and carried out at the regional level.  At the national level, the Science for a Sustainable Development (SSD) programme is composed of 8 priority research areas: Energy, Transport and mobility, Agrifood, Health and environment, Climate (including Antarctica), Biodiversity (including Antarctica and the North Sea), Atmosphere and terrestrial and marine ecosystems (including Antarctica and the North Sea) and Transversal Research. Biodiversity research primarily focuses on studying the in situ biodiversity of marine ecosystems (the North Sea, the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean) and biodiversity of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (the temperate regions and Antarctica).  Research priorities fall into three categories: analysis of the biodiversity status, assessment of current and future pressures and impacts, and support to measures for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.','','Flanders (Fl) - INBO:The Flemish region spends circa 16 million Euros per year on environmental research. The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) is the Flemish research and knowledge centre for nature and its sustainable management and use. INBO has determined a number of high priorities. Together with the set of strategic targets, they offer a clear view of what INBO intends to realize in the period between 2009 and 2015.Focus is primarily given to research for:- scientific as well as operational support for the execution of European directives related to biodiversity- knowledge support for stakeholders concerning the conservation and sustainable use of nature and forest- reporting on nature and evaluating effectiveness of policy plans- research aimed at acquiring general knowledge with special attention to new threats such as climate change and invasive species- fast and thorough conceptual and organizational development of environmental monitoring- fast and thorough planning and organizational development of data and information systems.The strategic aims of INBO are :- to organize its processes in the area of organization and science management in an efficient manner.- to coordinate the Flemish scientific research into nature and forest. INBO develops the strategy for Flanders for nature and forest research and consolidates its position in a European and international context.- to communicates the importance of scientific research for the conservation of nature and forest. INBO also communicates the results of its research activities.- to organize and develop Flemish and international reporting about nature and policy evaluation.- to be a data management hub. It looks into appropriate data gathering methods and means by which to disseminate data and make them readily available.- to supply high-quality scientific advice based on scientific facts, data and insights, both proactively and on demand.- to perform research into the diversity of populations, species and ecosystems in order to be able to evaluate area-specific policy measures and optimize them in order to improve the viability of species and ecosystems in the long term.- to perform research into genetic diversity of populations and species in order to evaluate and possibly modify the effectiveness of the area-specific policy measures employed.- to carry out research into the natural environment’s biodiversity potential and the effects of natural or man-made changes upon it (soil, water and air quality, climate).- to perform research to develop expertise on the ecological management of species and ecosystems, ultimately aimed at conserving, restoring or developing biodiversity.- to investigate the sustainable use and management of nature and forest. With this knowledge, we support stakeholders who wish to make use of nature and forest and/or participate in its management.- to conduct socio-economic research into the economic valuation of biodiversity and public awareness of it.The research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) produces the Flanders nature reports (NARA), which describe and evaluate the state of the nature, underlying causes of change and efforts towards improvement, and are aimed at policy makers and citizens. Besides the 2-yearly report a regular follow-up of biodiversity indicators is published yearly and accessible on line.Wallonia (W):Biodiversity research is incorporated in other framework programs such as the framework program on forestry research, or into research project linked to different environmental sectors such as forests, hunting & fishing, Biodiversity & nature, Water.Brussels Capital Region (BHG):A research programme on biodiversity in the Brussels Capital Region has been set up since 1992 in the framework of a bio-indicator information network for management of the environment.This is mainly a monitoring programme with collecting of data on the presence of major flora and fauna species groups, such as avifauna, herpetofauna, mammals, higher plants, non vascular cryptogams, and some invertebrates groups (butterflies, herpetofauna). Inventory\'s of the different groups are made every few year except for birds (annually).  These data are guiding the biodiversity management programs on species. Special research programmes on biodiversity management are also established in major semi-natural areas, especially in the Sonian Forest.','Reference or title:Weblink:Fl: ERA-net biodivERsA :  http://www.biodiversity.be/biodiversa/ http://www.inbo.be  Science for a Sustainable Development programme  (SSD) http://www.belspo.be/belspo/ssd/science/pr_biodiversity_en.stm','26/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Follow ups to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) in Belgium are undertaken at the regional level. For example, in Flanders a number of government agencies (INBO, AMS, MIRA, VLIZ) are planning to produce an ecosystem services assessment.  The plans will include stakeholder engagement, valuation of ecosystem services, facilitation of open access to research on biodiversity, and support for standardisation for collection of biodiversity data and reporting.  Research into ecosystem services (ESS) is being developed and undertaken at both the national and regional level. At the national level, the Belgian science policy is going to support the establishment of a “virtual” research institute on ecosystem services research in Belgium, covering the necessary expertise to contribute to large international research initiatives. In addition to this networking activity, two new research projects dealing with ESS have recently been selected for funding in the framework of the SSD programme. In Flanders, several government departments and agencies dealing with biodiversity and open space are currently investigating options to include ESS concepts in their approaches. The Flemish Minister for Environment included ESS in her policy declaration—a document that provides strategic direction for policy in the next five years.','','The Belgian science policy is going to support the establishment of a “virtual” research institute on Ecosystem services research in Belgium, covering the necessary expertise to contribute to large international research initiatives. The ecosystems in Belgian might differ from those in other regions, both in terms of ecological aspects as from a socio-economical viewpoint and therefore need of a sound methodological approach to structure and focus further assessments. In addition to this networking activity, 2 recently new research projects dealing with ESS have recently been selected for funding in the framework of the SSD programme. Flanders: Ecosystem services (ESS) are attracting increasing attention from academics, government departments and agencies and recently also from the political level: - More academics started to be interested in ESS, and the Federal Research Council launched a call for research projects focussing on ESS (May 2009, 3 projects approved in Dec 2009). - Several government departments and agencies dealing with biodiversity and open space are currently investigating the options to include ESS concepts in their approaches.  The Environment and Nature Policy Plan (2008-2010) has included \'sustaining ecosystem services\' in its long-term objective.  The Agency for Nature and Forests initiated a study on the ecosystem services in Flanders: mapping, ecological and economic description, detailed compilation of data for 6 pilot areas. The division on Environment Economics at the Department of Environment compiled information on monetary valuation of specific ecosystems and initiated a development of a valuation tool. The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) of the Flemish Government has recently established a research group on ESS (Sep 2009).- The Flemish Minister for Environment has included ESS in her policy declaration (document which provides strategic direction for the next 5 years, 2009-2014).','Reference or title: Weblink: Fl: ESS knowledge centres in Flanders region: (not exhaustive)Valuation expertise in Flanders region and overviews of completed and ongoing valuation studies:http://www.vito.be/VITO/EN/HomepageAdmin/Home/WetenschappelijkOnderzoek/RuimtelijkeMilieuaspecten/http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/waardering-van-baten-en-schadenhttp://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/kosten-batenanalyses',' 10/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Belgium has a national biodiversity platform; available online. The platform is an integrated network of members posted in federal and regional research institutions including biodiversity scientists, IT specialists and a manager. The mission of the Belgium biodiversity platform is to foster biodiversity research that contributes to sustainable development by facilitating access to biodiversity data, science and research information; encouraging interdisciplinary cooperation amongst scientists; stimulating interaction between scientists, policy makers and stakeholders in biodiversity research; Advising on the designation of biodiversity research priorities; and Promoting Belgian biodiversity research at international fora.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ;Belgium National Biodiversity Platform: http://www.biodiversity.be/ ','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Belgium became a voting member of GBIF in Feb 2001. The Belgium Biodiversity Information Facility (BeBIF) is Belgium’s GBIF ‘Participant Node’ As such, one of their main tasks is to promote publication of Belgian datasets holding biodiversity data through the GBIF network. This is mainly achieved through contacts with various scientific institutions around the country, the Platform\'s dedicated digitisation projects call and by supporting international thematic initiatives. BeBIF’s website includes a national data portal, where data providers can contribute to the global effort. The European Network of Biodiversity Information is the European contribution to the GBIF.  The European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Belgian Biodiversity Information Facility (BeBIF) is involved in three of ENBI’s Work Packages at ‘member’ level: WP2, the ENBI forum, WP9, Interoperability and common access, and WP 13, non-European data globally available. The Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences is a ‘member’ level participant of WP3, dissemination. The Royal Museum for Central Africa, Department of African Zoology is a ‘contributor’ to WP11, multilingual access, and a ‘member’ of WP 13, non-European data globally available. The National Botanic Garden of Belgium is a ‘member’ of WP13, non-European data globally available. ','','All organisations have been listed as ‘research group’, although some members of BeBIF also come from Universities ','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.phpBeBif: http://www.biodiversity.be/','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','','','According to information supplied by the Member State for the Walloon region (applicable up to December 2009), the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (rules are based on an \'Annual Ratio\' between the area maintained in permanent pasture for the year and the total area reported the same year as calculated each year). Retention of landscape and ecological network elements (ie prohibition of destruction of rows of trees and native hedgerows without planning permission and prohibition significantly changing the land topography without planning permission, creation and protection of ponds).Establishment / retention of landscape features: extensive field sides; extensive cereal crops; high ecological value grassland.Maintaining soil organic matter levels.Prohibition of burning straw, stubble and other crop residues. Maintaining soil structure: correcting impacts on irrigated soils; maintaining ground cover between crops. Retention of threatened local animals of local breeds.Minimum maintenance of land (ie all plots of land, particularly those who are no longer used for production must be maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions). It is therefore necessary to prevent the encroachment of unwanted vegetation, scrub encroachment and invasion by wood, but it is also appropriate to maintain landscape features.Methods are described in the Art. 2. of the Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th, 2008.In the Flemish region, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (new legislation for protecting grasslands and fens was implemented in 2009).Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other measures include specific anti-erosion measures.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th 2008Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=10680&rev=10058-19http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/Noticeexplicative2009_FR.pdfA','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Belgium total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 448.31 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 1190.47 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 (improving the environment and the countryside) was 159.23 million EUR, and 318.47 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 35.51 and 26.75 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Belgium was 132.59 million EUR (265.17 with co-financing) and amounted to 29.58 per cent of the EAFRD (22.27 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 4.31 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.96 per cent of EAFRD) and 8.61 million EUR of public expenditure (0.72 per cent of public expenditure). There are no payments in Belgium for Axis 2 measures 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.  According to reporting by the Member State, though forest-environment payments are not included in the Flemish EAFRD 2007-2013, major efforts are made for first afforestation of agricultural land (221), in the same order of magnitude as payments for Natura 2000 payments (213).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.402950.8059Agri-environment payments (214)42.3163494.96631Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources in the Flanders Region, but no information is provided on whether such plans exist for the Wallonian Region.Although the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources for food and agriculture is covered by Belgium’s first national biodiversity strategy (2006-2016) under Objective 4c.5 “Promote sustainable use of genetic resources for food, and agriculture”, to date, Belgium has not set up coordinated actions at national or regional level for a safe conservation strategy of the genetic diversity that is essential for food and agriculture, neither in situ, nor ex situ. Nevertheless, many initiatives are taking place from a range of different actors (regional and provincial governments, universities and research centres, private sector, NGO’s and individuals).Projects in the Flanders region include:  An Agency for Nature & Forests (ANB) project concerning autochthonous trees and shrubs.Actions to support the conservation of local breeds of livestock and orchards.Subsidies under the Flemish RDP to support the conservation of genetic diversity (which can be requested for 3 breeds of cattle and 9 of sheep and a list of fruit tree species).In the Wallonia projects include:RDP support for the conservation of endangered local breeds of horses, cattle and sheep.A Nature and Forest Division project that looks for and identifies new seed-forming populations of commercial tree species.The collection of genetic resources of fruit trees at the Fruit Tree Genetic Resources Laboratory – Gembloux, which is creating a regional strategy and national replication and backup of authentic native and threatened materials.A program to build a coordinated multi-local network of conservation orchards, through a network of complementary partners including many public institutions, NGOs and farmers, etc. A key objective is the continued monitoring and conservation of the last orchards with old fruit varieties.','',' The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. * This refers to Flanders only.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?id=970 ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Belgium in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','3/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Their application is limited depending on the size of the area affected, and differs depending on relevant regulations implemented at regional level. In this regard, for all aspects of afforestation and deforestation operations EIA is applied in Flanders and Wallonia, SEA in Flanders and biodiversity surveys in the Walloon region only. An overview is provided below:Walloon Region: limit of 20 ha only for EIA and Biodiv surveys for afforestation and deforestation, no limits for other planning instrumentsFlemish Region: limit of 3 ha for EIA and SEA for deforestation and 10 ha for EIA and SEA for afforestation, and NO for biodiv surveyBrussels Region: No limits for application.In the Brussels Capital Region no specific policy on afforestation or deforestation has been developed as it has not yet considered being relevant for the policy agenda. A planning permission is nevertheless required in the case of clearing for construction or infrastructure projects. Plans or projects likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site are subject to an appropriate assessment in the sense of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.In the Walloon region, the new Forestry Code entered into force at the end of 2008. Article 38 refers to timber. It prohibits any cut of more than five hectares in plots with basal area of more than fifty per cent of conifer, and any cut of more than three hectares in plots with basal area of more than fifty percent deciduous trees in woods and forests. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.* Walloon Region** Flemish Region','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Flanders: http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Bos/Wetgeving_en_vergunning/Ontbossen_en_compensatie.aspx   Walloon Region: http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=11597, http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=1423www.pefcbelgium.be/files/Plan%20de%20Progrès%202007-2011.pdf ','03/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Belgium had a total certified forest area of 294,314 hectares out of a total forest area of 667,000 hectares. 13,262 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system under which 281,052 hectares of forest in Belgium was certified. In total, 44.13 per cent of the forest area in Belgium was certified.  According to reporting by the Member State, most of the area certified by FSC can be found in the Flemish region, where it amounted to 12,602 ha in 2009, under a group certification scheme managed by the Agency for Nature and Forests. In Brussels Capital region, the area of FSC certified forests was 1,654 ha, which results in slightly higher figures for FSC certified forests than presented above. In the Walloon region, forests were mostly certified by PEFC, covering 285,031 ha of forest and corresponding to 51.8 per cent of the region’s forest cover. In March 2010, a community forest lost its PEFC certification because of unsustainable hunting management.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.aspwww.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Thema/Bos/Bosbeleid/Certificering.aspx www.pefcbelgium.be http://www.leefmilieubrussel.be/Templates/Particuliers/Niveau2.aspx?id=1836&langtype=2067 ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) HNV farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Belgium amounted to 0.35 million ha, representing a share of 19.5 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to reporting by the Member State, extensive agricultural land use in the past has shaped a variety of the Flemish region’s characteristic, rare or European important habitats for plants and animals. Intensification and specialisation of agricultural practices have lead to habitat loss in agricultural landscapes and to the abandoning of agricultural land. In 2006, Flemish farmland (675 757 ha of registered parcels) contained 3 200 ha (0.47 %) of biologically very valuable parcels, 12 000 ha (1.8 %) comprising a mix of biologically very valuable and valuable parcels and 34 300 ha (5.1 %) of biologically valuable parcels. This farmland with high nature value is highly fragmented and spread out all over Flanders, with locally high densities in the coastal polders and in the IJzer valley. The area of biologically very valuable parcels mainly consists of small landscape elements such as hedges, ponds and tree rows (30 %), grasslands (30 %) and forests (26 %). Together these elements shape a varied, species rich, historically evolved cultural farmland landscape.Based on a different methodology (Corine geodataset), in 2006 the European Environment Agency identified about 1 % of Belgian agricultural land as high in nature value. Belgium possesses the most nature poor farmland of all EU-15 countries. The fact that only 0.47 % of the Flemish farmland area is biologically very valuable, is consistent with this study.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, Biodiversity Indicators 2008  Weblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf http://www.biodiversityindicators.be   ','03/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to information supplied by the Member State for the Walloon region (applicable up to December 2009), the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (rules are based on an \'Annual Ratio\' between the area maintained in permanent pasture for the year and the total area reported the same year as calculated each year). Retention of landscape and ecological network elements (ie prohibition of destruction of rows of trees and native hedgerows without planning permission and prohibition significantly changing the land topography without planning permission, creation and protection of ponds).Establishment / retention of landscape features: extensive field sides; extensive cereal crops; high ecological value grassland.Maintaining soil organic matter levels.Prohibition of burning straw, stubble and other crop residues. Maintaining soil structure: correcting impacts on irrigated soils; maintaining ground cover between crops. Retention of threatened local animals of local breeds.Minimum maintenance of land (ie all plots of land, particularly those who are no longer used for production must be maintained in good agricultural and environmental conditions). It is therefore necessary to prevent the encroachment of unwanted vegetation, scrub encroachment and invasion by wood, but it is also appropriate to maintain landscape features.Methods are described in the Art. 2. of the Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th, 2008.In the Flemish region, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture (new legislation for protecting grasslands and fens was implemented in 2009).Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other measures include specific anti-erosion measures.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Walloon Government Decree  of April 24th 2008Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=10680&rev=10058-19http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/Noticeexplicative2009_FR.pdfA','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training and information within the Flemish EAFRD does not cover biodiversity yet as a specific subject, but many projects and awareness actions related to agri-environment schemes are being carried out. In the Walloon region  the following initiatives have been undertaken:Guidance is provided on the implementation of targeted measures and management plans within the framework of agri-environment measures 8, 9 and 10Information and management for forest landowners concerned by Natura 2000 is providedGuidance is specifically addressed to the implementation of RDP Axis 2 via inter alia the Walloon RDP web site (see link below)Explanatory brochure of the Walloon RDP and related factsheets: Measure 213: Natura 2000 grants for farmers;  Measure 214: agri-environment grants;  Measure 224: Natura 2000 grants for forestry land owners (see link below) Brochure Les nouvelles de l’agriculture: dossier biodiversité, edition winter 2009 (see link below)','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Weblink: http://vlm.be http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/LN49_FR.pdfhttp://www.pwdr.be/  (RDP Wallonia)http://www.pwdr.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=65 (factsheets)http://agriculture.wallonie.be/apps/spip_wolwin/IMG/pdf/LN49_FR.pdf (dossier)','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (regional level).HNV forestry (regional level).Tree species composition (regional level).The following additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators have been drawn up.Flemish region: HNV Forestry/Tree species composition: under the Forest survey of Flanders additionally inventories of plant species, dead wood and forest structure. Farmland birds included in Common Birds Monitoring since 2007.Brussels capital region: Additionally to the inventory and monitoring programmes for Natura 2000 sites, inventory of flora (tree species composition + non tree species) and dead wood are systematically conducted since 2008 in the Brussels part of the Sonien Forest (1657 ha). Data on tree species composition have also been collected for a long time (largely before 2008).Wallonia region: A permanent forest inventory is in place, including non-productive areas, most of which are of particular importance for biodiversity.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','3/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 68 million € has been added to the Belgian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Belgium attributed € 12 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 17 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. In Flanders, soil biodiversity in forest soils is being monitored on a local level. Indicators of biodiversity in agricultural soils are also used but have not yet been implemented on a large scale. In the Walloon region, studies have been carried out which analyse the impact of pressures on soil biodiversity in peatlands. In 2006, 33 peatland sites in Southern Sambre-et - Meuse have been studied with the aim of assessing the impact of nitrogen deposition and getting information on the role of nitrogen rain in the degradation of these ecosystems (eg, toxicity, susceptibility to pathogens, frost and drought). The study revealed the absence of nitrophilous diatoms, which suggests that the surplus of nitrogen is directly mobilised by Sphagnum species (mosses) and therefore has not influenced diatoms population dynamics. Furthermore, another study demonstrated a significant loss of diversity at the population level of diatoms and camoebians over the past 200 years. This development follows drainage operations carried out for the introduction of Picea abies and coincides with the beginning of air pollution. The virtually irreversible depletion of these populations may have a significant negative impact on the overall peatlands.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/index.php?mact=tbe,mcf57a,default,1&mcf57awhat=fiches&mcf57aalias=Influence-des-pluies-azotees-sur-les-milieux-tourbeux&mcf57areturnid=16&page=16','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all 13 occurences of freshwater habitats in Belgium (Atlantic and Continental) have an unfavourable conservation status. ','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1313000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U10  U27       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U12   U24       More detailed information for the Walloon region can be found in the region’s environmental outlook website.','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/index.php?page=environmental-outlook-2008  ','01/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Belgium oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005. Despite decreasing from 2.69 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.36 mg O3/l in 2005, concentration values in between remained more or less steady or increased. Figures were only slightly below European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a clear increase from 1.06 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.26 mg N/l in 2005. Values are clearly higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 3.89 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.94 mg N/l in 2005, with a lower value of 3.39 mg N/l in 2003. Figures were above weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005. Also concentrations of nitrate increased from 2002 to 2005, from 27.8 to mg 32.5 NO3 /l.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 27.8 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 32.5 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 35.4 mg NO3/l in 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed no clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005; values were 0.306 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.304 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly above the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.More detailed information for the Walloon region can be found in the region’s environmental outlook website.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, partly unpublishedWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe http://etat.environnement.wallonie.be/index.php?page=environmental-outlook-2008  ',' 01/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Belgium had a total number of 27 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 35.5 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ',' 10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in April 2009, Belgium developed all four biological assessment methods for lakes, but methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete) regarding biological assessment methods for rivers. For transitional waters three out of four biological assessment methods were available, with one probably under development. Two out of three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were developed. According to reporting by the Member State, the following applies as of May 2010:Transitional watersPhytoplankton: Method available for fresh tidal, no method developed for meso- and polyhalineBenthic invertebrate: Method under development for fresh tidalMacro algae and angiosperms: Method availableRivers Phytoplankton: No method developed for Flanders because certain types of river do not occur in the Flemish region. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 161 in Belgium.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Belgium had a total number of 1275 IPPC installations and issued 1369 permits. 144 permits were still outstanding. 62 was the number of permits that was considered but not updated given the permits already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','3/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Belgium’s emissions of ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds were already lower than the relevant ceilings. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides were still well above the targets set. According to the Member State, 2010 emission ceiling targets are likely to be attained for ammonium, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds with existing measures. However, it is expected that emission ceilings targets for nitrogen oxides will not be met. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','10/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Belgium the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 29 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 6,250 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 21 and 19 per cent respectively, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 4 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 99 per cent in 2010 and 94 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 37 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','03/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Belgium’s gross nitrogen balance was 184 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 28 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ',' 10/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between 1990 and 2005, Belgium’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. In 2005 the indicator was at 67.6 per cent, a 32.4 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 13 species were assessed. According to reporting by the Member State, PECBMS data cover Wallonia only. No data were provided for 2006 and no trends are yet available for Flanders.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.*According to reporting by the Member State, data cover the Walloon region only.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','20/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1515000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U12  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U11   U28       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage201802090%0%10%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10802080%0%20%0%U12  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2010000100%0%0%0%U10   U210       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10   U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131111085%8%8%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U13  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6510083%17%0%0%U10   U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','01/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Belgium found that 1 of 1 marine habitat assessed had a ‘favourable’ status (100%). The Federal Government in Belgium, however, indicated that marine habitats should not be assessed as ‘Favourable’ given the long-term effects of beam trawling affecting the sandbanks. There were five coastal habitats assessed under Article 17 in the Atlantic biogeographic region of Belgium—one of these had a ‘Favourable’ status (20%) and the remaining four had a ‘Bad’ status (80%).There were six marine species assessed in Belgium in the Second Article 17 report. The two fish species assessed both had an ‘Inadequate’ status (100%) and of the four mammal species assessed, two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows belowBiogeographic regionHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1AtlanticCoastal habitats120%00%480%00%00%5Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticFish00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals00%250%250%00%00%4Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL00%467%233%00%00%6The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusThe Federal Government in Belgium also provided this information:-	the narrative summary refers to the EU-Habitats Directive 17 reporting – one should mention the current implementation of the EMS directive concerning the GES and the initial assessment of 2012 (although at this moment the criteria for the various GES-descriptors are not yet agreed; -	Status of marine species: there are 9 species on annex I in BNZ	Tursiops truncatus: XX/ no longer present in BNZ – locally extinct	Phocaena phocaena: U: BNZ is important for this species but no “concentration zones” can be identified	Phoca vitulina: U; BNZ is not important for this species	Halichoerus grypus: U: idem 	Petromyzon marinus: U: idem	Lampetra fluviatilis: U idem	Accipenser sturio: U idem	Alosa falax; U: Impossible to make an assessment	Alosa alosa: XX: probably extinct in North Sea	Corygenus oxyrhynchus: XX: extinct	Salmo salar: NA: only freshwater areas apply 	Caretta caretta: NA: migrant -dwaalgasten	Chelonie mydas: NA: idem','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=TitleChecklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','08/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_1_4','','The Federal government has responsibility for all coastal areas. A report called “Monitoring Programmes for the Belgian Coastal Waters” (undated) outlines the main activities implemented. Belgium reported that, in 2009, it had 4 surveillance stations and 5 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Belgium has 1 coastal water body. Approximately 50% of the coastal water body is included in surveillance monitoring. It has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. No information was available concerning assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae. The \"Watershed management plans for the Belgian coastal waters, including the programme of measure; as part of the implementation of the WFD was approved in December 2009.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfStroomgebiedbeheersplan voor de Belgische kustwateren in het kader van de implementatie van de Europese Kader-richtlijn Water (2000/60/EG. Federale Overheidsdienst Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu, Dienst Marien Milieu. 129 p.','03/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/03/10'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_1_5','','A national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is currently being developed.','','Further information was published \"National Belgian report on the implementation of Recommendation 2002/413/EC Integrated Coastal Zone Management\" in 2006.','','Fod: 05/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_2','','There are a total of 40 coastal bathing waters in Belgium. The majority of these reach the mandatory guidelines for water quality, for instance 95% reached this standard in 2006; 97.5% in 2007 and 100% in 2008. Many fewer sites have achieved the stricter guide values. Although this peaked to 50% in 2007, it fell back to 15% in 2007. Levels of winter nitrogen concentrations did not change over the period 1985-2005, but seven areas of Belgium’s North Sea coast saw a decrease in orthophosphate concentrations indicating a reduction in this particular pollutant. (In addition to this information the OSPAR Quality Status Report will be available in September 2010). ','','-','','05/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html   (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf  (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386 ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_4','','Belgium’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €15,123,296 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and introducing more environmentally friendly fishing measures. In particular there are efforts on research and testing fishing methods that are less energy intensive and reduce by-catch. This contributes to the protection of threatened species and habitat types. Axis 2 (€10,000,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (18,976,704) ensures the development and maintenance of sustainable fish stocks and Axis 4 (€5,800,000) ensures that socio-economic impact assessments of capacity reduction are undertaken.It has been recognised that there is a need to improve coordination between the Fisheries administration and the Marine Environment administration and to this end an agreement is being prepared to streamline nature conservation policy and measures within fisheries policy issues.  ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','03/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'09/12/2009',NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Belgium had 107 vessels and 27% were involved in a serious infringement (29 vessels). A total of 19 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €6,070 and maximum fine of €22,000.','','2007 data is not currently available. This measure of progress has not been dated by Belgium as it is not yet complete with 2007 data.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Belgium has an Eel Management Plan which is an implementation of the Eel Regulation (EG/1100/2007). It has been developed by integrating regional actions and was approved by the European Commission on 5th of January 2010. As part of this a number of eel migratory barriers have been identified (500) which will be addressed through the execution of the plan. Restocking of glass eel is also taking place. A trans-boundary project with the Netherlands is leading to the restoration of the Grensmaas river habitats. There are no specific management plans for trout, salmon or sturgeon. ','','','http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-BE/Publicaties/2010/Soortbeschermingsplan_voor_Paling.aspx','20/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Belgium’s fishing capacity in terms of number of vessels and tonnage has decreased between 1999 and 2008. The number of vessels decreased from 128 to 100 (22% reduction) over this period and tonnage from 22,838 to 19,007 (17% reduction). However fishing power (kW) has reduced more slowly by 4% from 63,453 in 1999 to 60,620 in 2008. One of the greatest decreases between 2004 and 2006 was achieved by scrapping six large vessels and three small vessels in 2006. A slight tonnage reduction took place during 2007 without public aid, while the overall power increased very slightly. Additional scrapping is foreseen for the 2007-2013 EFF programming period but the amount of capacity affected is not quantified. ','','2008 data: 100 vessels; 19,007 tons; 60,620kW','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf',' 05/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_6_1','','In terms of positive measures to reduce by-catch, legal measures have been taken to prevent/reduce porpoise by-catches from shore based nets. Programmes are also in place to encourage the replacement of bottom trawling by more environmentally friendly techniques. However, there are still problems with the stranding of harbour porpoises and indications that a number of these are due to fishing activities. Most of the Belgium part of the North Sea has been significantly affected by beam trawling which has altered sand bank habitats, gravel banks and reef-like structures, thereby reducing the marine biodiversity of the sea floor.Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Belgium had 107 active vessels. There were 10 type D breaches in this year, with 6 penalties imposed and an average €8,525 fine.  2007 data will be completed by the Contractor from Official sources when they become available. ','','2007 data on Type D infringements is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdfNB. New report should be available in November 2009 with 2007 data. Please check before completing',' 05/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Since September 1992, the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) has conducted ship-based counts of seabirds and sea mammals using a standardised protocol (following ESAS methodology). Although there were regular surveys the spatial and temporal setup of the monitoring programme was adapted several times to match the availability of ships and the need for local knowledge on seabird distribution (e.g. offshore wind farms). The data was used to fine-tune the delineation of marine Natura2000 sites for the protection of birds (3 coastal SPAs were established), to develop a biological valuation of the Belgian part of the North Sea and to evaluate potential effects of human activities.  There is no specific monitoring plan for Sharks in Belgium’s marine waters. ','','','http://www.vliz.be/projects/bwzee',' 03/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','',' 05/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Belgium has 8 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000. To date Belgium has not contacted the Commission concerning fisheries measures in any of their marine Natural 2000 sites outside of territorial waters. There have been some fishery measures mentioned in policy plans for Marine Protected Areas but no concrete action has yet been agreed upon or implemented. However four Natura 2000 sites within territorial waters (3 SPAs and 1 SAC) have plans to halt fishing techniques that have a negative impact on the sea bottom and the protection of marine species, but no agreement yet with the sector on the implementation of these measures.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 4Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.',' 05/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Belgium has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Data for calculating ecosystem indicators are collected through surveys. The National Programme Proposal for 2009-2010 indicates that during the North Sea Beam Trawl Survey data for the ecosystem indicators 1,2 and 3 from Appendix XIII will be collected from 2009 onwards. Following the DCR Regulation, the Demersal Youth Fish (and Brown Shrimp) Survey is also an ecosystem survey. Belgium will incorporate the ecosystem approach for this survey from 2009 onwards. In the course of 2009, a detailed sampling strategy will be set up in order to collect the data for calculating the ecosystem indicators. In addition, through the sampling by metier of biological variables, the ecosystem indicators 4 through 8 from Appendix XIII will be collected. From 2009 onwards, Belgium will incorporate the collecting of this data and a detailed sampling strategy will be set up. Through collecting of data for economic variables, the ecosystem indicator 9 will be calculated. In addition, VMS data collected by the Sea Fisheries Department will be used from 2009 onwards. These data are already available, but the procedure for data aggregation is not established yet. Based on the current VMS data collection, the VMS data are registered every two hrs during the trip of the vessel. During 2009, a detailed calculation of the ecosystem indicators will be developed.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','National Data Gathering Programme under EC Regulation 199/2008. Belgium 2009-2010 Programme Proposal https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1841&folderId=95004&name=DLFE-15703.pdf Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','03/03/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The Mean Trophic Index for Belgium EEZ waters was 3.27 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.30 since 1999 and an overall increase of 0.09 in the past 20 years (1984-2004).','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down. Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially over-aggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','03/03/3010','','','09/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective4','A4_3','','In Belgium, Spatial planning falls under the competence of the regions for the land surface of the respective region (Flemish region - Fl - , Brussels Capital region - BHG, Walloon Region  - W - ) and of the Federal FOD for the marine area. Due to this regional competence the legal frameworks and approaches are also different and this is the reason why a differentiated answer is given to the questions above when the regulations are different.Law specifies that ecological networks have to be considered in spatial planning on in FL region, whereas spatial planning procedure in Fl and BHG include an interministerial coordination. Fl:An integral part of the Flemish spatial planning is the demarcation of the Flemish Natural Structure, consisting of the Flemish Ecological Network and the Integral Interweaving and Supporting Network.  Definitions and planning are laid down in the Decree for Nature Conservation (1998) as well as in the Spatial Planning Strategy.The Flemish Ecological Network (VEN) consists of the most important areas for the conservation of nature and biodiversity (core areas). The network is not yet completed, (89,000 out of the target of 125,000 ha) have been designated and integrated in the spatial plans. Next to some general prohibitions described in a specific legal Executive Act, irreparable and irreversible damage to the network is prevented by law. Integral Interweaving and Supporting Network consists of Interweaving Areas and Connecting Areas. This network is meant to ensure connectivity between and buffering of the protected areas in Flanders. Only 2% of the proposed 150,000 ha Interweaving Area (3.059 ha) is designated on the spatial plans until now. As yet, there is no designation of Connecting Area. Although several preparatory studies have been executed, and the spatial maps of provincial authorities identified connecting zones on their territory.Monitoring the effectiveness of the networks by assessing fauna dispersion is not undertaken for the networks as a whole but is assessed locally (for instance to assess the effectiveness of fauna passages within its boundaries.The protection status of the networks has an important place in Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (SEA).WThe “Code wallon de l´Aménagement du territoire, de l´Urbanisme et du Patrimoine” (CWATUP) provides the possibility to include the \"ecological connection perimeters\" as an additional layer to the “plan de secteur” (art. 40, 2 of CWATUP): \"ecological connection perimeter aims to ensure transition area’s to animal and plant species between their biotopes. Actions and works subjects to work permits may be either prohibited or subject to special protection conditions.  The Authority in charge of granting land planning and environment permission can refuse a request or make the granting of the permit with special conditions for protection. It should at least explain its decision in regards to the future use of the perimeter. Unfortunately there have not been many cases in which Article 40, 2 of the CWATUP was applied. Only a few ecological connection perimeters were listed in plans sector: Wavre-Jogoigne-Perwez ; Liège and Nivelles. In addition, Article 49, 2 of the CWATUP requires that \"sites needed for the ecological network\" must appear in Municipal Development Plans (PCA).BHG: Spatial planning in the Brussels Capital Region is organised by the Brussels code on spatial planning. This code specifies that environmental needs must be taken into account for the elaboration of the Regional Development Plan (art.17). This non restrictive plan establish the Green & Blue Network and is translated into a restrictive Regional Spatial Plan wich include special requirements for the protection of mapped high valued nature areas. All the actual valued areas for an ecological network for Brussels are not included yet in the Regional Spatial Plan.FOD:Spatial planning for the marine zone resulted in the establishment of MPAs. ','','','Fl: http://www.natuurenbos.be/Home/Thema/Natuur/VEN_en_IVON/Inleiding.aspxBHG http://www.bruxelles.irisnet.be/cmsmedia/fr/coordination_officieuse_du_nouveau_cobat.pdf?uri=ff8081812209fad701220d4b0699011e ; http://www.prd.irisnet.be/fr/info.htm ; http://www.pras.irisnet.be/PRAS/','20/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective4','A4_4_1','','Fl: The Flemish Policy Plan for Sustainable Tourism 2009-2014, based on the Code of Ethics of UNWTO, includes aspects for ecological sustainability, awards quality label \"Green key\" based on evaluation of approved set of criteria, emphasising conservation of enatural and cultural resources by reduction of negative impact on natural and cultural values.The new Forestry Code enters into force in 2008. It establishes rules for public circulation in forest areas. The gathering of motorized vehicles is prohibited in the forest with a much more strict system of exemptions than the previous one. For example, these activities are prohibited on holidays, Sundays and Wednesday afternoons. Maximum 300 people can participate. On the other hand, the gathering of motor vehicles will be possible for disabled people to give them an additional opportunity to experience nature.http://wallex.wallonie.be/index.php?doc=11597W:Walloon government Decree of March 19, 2009 regulating traffic and on rivers.The Walloon Government adopted in 1994 a decree regulating the movement of boats and divers on rivers. This Decree was a response to the need to take steps to protect inland waters and wildlife and flora associated with them.This necessity arises from the major expansion of recreational activities related to rivers, which, when confined and practiced by a large number of people, inevitably lead to a deterioration of aquatic habitats, flora, both aquatic and riparian and a disturbance of the species, which may particularly affect their reproduction.http://environnement.wallonie.be/legis/eau/eacir006.htmIn June 2008, the Walloon nature and environment federation (Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie or IEW) was officially recognised by the Foundation for Environmental Education to issue the eco-label ‘Blue Flag’ to Walloon bathing areas and marinas. ‘Blue Flag’ is an international label that aims to promote the sustainable development of coastal and inland waters by rewarding the environmental efforts of the managers of bathing areas and marinas. It is awarded on a voluntary and annual basis, starting from four major groups of criteria: environmental education and information, environmental management, management of water quality, and security and services. In 2009 the Blue Flag was for the first time awarded to a beach in the Walloon Region, which was also the first region in Blue Flag history to receive the Blue Flag without going through the pilot phase. In the Flemish Region already four beaches and eight marinas have been awarded the label.Just like Blue Flag, the Green Key program is managed on an international level by the Foundation for Environmental Education. The Green Key is a label for tourist accommodations respecting the environment. In 2009 the label was expanded to hotels, holiday resorts and hotel rooms, besides campsites. In 2009 the ‘Green Key’ label was launched in the Walloon and Brussels Region by IEW.','','','Fl: http://www.toerismevlaanderen.be/showpage.asp?iPageID=686http://www.iewonline.be/spip.php?rubrique175http://www.iewonline.be/spip.php?article3048&var_recherche=clef%20verte','20/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the hypothesis detailed hereunder, Belgian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 25.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','There is no general legislation in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) in Belgium. Different aspects of IAS are legislated for at both the Federal and Regional level. At the Federal level, Article 3 of the Arrêté royal portant des mesures relatives à l’importation et au transit de certaines espèces d’oiseaux sauvages non indigènes of 26 October 2001 regulates for the import, export and transit of non-indigenous wild bird species. Under this legislation birds bred in captivity are an exception. The Royal Decree addressing nature conservation and animal welfare (16/07/2009) provides for a list of mammal species that can be kept in captivity for non-commercial purposes. This instrument is also used to regulate the possession of non-native species. Furthermore, Royal Decrees defining quarantine, confinement and eradication actions of pest organisms (as according to the EU legislation, 03/05/1994 and 10/08/2005) can be used to address IAS. In the marine environment, the Royal Decree on the protection of species in the marine waters under Belgian jurisdiction 2001 prohibits the deliberate introduction of IAS into the marine environment. Additionally, the Belgian Law of 20.01.1999 on the protection of the marine environment in marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction prohibits the intentional introduction of non-indigenous species in the marine environment without a licence under Article 11. Article 11 also provides for the eradication of non-indigenous nuisance species under measures taken by Royal Decree and following scientific consultation.As for the forcoming instruments, Royal Decree concerning the import, the exportat and the possession of non-native invasive species (draft version 2/07/2009) is currently being considered for approval. When adopted, this instrument would ban the import, export and possession of a number of identified non-native species that are not yet fully established in Belgium. The list of banned species is to be updated on an annual basis. A great deal of activity in Belgium concerned with IAS is at the level of the three regions. It is prohibited to introduce plants or animals into public forests and forest reserves without a permit under the Forest Decree of the Flemish Region. Furthermore, it is prohibited to introduce alien animal species and there are legal measures to control and eradicate such species in this region. The Decree on Nature Conservation controls or prohibits the transportation of animal species (and their carcasses) in the region. Finally, Executive Act for species conservation (Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering met betrekking tot soortenbescherming en soortenbeheer, 15 May 2009, operative since 1 September 2009) prohibits the intentional release in the wild of non-native species, with exceptions only allowed after a preliminary risk analysis (Note: species used in agriculture and forestry fall outside the scope of this regulation). It also provides a basis for specific actions to be taken to regulate possession, trade and management of non-native species with economic / ecological impacts. In the Walloon Region it is prohibited to introduce non-indigenous species (or indigenous species of non-indigenous origin) with the exception of species used in agriculture and forestry. Furthermore, guidelines have been adopted to to limit the use of invasive plants via public tenders (Circulaire relative aux espèces exotiques envahissantes 23/04/2009). The introduction of non-indigenous bird species into the wild is prohibited in the Brussels Capital Region. Also, Nature Conservation Decree, prohibits the sale, the purchase and the intentional release in the wild of non-native invasive species and provides a legal basis for action plans on non-ntaive species in the capital region (Ordonnance relative a la conservation de la nature/Ordonnantie betreffende het natuurbehoud, draft 2008, not yet published). Finally. Article 14 of the Decision of the Brussels Capital Region concerning the conservation of natural habitats an wild fauna and flora (26 October 2000) provides for the Minister to prevent an introduction of alien species when it has negative impacts on the indigenous fauna and flora. In the future, this provision will be integrated in the Ordinance for nature conservation (in development).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link',' 08/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','According to the analysis by EEA, of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 46 are present in Belgium (last updated 30 June 2009). This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2. According to a comparative analysis by the Member State (received March 2010), comparing the EEA list of \'worst invasive aliens\' (as last updated 30 June 2009) with several sources on the occurrence of non-native species in Belgium (Belgian forum on invasive alien species, Harmonia database, VLIZ and INBO) it seems that at  least  65  of the EEA lists’ worst invasive alien species are found to be present in Belgium (without considering species that are naturalised for a very long time, e.g. rabbit, and without considering casual species).','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','08/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_1_2','','There is no national strategy or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) in Belgium but strategic objectives three and five of Belgium’s National Biodiversity Strategy (2006) directly relate to IAS. Strategic objective number three provides for maintaining or rehabilitating Belgium’s biodiversity including specifically to: ‘Avoid the introduction and mitigate the impact of invasive alien species on biodiversity’. Strategic objective five is to improve the integration of biodiversity concerns into all social and economic sectoral policies, a particular objective being to: ‘Consider the potential impact on biodiversity and in particular the invasiveness of species, in making import and export decisions’.IAS is to be addressed under Action 18 of the 2nd Belgian Federal Plan for Sustainable Development in the action plan for ‘integration of biodiversity in the economic sector’. This plan includes raising awareness and understanding of the IAS issue as well as a review and update of legislation at the federal level to prevent the introduction of IAS.Action plans against specific IAS are currently under preparation on regional level. A national level action plan on prevention of exotic plants in horticulture sector is currently being developed in the context of a LIFE+ project (2009 onwards). Furthermore, the development of methodologies and measures to control and eradicate a number of invasive exotic plant and animal species is taking place in the context of an INTERREG project (transboundary cooperation between Netherlands and Flemish Region, 2009 onwards).At he regional level, a preliminary action plan has been developed to manage invasive exotic water plants on some of the water courses in Flanders. In the Walloon region,  the Ministry of the Environment of Wallonia has funded a project to establish a support unit for the management of invasive plant species with a view to provide a reference structure, advice and support to managers. Furthermore, the strategic plan 2008-2013 of the Ministry of Environment of Wallonia includes a specific action on the management and survey of invasive alien species. In the Brussels Capital Region, species action plans are being developed for three parakeet species and feral waterfowl species.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaire, INTERREG projectWeblink: http://www.fsagx.ac.be/ec/gestioninvasives/Pages/Projet.htmhttp://www.fsagx.ac.be/ec/gestioninvasives/Pages/Projet.htm).','03/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Belgium has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.   ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_1_4','','The Harmonia information system:  Harmonia is an interoperable database dedicated to alien species introduced by man on the Belgian territory or in neighbour areas after 1500. It includes 1) exotic species naturalised in Belgium, with a focus on those that actively colonize semi-natural ecosystems and can be detrimental to the environment (black and watch list species) and 2) exotic species that aren\'t yet observed in Belgium but are invasive in neighbour countries where they are considered as highly detrimental to biodiversity (alert list species). New species are regularly appended to this database by Belgian scientists after being assessed through the ISEIAprotocol (see link below). Before being published on the Web, data are reviewed for accreditation by a scientific committee.  A Belgian IAS contact group (under the structure of the national Coordination Committee for International Environment Issues) has been established to help to provide a synthesis of the existing laws, regulations and policies, information and expertise on IAS. There is also a Research Platform on IAS (BFIS) that supports compilation of existing research studies and scientific data on IAS in Belgium. This Belgian Forum on Invasive Species (BFIS) is an informal structure taking place within the framework of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform. BFIS supports the compilation of existing research studies and scientific data on IAS in Belgium. Also, it promotes interdisciplinary cooperation and information exchange among scientists to further develop measures dedicated to the prevention and the mitigation of the impacts of IAS. BFIS is responsible for preparing and updating the reference list of alien species invading terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems in Belgium, with a focus on organisms causing a strong detrimental impact on native biodiversity.Based on the cooperation and information exchange through this platform that acts as a focal point network and as a first coordination on national level, a rapid response mechanism is being developed in Walloon region, incident list are being compiled. In the Brussels Capital Region, IAS are surveyed within the Forest and Habitat (Natura 2000) monitoring schemes. Observations can be considered as follow-up and early warning information.Alert, black and watch lists of invasive species in Belgium: The environmental impact of non-native species is assessed in a standard, objective and transparent way through a simplified protocol developed by BFIS, the Invasive Species Environmental Impact Assessment (ISEIA) protocol. It consists of four sections matching the last steps of the invasion process, i.e. the potential for spreading and colonising natural habitats as well as the adverse impacts on native species and ecosystems. Scores for each section are assessed based on organism’s history of impact in neighbour areas together with their ecological profiles. The INHORTI LIFE+ project (i.e. increase awareness to curb horticultural introductions of invasive plants in Belgium) aims to reduce the introduction of invasive alien plants by raising awareness about the environmental risks among the whole ornamental horticulture supply chain in Belgium, from growers to gardeners. The project aims to promote best practices for preventing the release and spread of invasive alien plants and to promote adherence to a Belgian voluntary code of conduct on IAS to be developed for the horticultural sector. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://ias.biodiversity.be/ias/documents/ISEIA_protocol.pdf http://ias.biodiversity.be/  ',' 28/02/2010','','','12/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Belgium has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. In Belgium, the competence lies at the regional level. The title and reference of the legislation is: Décret du 19 juin 2008 relatif à la coexistence des cultures génétiquement modifiées avec les cultures conventionnelles et les cultures biologiques. Moniteur belge du 08/08/2008. In Flanders, a specific Decree organising co-existence of GMO has been adopted: Decreet van 3 april 2009  houdende de organisatie van co-existentie van genetisch gemodificeerde gewassen met conventionele gewassen en biologische gewassen (Belgisch Staatsblad 04/04/2009). Flanders and Wallonia have no specific procedures for the different regions with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops.According to reporting by the Member State, there is a ban on GMO cultivation at regional level, on national level a permit can only be granted for research studies (e.g. GMO poplars in Flanders) a and within specific confinement. The EU Directive 2001/18/CE was transposed in the Royal Executive Law of 21st February 2005 setting procedures for granting permission on GMO cultivation tests based on criteria for environmental characteristics and for human health.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in October 2009. Belgium’s National Biodiversity Strategy 2006-2016 was adopted in 2006.Belgium had paid her annual contribution to CBD, AEWA, Ramsar and World Heritage Conventions. For the CMS Trust Fund, Belgium had paid her annual contribution for 2008, but, as of 28 Nov 2008, not for 2007. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdf','12/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Belgium spent EUR3.5m in 2006 and EUR1.8m in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid, with both figures amounting to 0.02% of the respective total multilateral annual aid budget.','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','29/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Belgium spent EUR5.3m in 2006 and EUR7.2m in 2007 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.005% and 0.007%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget. However Belgium made the following comments and additions: In Flanders, in 2008 609.085 € were spent for bilateral aid for biodiversity/environment related projects. The major part of this amount was granted to local NGOs in Latin America in the framework of the Flemish Fund for Tropical Forests.  Flanders subsidized also two projects in the Niger basin in Mali, with the aim of providing safe drinking water and sanitation - the project area is situated under the Ramsar Convention, with special attention to the ecological value of the area. In South Africa, Flanders supported a combined agricultural/environmental project (sustainable natural resource management project), with special attention to the control of alien invasive species. FOD:Development cooperation budgets that could be associated with aspects for environmental protection include:Environmental protection	    2005	                  2006	                 2007	                 2008Environmental policy	13,612,234	14,155,729	19,231,069	20,671,465Biosphere protection	354,853                671,367	                118,533	612,158Biodiversity	             1,090,437	1,750,087	1,543,844	224,028Protection landscape      monuments	               411,357	                410,273	545,000	                   4,533Flood prevention	                         0                 	0	             0	118,123Environmental education	161,213                 69,040	                  51,866	8,632Environmental research	136,783	                  117,259	109,646       	356,915	TOTAL:             15,766,877	17,173,755	21,599,958	21,995,854','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 from the OECD markers are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','24/02/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Belgium contributed EUR42.49 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 1.74% of the total replenishment. Belgium contributed EUR46.18 million to the 4th replenishment which is 2.16 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','03/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Federal Government (FOD):There is no Strategic Environmental Assessment for development cooperation yet. The Belgian Development Cooperation is currently financing a project to enhance the integration of environmental sustainability issues in development interventions in Belgium’s partner countries, through the development of an environmental sustainability toolkit (EST). This project started in 2009 and is called KLIMOS. The main issue covered will be climate change, but two other \"Rio markers\" will also receive due attention: biodiversity and desertification. Brussels Capital Region (BHG): An ordinance of 18/03/2004 of the Brussels Capital Region (Ordonnance relative à l\'évaluation des incidences de certains plans et programmes sur l\'environnement) requires to systematically carry out SEA and EIA of relevant plans or projects, whether those projects are within or outside the BCR.','','','BHG: http://vlex.be/vid/evaluation-incidences-plans-programmes-42037563 ','02/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective8','A8_1','','While no funds have been provided to the CBD working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing and there is currently no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, awareness-raising activities on access and benefit-sharing are envisaged for 2010/22. There is currently no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and activities raising awareness of it have not been undertaken yet. While no complete data on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources are available, information on the percentage of wood imported from sustainable sources (CITES permits, FSC and PEFC–certified) is provided. Belgium issued a large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with a low number of applications denied. A rather low number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','There is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines yet. FOD: The Belgian federal government plans to engage in awareness raising activities at the end of 2010 -beginning of 2011','','','','03/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Belgium did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','03/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.','','','','03/03/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The following data represents the quantity of CITES-listed tropical wood imported into Belgium. This wood should in theory come from sustainable sources, since an export permit was issued by the Manangement Authority in the countyr of origin, and this is always based on a non-detrimental finding.Since we have no data on the total volumes of imported wood, we cannot give the proportion of national consumption that is from sustainable sources. 2006Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia): 7859.663 m3Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 66.992 m3Prunus africana: 0 kgSwietenia macrophylla: 0 m32007Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia):  8359.821 m3Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 40.163 m3Prunus africana: 0 kgSwietenia macrophylla: 26.41 m32008Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia): 4906.888 m3Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 22.386 m3Prunus africana: 7919 kgSwietenia macrophylla:  0 m32009 (note this is an underestimate as it is only based on shipments that have taken place and for which Customs have returned the documents to the CITES Management Authority and this has not yet been done for all shipments in 2009).Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia):  1741.24 m3 Gonystylus bancanus (Ramin): 40.005 m3 + 1596.7 kgPrunus africana:  0 kgSwietenia macrophylla:  0 m3We have collected some data on the % of certified wood from other sources:In 2007 5.4% of the available wood in Belgium was of FSC-certified origin. 13% of the total import of wood was FSC-certified. (source: \"FSC-hout in de Belgische markt in 2007\" - FSC Belgium)According to a study of wood-use in 2008 14.9% of the used wood in Belgium is of certified origin (either imported into Belgium, or produced in Belgium. 6% has a FSC-certificat; 9% a PEFC certificat.77% of the certified wood was imported into Belgium(source: \"Gecertificeerd hout op de Belgische markt in 2008\" by Probos).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Information on quantities of CITES-listed timber imported by Belgium comes from the Belgian Annual CITES Report (for 2006 and 2007) available on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/reports_en.htm and for 2008 and 2009 this is based on the permits that were issued, as recorded in the belgian permit database (no weblink available).Information on FSC wood comes from the report \"FSC-hout in de Belgische markt in 2007\" and \"Gecertificeerd hout op de Belgische markt in 2008\" by Probos for the Federal Public Service Public Health, Security of the Food Chain and Environment of Belgium.','18/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 2042, 1147 and 430, respectively. The number of imports applications denied was 6. No export or re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 42 for 2007 and 73 for 2008 showing an increase of 31. National capacity was built through advice/guidance provided to the Management Authority, Scientific Authority, enforcement authorities, traders, public and NGOs and financial assistance to the EU Trade in Wildlife Information eXchange (EU-TWIX) programme. Technical assistance was also provided to the Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities. Financial contribution to third countries for CITES implementation include USD24000 transferred to Argentina for Boa constrictor occidentalis conservation in 2007. Belgium paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. ','','18/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Belgium','Objective9','','','A Belgian national strategy on adaptation to climate change and action plan is at its early stage of development and expected to be finalised in 2012. On regional level, actions are already being carried out. Fl:In the river basin management plans, actions are included to restore where possible the natural flooding zones. For the Schelde river an extensive programme SIGMA and Ontwikkelingsschets Schelde 2010 has been adopted and is being carried out, such as restoration of river banks and nature development to restore the natural flooding areas.W:Following the results of the discussion of the Working Group on Forest and Climate Change which identifies potential policy on adaptation, mitigation and provides recommendations for owners and forest managers, a document \"Climate change and its impacts on Walloon Forests: Recommendations for policy makers, owners and managers\" was prepared at the request of the Walloon Minister responsible for forests. It aims :- to prepare a synthesis on predictable developments - given the current state of knowledge - of climate parameters in our region and their impact on our forests, various goods and services they provide and the forestry sector of other activities that depend on them;- to analyze policies and actions to recommend actions or to prohibit in order prevent the effects of change on forests (adaptation), while taking into account the role of forests and forestry on the carbon cycle (mitigation): among these actions, some are already in place, others are developing; gaps, both in terms of knowledge and action are identified;- to prepare recommendations at the attention of owners and managers, for their management choices.BHG: Based on a study of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech on the evolution of the adequation of forest species at forest stations due to climate change, a strategy and action plan for the adaptation of the Sonian Forest at climate change are in development in the Brussels Capital Region.','','','http://airclimat.wallonie.be/spip/IMG/pdf/DGRNE-07-06452-Plan_Air_Climat-partie_2.pdf http://www.sigmaplan.be/ http://www.ontwikkelingsschets2010.nl/www/scripts/index.php','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Development and implementation of Biomass and National Renewable Action Plans, when existing, are the competence of the regions in Belgium.Fl: For the Flemish region a Green Energy action plan is in place - with emphasis on biomass, however no impact evaluation on biodiversity included.A National Action plan NREAP (on national level, as a sum of regional Action plans) is planned to be finalised by June 2010.W:A regional action plan \"Plan pour la maitrise durable de l\'énergie\" was adopted in 2003 but not in the framework of the directive 2009/28. Concerning Biofuels & bioliquids a first roundtable took place in 2008. A new action plan is planned in 2010.','','','','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_4_1','','A Belgian national strategy on adaptation to climate change and action plan is at its early stage of development and expected to be finalised in 2012. On regional level, actions are already being carried out. Fl:In the river basin management plans, actions are included to restore where possible the natural flooding zones. For the Schelde river an extensive programme SIGMA and Ontwikkelingsschets Schelde 2010 has been adopted and is being carried out, such as restoration of river banks and nature development to restore the natural flooding areas.W:Following the results of the discussion of the Working Group on Forest and Climate Change which identifies potential policy on adaptation, mitigation and provides recommendations for owners and forest managers, a document \"Climate change and its impacts on Walloon Forests: Recommendations for policy makers, owners and managers\" was prepared at the request of the Walloon Minister responsible for forests. It aims :- to prepare a synthesis on predictable developments - given the current state of knowledge - of climate parameters in our region and their impact on our forests, various goods and services they provide and the forestry sector of other activities that depend on them;- to analyze policies and actions to recommend actions or to prohibit in order prevent the effects of change on forests (adaptation), while taking into account the role of forests and forestry on the carbon cycle (mitigation): among these actions, some are already in place, others are developing; gaps, both in terms of knowledge and action are identified;- to prepare recommendations at the attention of owners and managers, for their management choices.BHG: Based on a study of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech on the evolution of the adequation of forest species at forest stations due to climate change, a strategy and action plan for the adaptation of the Sonian Forest at climate change are in development in the Brussels Capital Region.',NULL,NULL,'http://airclimat.wallonie.be/spip/IMG/pdf/DGRNE-07-06452-Plan_Air_Climat-partie_2.pdf http://www.sigmaplan.be/ http://www.ontwikkelingsschets2010.nl/www/scripts/index.php','26/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Belgium','Objective9','A9_4_3','','A study on the impacts of climate change in Belgium was published in 2004 : - Marbaix, P. et van Ypersele, J.-P. (diercted by), 2004. Impacts des changements climatiques en Belgique, Greenpeace, Bruxelles, 44 p. www.greenpeace.beOther studies where published on specific species groups :- Archaux F.(2009). Les oiseaux face au changement climatique. In Forêt wallonne, n 100-mai/juin 2009 - pp 27-31- L’atlas des libellules de Belgique: Les libellules de Belgique :répartition, tendances et habitats, Publication (septembre 2006) du Groupe de Travail Libellules Gomphus & du Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois (CRNFB).- A study on the adaptation of cultivated tree species to climate change was presented at the TEMATEA workshop (24/11/2009) : forêt de Soignes, étude FUSAGx.BHG:A study of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech on the evolution of adequation of forest species at forest stations due to climate change revealed that several species would not be in station anymore in the Sonian Forest at the horizon 2100: a.o. Fagus sylvatica, Quercus robur, Acer pseudoplatanus, Fraxinus excelsior, Prunus avium. It means that Habitats 9120 and 9130 are at great risk due to climate change in the Brussels Capital Region. Recent changes in flora indicate that Brussels flora is adapting at stony and warmer surfaces, warmer soils and warmer ambient temperatures that are typical for urban areas. It seems however too soon to attribute it to climate change.','','','www.climate.be/impacts ',' 03/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','MandE','C1_2','','Bulgaria applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, with five further indicators amended to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009, 14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','MandE','C1_2_1','','Bulgaria applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, with five further indicators amended. Those five are the number of species in the Bulgarian Red List under IUCN categories; change in the vegetation period; number of projects related to biodiversity with international financing and relevant amount of money; number of existing protected area management plans and Action Plans for species; and agricultural: nitrogen balance, where Bulgaria uses the following parameters: total fertilisers; inorganic and organic fertilisers; livestock manure production; atmospheric deposition of nitrogen components.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','','','','','09/12/2009, 14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Within LIFE projects, from 2007 – 2008, Bulgaria spent up to EUR1,341,208 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Bulgaria spent up to EUR666,164 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. As it joined the European Union in 2007, no projects were funded in Bulgaria under LIFE I (1992-1996), LIFE II (1996-2000) and LIFE III (2000-2006).','','As Bulgaria has, as of November 2009, not submitted the 3rd or 4th national report to the CBD, no up-to-date information on national funding programmes was available. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 sites refers to Bulgaria’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Bulgaria’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR80.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR18.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR60.2m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Measure1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure2','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Bulgaria created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. ','','','','','','','10/05/2010 ',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No information was available on whether any biodiversity and planning partnerships have been facilitated by the Member State at local, regional and national levels.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Bulgaria has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Bulgaria between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_1','','No information on the conservation status of habitats was available for Bulgaria.','','','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','12/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Bulgaria has designated 228 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 33,429 km², totalling 29.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 14 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 592 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 114 with a total area of 23,217 km², totalling 20.4% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 14, with a marine area of 539 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 335 regularly occurring bird species in Bulgaria, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 12 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Bulgaria, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!Bulgaria has not submitted information on the conservation status of mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants in the framework of the Habitats Directive. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa (which was not applied here as Bulgaria’s data are missing) is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. The percentage of those is calculated taking the overall assessment for the species group in question in all relevant biogeographical regions. Where the percentage does not add up to 100, the missing % relate to ‘unknown’.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','12/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective10','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Bulgaria.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective10','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Bulgaria has plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. ','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The EPBRS website provides a link to what should be the national biodiversity platform for Bulgaria, however, the link does not work and ‘address not found’ appears. It is unclear whether a biodiversity platform was developed and is now in disuse, or if one has yet to be developed. The Bulgarian Biodiversity Foundation has a site (http://www.biodiversity.bg/ ) but is not clear whether this site is ‘biodiversity platform created to ensure that biodiversity research and outcomes are reflected in policy development and implementation’. ','','Error message displayed when trying to follow link to Bulgaria Biodiversity Platform from EPBRS website: “www.bioplatform-bg.org could not be found. Please check the name and try again.” Also searched for platform using Google, but not results.','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Bulgaria has been an Associate Country Participant of GBIF since Aug 2001. They have sent a letter of intent but have not yet signed the MOU 2007-2011 to become a full Participant.There were no organisations from Bulgaria participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information, which is the overall European contribution to the GBIF; however, the ENBI project took place before Bulgaria joined the European Union.','','ENBI took place 2003-2006, Bulgaria joined EU in 2007','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Bulgaria total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2609.1 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 3241.94 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 637.46 million EUR, and 777.39 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 24.43 and to 24.0 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Bulgaria was 356.98 million EUR (435.34 with co-financing) and amounted to 13.68 per cent of the EAFRD (13.43 with co-financing).There are no payments in Bulgaria for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)00Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Bulgaria in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 3.16 per cent of the total forest area in Bulgaria was certified (114,462 hectares out of a total forest area of 3.625 million hectares). All of the certified forest in Bulgaria was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).  ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Bulgaria amounted to 2.51 million ha, representing a share of 37.3 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 33 million € has been added to the Bulgarian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Bulgaria attributed no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_3','','Bulgaria does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2006 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007.','','','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Bulgaria oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, going from 4.25 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.64 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data showed a decrease from 0.71 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.33 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were slightly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 24.9 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 23 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2002. Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.69 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.85 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.90 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were slightly below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.205 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.115 mg P/l in 2005. The latter corresponded closely to the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Bulgaria had a total number of 4 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 50 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has been decreasing.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Bulgaria had two out of four biological assessment methods for rivers under development (or incomplete information), but no information was available on macrophytes and phytobenthos, and fish fauna assessment. More or less no method was available regarding biological assessment methods for lakes. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters are under development or information was incomplete.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009,, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounts to 261 in Bulgaria.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Bulgaria had a total number of 327 IPPC installations and issued 208 permits. 119 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Bulgaria’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, non-methane volatile organic compounds and sulphur oxide emissions were well below the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. First figures on projected emissions by 2010 suggest that Bulgaria is likely to meet its preliminary NECD emission ceiling levels. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Given that information on emissions projections from 2008 NECD reporting was not available, data on projections have been retrieved from EEA NEC Directive status report 2007. Emission ceilings for Bulgaria are temporary and are without prejudice to the review of the NEC Directive according to Article 10.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of 2007 emissions, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Bulgaria the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 94 per cent respectively, considering an area of 48,330 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will still be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 91 per cent in 2010 and 80 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 18 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','A2_4_3','','',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Data is only available for Bulgaria’s farmland bird indicators between 2004 and 2006. During this time, the indicator has shown a decrease. In 2006 the indicator was at 89.2 per cent, a 10.8 per cent decrease from the 2004 baseline. 17 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','Bulgaria does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2007 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007','','','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','09/12/2009','na'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_1','','No information was provided for Bulgaria in the first Article 17 report (covering period 2000-2006), as Bulgaria entered the EU in January 2007.','','Bulgaria (along with Romania) joined the EU in January 2007, so no data is available for Habitats directive reporting for the period 2000-2006.','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','09/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Bulgaria reported that, in 2009, it had 7 surveillance stations and 6 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Bulgaria has 12 coastal water bodies. Approximately 50% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Incomplete information was available concerning assessment methods for monitoring phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, macroalgae and angiosperm. Some methods may be under development for some coastal bodies.No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_2','','Bulgaria has 89 coastal bathing areas. A high number reached the mandatory standards in 2007 (89.9%) and in 2008 (93.3%). A large number have also reached the stricter guide values: 76.4% in 2007 and 78.7% in 2008. There is no information available on the ten year trend (1985-2005) of nitrate or phosphate concentrations in coastal waters. ','','There is no information available on bathing water quality in 2006 as Bulgaria had not yet joined the EU. Similarly there is not data for nitrogen or phosphate concentrations as Bulgaria is one of the countries that have a reported time series of less than 5 years. ','','','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_4','','Bulgaria’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €10,667,961 and includes measures such as reducing the impact of fishing on habitats and elaborating recovery and management plans. Axis 2 (€48,005,825) supports sustainable development within aquaculture and reduction of environmental impacts from the processing sector. Axis 3 (€26,669,903) supports the preservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of natural habitats as well as renewing ecologically degraded systems, and Axis 4 (€16,001,942) promotes environmentally friendly activities within fisheries development. ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'09/12/2009','na'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_5_1','','There is no information on CFP infringements for 2006 as Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_5_2','','No information was provided by Bulgaria on restoration programmes for diadromous species.  ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_5_3','','There are no data for Bulgaria’s fishing capacity before 2007. Since 2007 fishing capacity has remained fairly constant although it increased slightly in terms of vessels numbers: from 2,537 to 2,547; tonnage: 8,333 to 8,381 and power: 63,061 to 63,894kW. The operational programme (2007-2013) for Bulgaria suggests that fishing capacity was much higher in the 90s before a series of factors led to the closure of the main ocean fishing company. Bulgarian fleet is now composed mainly of small vessels; only 105 out of 2,536 have a length of more than 12 m. Fishing is concentrated in the territorial waters of the Black Sea and is considered to be lower than allowable catches. This would explain a slight increase in fishing capacity.','','2008 data: 2547 vessels; 8381 tons; 63894 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_6_1','','There is no information on CFP infringements for 2006 as Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. 2007 data is not currently available. No information was provided by Bulgaria on enforcement measures related to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_6_2','','No information was provided by Bulgaria on shark or seabird monitoring plans. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','No information was provided by Bulgaria concerning fisheries management measures required or modified within Natura 2000 sites','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Bulgaria has 14 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). No information was provided by Bulgaria concerning fisheries management measures required or modified within Natura 2000 sites. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. In this case, it gives the same results:  Marine sites within territorial waters: 14Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','A3_7_1','','According to the Bulgarian National Programme for Collection and Management of Fisheries Data, Bulgaria is not prepared for an evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem due to the lack of multiannual data concerning the problem and have not included this module in the National programme for 2009-2010. Bulgaria would like to have the opportunity to develop such research during the next triennial programme.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845; Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','','na','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The Mean Trophic Index for Bulgarian EEZ waters was 3.03 in 2004. This represents a slight increase (+0.01) since 1999, but an overall slight decrease (-0.01) since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','','','','09/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Bulgarian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity considerably increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 159.1 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','10/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Bulgaria has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation addressing the issue. Article 2.4 of the Biological Diversity Law has, as one of its specific objectives, the regulation of the introduction of non native species (and the re-introduction of native species) into the wild. Article 67 states that the introduction, import, breeding and raising of non-native species is only permitted if doing so does not have a detrimental impact on the environment or native species (or populations thereof). Permission is subject to expert scientific assessment and the National Council of Biological Diversity. Any introduction of alien species into the inland, coastal or marine waters of Bulgaria has to be conducted in accordance with Article 9.2 (Fishery and Aquaculture Law 2001, amended in 2005) of the Biological Diversity Law. With regards to the phytosanitary requirements for the import, export, transit, production and transfer of plants and plant products, the Plant Protection Law (State Gazette of 28th March 2003) lays down controls to work with regulations under the EC Directives 77/93, 92/90 and 92/105. While Bulgarian legislation addresses import and export, introduction, control and eradication of IAS, it does not address the issues of possession and trade. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 34 are present in Bulgaria. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10, EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_1_2','','A National invasive alien species (IAS) Strategy and Action Plan for managing IAS affecting Bulgarian biodiversity and limiting the impact they have on natural ecosystems are under development. IAS are identified as a major threat to national biodiversity under the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, currently implemented through the National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan 2006-2010. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Bulgaria has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, in March 2010 the Environment and Water Committee of the Bulgarian Parliament agreed a five-year ban on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report to the CBD had been submitted. The National Biodiversity Conservation Plan was adopted in 1999. Bulgaria had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Bulgaria for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Bulgaria for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','06/01/2010, 14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Romania has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective8','A8_1','','Bulgaria has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with very few applications denied; and a very small number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Bulgaria did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective8','A8_1_4','','','','','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 292, 32 and 5, respectively. The number of imports applications denied was 2. Information is not available on the number of export or re-export applications were denied. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 1 for 2007 and 3 for 2008 representing a net increase of 2. As to capacity-building at the national level, oral and written advice/guidance and technical assistance provided to the Scientific Authority, advice/guidance and training to the enforcement authorities as well as advice/guidance traders and the public. In addition, Each year the CITES MA provides training to the staff of the Regional Environment Inspectorates (REW) about the implementation of the Convention. REW are responsible for regulation of the domestic trade with CITES listed species. Bulgaria has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Bulgaria paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','06/01/2010','14/05/2010'),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/05/2010',NULL),
	('Bulgaria','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','MandE','C1_2','','The development of biodiversity indicators is underway.','','The survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 does not contain information from Cyprus. While Cyprus, as of November 2009, had not submitted the 4th national report to the CBD, the information provided above is based on the 3rd national report to the CBD, submitted in 2005. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD. Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','MandE','C1_2_1','','The development of biodiversity indicators is underway.','','The survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 does not contain information from Cyprus. While Cyprus, as of November 2009, had not submitted the 4th national report to the CBD, the information provided above is based on the 3rd national report to the CBD, submitted in 2005.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD                                                                 Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','MandE','C1_3_1','','Cyprus has monitoring schemes for the following habitats: coastal habitats, freshwater habitats, heath and scrub, sclerophyllous scrub, grasslands, and forests. The following species groups are covered by monitoring schemes: birds, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles.  ','','','','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Cyprus funds activities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use through government funds as well as funds from the EU and the Mediterranean Action Plan. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Cyprus spent up to EUR1,020,511 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on biodiversity funding programmes is taken from the 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Cyprus’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','11/05/2010','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Cyprus does not have any allocations for categories 51, 55 and 56 for the period 2007-2013.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','11/05/2010','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Measure1','B1_1_8','','Since 2006, Cyprus has contributed through its budget for the implementation of certain projects aiming at the protection of biodiversity. The projects had the following subjects and it is considered that they have contributed to the enhancement of knowledge on certain flora and fauna of Cyprus and their protection:Study on small mammals of Cyprus in Natura 2000 areasStudy of land snails in Natura 2000 areas in CyprusConservation Management in Natura 2000 sites of Cyprus (LIFE Nature Project that was co-financed by EU). ','','','','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure2','B2_4','','Cyprus has not created a new strategy or policy or updated an existing one in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. Cyprus is planning to work on a strategic plan or Action Plan in the next year.','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','','',' No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by the Member State to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity have been facilitated by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage biodiversity and planning partnerships at local, regional or national levels.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: ','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','B3_1_6','',' No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by the Member State to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by the Member State to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','11/05/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Measure4','B4_1_2','',' The government of Cyprus has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions have been made by Cyprus between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','11/05/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 3 of the 3 (100%) rocky habitats and forests are in an unfavourable-inadequate and unknown condition respectively. Of the habitat types in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, none are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 2 of the 4 (50%) continental grasslands are in favourable condition.5 of the 7 (71%) and 2 of the 4 (50%) dunes habitat and freshwater habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively. The condition of all rocky habitats is unknown. The condition of 2 of the 4 (50%) freshwater habitats and 4 of the 4 (100%) rocky habitats in the bioregion is yet to be reported.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanRocky habitats00%3100%00%00%00%3Forests00%00%00%1100%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats333%444%00%111%111%9Dunes habitats00%571%00%00%229%7Freshwater habitats00%250%00%250%00%4Sclerophyllous Scrub120%120%00%240%120%5Grasslands250%125%00%125%00%4Rocky habitats00%00%00%4100%00%4Forests436%327%00%436%00%11','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Titleandhttp://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','11/05/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','25 sites (69.4%) have a management plan completed, 7 sites (19.4%) a management plan in preparation and 4 sites (11.1%) are with no management plan completed or in preparation.Management plans have been prepared under the (a) Life/Nature Programme (initiated in 2004) for 4 areas (Vouni Pangias, Ethniko Dasiko Parko Troodous, Ethniko Dasiko Parko Kavo Gkreko and Koilada Diarizou), (b) Transition Facility 2004-2006 (Mammari-Deneia, Alykos Potamos-Ag Sozomenos, Periochi Mitserou, Madari-Papoutsa, Periochi Polis-Gialia, Koilada Limnati, Periochi Lympia-Ag. Anna and Periochi Scoulli)  and (c) Transition Facility 2008 (Fountoukodasi Pitsilias, Koilada potamou Maroulenas, Potamos Peristeronas, Koilada kargoti,Cha-Potami, Episkopi Morou Nerou, Xeros Potamos, Mavrokolympos, Periochi Drymou, Periochi Kritou Marottou, Akrotirio Aspro-Petra Romiou, Periochi Asgatas and Periochi Lefkaron). Additionally the Forestry Department is preparing Management Plans for the areas Dasos Machaira, Dasos Pafou (Periochi Platy, Koilada Kedron-Kampos, Periochi Agiatis and Periochi Stayros tis Psokas-Karkavas), Ethniko Dasiko Parko Rizoelias and Dasos Stavrovouniou. The Environment Department has recently tendered the preparation of Management Plans for the areas Limni Paralimniou, Limni Oroklinis and Faros kato Pafou.','','44 % of the sites are under a management body or other territorial planning instruments (National forest park and forest areas, marine areas and wetlands).  ','Reference or title:Weblink:','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Cyprus has created flyways maps (Game Fund Ministry of Interior) and  maintain and restore corridors (plants corridors and limestone) under the Rural Development Plan 2007 - 2013. These efforts together with the Biodiversity Action Plan, which will be prepared in the near future will ensure that ecological diversity will be maintained and restored.   ','','',':','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 278 regularly occurring bird species in Cyprus, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 5 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Cyprus, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 1 of the 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. In terms of mammals, 1 of the 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) 50% of the mammals was reported as unknown. In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 14 (7%) amphibians and reptiles are in an inadequate condition and 3 of the 24 (21%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 10 of the 14 (71%) amphibians and reptiles was reported as unknown. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) invertebrates is unknown and another 1 of the 2 (50%) was not reported. In terms of mammals, 1 of the 19 (5%) are in an inadequate condition and another 1 of the 19 (5%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 16 of the 19 (84%) mammals was reported as unknown and 1 of the 19 (5%) mammals were not reported. 9 of the 18 (50%) plants are in a favourable state, 2 of the 18 (11%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 2 of the 18 (11%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. Cyprus is working towards a survey plan for all terrestrial ecosystems in order to cover the status of habitats and species. Additionally in some of the Natura sites a survey of the habitats types has been carried out.  ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%150%150%00%00%2Fish  0%00%00%00%00%00Invertebrates 0%00%00%00%00%00Mammals00%00%150%150%00%2Plants  0%00%00%00%00%00MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%17%321%1071%00%14Fish  0%00%00%00%00%00Invertebrates00%00%00%150%150%2Mammals00%15%15%1684%15%19Plants 950%211%211%16%422%18','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','4/5/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Cyprus has completed a total of 20 action plans for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and plants. Monitoring Action Plans were initiated for species under threat via the Life/Nature Project for 5 areas (Vouni Panagias, Koilada diarizou, Alukes Larnakas, Ethniko Dasiko Parko Troodous kai Ethniko Dasiko Parko kavo  Gkreko). Monitoring plans were mainly considering bird census and plants.  Monitoring was conducted for the Pinus nigra habitat as well as Quercus infectoria and Alnus orientalis. BirdLife Cyprus have a common census on (a) Cyprus birds (population, breeds and trends), (b) Autumn Raptor Migratory Birds, (c) Farmland Birds and (d) Water Birds. Results will be published by autumn 2010. Cyprus has a Red List for plants.','','The Game Fund runs a monitoring plan in the SPAs sites for the priority species as well as action plans for different game species and raptors. Additionally they run a survey on an endemic goatsheep species (Ovis gmelini ophion). The Fisheries and Marine Research Department has run a conservation program for sea turtles (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) since 1978.The Water Department runs a monitoring plan on macroinvertebrates and insects in order to indicate the status of the ecological condition of the rivers.','','30/4/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective10','A10_1','',' Cyprus does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research; however, competent authorities including the Environment Department, the Forestry Department and the Game Fund are using national funding to monitor biodiversity and conduct counts of several species.  There are also several projects going on via the EC-funded Life + and Interreg programmes that support research in biodiversity. Several projects are running, such as the establishment of micro-reserves in Natura 2000 sites and monitoring for several priority fauna species, birds and reptiles etc.','','','http://microreserve.blogspot.com/2009/05/cyprus-life-proposal-to-made-pmr.html; http://www.life-natura-sites.cy.net/ ','04/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Cyprus is not planning a follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. Cyprus has used the framework, experiences and findings of the original MA in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation. ','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Cyprus has a Biodiversity Platform aimed at promoting the integration between biodiversity research, policy and practice; promoting interdisciplinary research on biodiversity; and promoting community participation in biodiversity research and conservation. The date on all pages of the website is Friday May 6, 2005 and it does not appear to have been updated since then.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info Cyprus Biodiversity Platform: http://www.cybioplatform.intercol.edu/index.htm','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Cyprus is not a member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) of Cyprus is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment in Cyprus. It incorporates the National Herbarium and the National Genebank.  ARI participates in the ENBI as a member of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI forums. This Work Package provides other ENBI work packages and users with a communicative space, making available the outcomes of this communication as an information resource, open to all parts interested in European activities about Biodiversity.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','','','According to the Member State, Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) standards address:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.As regards other GAEC measures, Cyprus’ Environment Department determined 9 GAEC standards in order to protect designated areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives. These include restoration of hedges and stone walls, protection of the riverbanks and the margins of cultivated land etc. Seminars were offered to land owners and surveys were carried out during 2009,  to assess implementation of GAEC measures.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Cyprus total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 164.56 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 329.13 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 71.7 million EUR, and 143.4 million EUR including co-financing. his equated to 43.57 per cent of total planned expenditure. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Cyprus was 40.63 million EUR (81.26 with co-financing) and amounted to 24.69 per cent of the EAFRD (24.69 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.5 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.3 per cent of EAFRD) and 1 million EUR of public expenditure (0.3 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Cyprus for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)5.08810.175Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','29/4/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Cyprus in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','29/4/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Cyprus had no certified forest out of a total forest area of 174,000 hectares.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Cyprus amounted to 0.34 million ha, representing a share of 53.7% per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) standards address:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.As regards other GAEC measures, Cyprus’ Environment Department determined 9 GAEC standards in order to protect designated areas under the Habitats and Birds Directives. These include restoration of hedges and stone walls, protection of the riverbanks and the margins of cultivated land etc. Seminars were offered to land owners and surveys were carried out during 2009,  to assess implementation of GAEC measures.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','29/4/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State, no training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity in Cyprus. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment held several meetings regarding the implementation of the Common Agriculture Policy and the national Rural Development Plan. The Environment Department in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture plans to proceed with training on the subject.  ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member State, monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.Tree species composition.No monitoring is in place for High Nature Value farming and forestry areas.Nor have programme-specific biodiversity indicators have additionally been drawn up.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','29/4/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 2 million € has been added to Cyprus’s Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Cyprus attributed around € 1 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 55 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, no national monitoring programmes been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity, and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. However, Cyprus completed Corine Land Cover, and an assessment on soil sealing was carried out in 2006. In addition, a project on the soil snails was undertaken which contributed to the scientific knowledge on the issue and enhanced the efforts on their protection.  A Desertification Action Plan and a map on soil erosion were developed. A programme on the  identification of certain soil species was initiated as well.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','4/5/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006 , 50 per cent of the Mediterranean freshwater habitats in Cyprus have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 50 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Cyprus.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4202050%0%50%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4202050%0%50%0%U12  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','No information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate in rivers and phosphorus concentrations was available for Cyprus.According to European Environment Agency data, concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 11.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 12.6 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 18.1 mg NO3/l in 2003. ','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, partly unpublishedWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','Cyprus has no inland bathing waters.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2009, Cyprus only implemented one biological assessment for coastal waters, related to benthic invertebrates. For all other water bodies methods were under development (macrophytes and phytobenthos and benthic invertebrates in rivers or phytoplankton in lakes).According to the Member State, Cyprus is implementing a coastal-waters monitoring programme under Article 8 of the WFD. The ecological status assessment takes into account benthic macro-invertebrates, macroalgae and chlorophyll-a.','More than 30 areas of the Natura 2000 Network in Cyprus are related with a River, Wetlands, Dams etc.In the section \"Additional detail & Narrative Summary\" the entire sentence must be replaced by the following   \" ','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 13 in Cyprus.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, Cyprus had a total number of 84 IPPC installations and issued 81 permits. 0 permits were still outstanding. According to the Member State, permits have taken, amongst others, the protection of biodiversity into consideration.  ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/cy/eu/ippc/envsv0mag/IPPC_Report_2006-2008_Question__2.1_Final_CYPRUS.xls/manage_document ','29/4/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to Cyprus’ national reporting under the NEC Directive, in 2008 the country already meets ceilings set by the European Union for ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. It will be able to achieve targets also for 2010, although a slight increase in nitrogen oxide emissions, non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia is expected. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Cyprus the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 68 per cent respectively, considering an area of 2,461 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will still be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 17 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','A2_4_3','','',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status in Cyprus are the Mediterranean grassland habitats, where 50 per cent are considered favourable (25 per cent have unfavourable status, 25 per cent are of unknown status). 36 per cent of Mediterranean forest habitats in Cyprus have a favourable status and 27 per cent have an unfavourable status (the remaining 36 per cent are unknown). See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','There are no heath and scrub habitats for Cyprus, only Sclerophyllus Scrubs. Furthermore there are no peat land habitats (bogs, mires and fens).  Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Cyprus.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4121025%50%25%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4121025%50%25%0%U11  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11344027%36%36%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11344027%36%36%0%U13  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','09/12/2009','na'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Cyprus found that three of the four marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region had an ‘Inadequate’ status (75%) and the other had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%). A total of nine coastal habitats in the Mediterranean biogeographic region were assessed—three had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%), four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (44%), one had an ‘Unknown’ status (11%), and the remaining one was ‘Not reported’ (11%).There were four marine species assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region—two reptiles and two mammals. Of the four, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (25%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats00%375%00%125%00%4MediterraneanCoastal habitats333.3%444.4%00%111.1%111.1%9Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%150%150%00%00%2Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%150%150%00%2Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%125%250%125%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_1_4','','The Cyprus coastal waters monitoring programme that is implemented under the article 8 of the WFD includes 7 surveillance water bodies and 1 operational water body, of the total of 25 coastal water bodies. It has assessment methods for benthic macroivertebrates, macroalgae and chl-a, that have been adopted by the EC Decision 2008.A programme of measures for coastal areas is being developed by the Water Development Department. ','','','','','','','',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_1_5','',' Cyprus reported that a national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) was being developed. The “Strategic approach for the Management of the Cyprus Coastal Zone” was adopted in 2006. A pilot programme, coastal area management project (CAMP), was implemented in the Southern peri-urban area of Larnaca. ','','Cyprus reported that the Cypriot coast is a fragile ecological system and, is also regarded to be the backbone of the economy. Coastal areas generate the largest source of household income, as well as other major activities and most of the urban development. The coastal zone extends 2km inland from the coastline and covers 23% of the country’s total area. Approximately fifty percent of the population lives and works in the coastal zone. Ninety percent of the tourism industry is also located in this zone. Maintaining a sound balance between effective coastal protection and development is recognised to be essential for avoiding land use conflicts and environmental degradation. Current policies have not generally managed to reconcile these conflicts. Some of the issues faced include: the loss of agricultural land, coastal traffic problems, coastal erosion, beach overcrowding, deficiencies in infrastructure, high building densities in many coastal urban areas and insufficient nature protection.  ','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_2','','Cyprus has 111 coastal bathing areas a very good record of water quality. In 2008 100% of coastal bathing waters achieved the mandatory guidelines and 98.2% the stricter guideline standards. The good record was also seen in 2007 and 2006 where 99% of coastal bathing waters reached both mandatory and guideline standards. In these years, only one coastal bathing area was not compliant with the mandatory values. Cyprus was not included in the EEA study which looked at trends in nitrogen and phosphate concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 and so there is no data to report here. ','','','','4/5/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_4','','Cyprus’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Within the framework of the Cyprus Operational Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013 funds have been allocated for the protection and development of the aquatic ecosystem. Specifically, support from Axis 1 gives incentives to owners of fishing vessels for permanent cessation of their fishing activities in order to achieve the reduction of the fishing fleet capacity and adjust the fishing effort at levels that correspond to the available fish stocks. Axis 2 supports compensation for the use of aquaculture production methods that help to protect and improve the environment and conserve nature, such as organic aquaculture. Axis 3 supports measures to support protection and development of aquatic fauna and flora, such as the construction of several artificial reefs that will enhance biodiversity and improve the aquatic environment.','','Total funding for Axis 5 was 350,000 Euros of EFF funds and 350,000 of MS funds and supports the mapping of Posidonia oceanica meadows in the coastal waters of Cyprus. ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_12_en.htm','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'09/12/2009','na'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Cyprus had 872 vessels and 10% were involved in a serious infringement (88 vessels). A total of 76 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €219 and maximum fine of €530. Of the number of serious infringements recorded for 2006, 8 of these went to court and the rest were settled extra judicially.  ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10','12/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_5_2','','There are no diadromous species in Cyprus so this measure of progress is not applicable. ','','','','3/5/2010','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Cyprus fishing capacity decreased between 2004 and 2006 (23% reduction in fishing power) but has since increased in 2007 and again in 2008. A ‘Scheme for the Scrapping of Fishing Vessels’ running from 2004 to 2006 resulted in the scrapping of two bottom trawlers and five multipurpose/ polyvalent fishing vessels. The capacity of the Cypriot fleet was reduced by 3% in tonnage and 9% in power during 2007 without public aid. The EU press release for the Operational Programme 2007-2013 suggests that it contains measures aimed at further reducing the fishing capacity but this is not yet reflected in the fleet statistics.','','2008 data: Vessel number: 1179; Tonnage: 5,371 tons; Power: 49,529kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','4/5/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Cyprus had 872 active vessels. There were 45 type D breaches in this year, with 41 penalties imposed with an average fine of €213. No information was provided by Cyprus on enforcement of CFP measure related to reducing by-catch and damage to the benthos','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_6_2','','The Cyprus Bird Life runs a Count of Breeding Seabirds and data is published every month. This monitoring began in 2004 and focuses on three species of seagulls and Eleanor’s Falcon. Cyprus does not have any specific shark monitoring programmes.  ','','','http://www.birdlifecyprus.org','4/5/2010','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','4/5/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Cyprus has 5 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). In addition to this the Akamas peninsula has been proposed as a Natura 2000 site (March 2010) which is almost 50% marine.Measures have been proposed for fisheries measures within the management plans of the marine N2000 sites, but these are still to be officially approved.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. In this case it gives the same data:  Marine sites within territorial waters: 5Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','4/5/2010','','','13/01/10',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Cyprus has proposed a national programme for collection of fisheries data for 2009-2010 and 2011-2013 under the DCF. Under module V of the DCF module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Cyprus plans to use Medits data to calculate ecosystems indicators 1-4 and VMS data to calculate indicator 5-7. Indicator 8 on the discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated from data collected during concurrent sampling trips on bottom trawlers and surface longliners. The discarding ratio will be calculated for all commercial species, with discards and landings data collected on the same trips. It is worth mentioning that discard sampling will also involve all non-commercial species; therefore an overall discarding ratio from the whole catch could also be provided. In case any seabird, reptile or marine mammal is caught as bycatch, it will be recorded. Indicator 9 on the relationship between fuel consumption and the value of landings will be collated from total value of landings estimated as the product of quantities of landings and the average prices per species per metier and cost of fuel for each metier according to level 6 of the metier calculation.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision 2008/949/EC of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy and of Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013 defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture. ','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009-2010, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF Commission Decision of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:041:0008:0071:EN:PDF','11/05/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The Mean Trophic Index for Cyprus EEZ waters was 4.06 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.65 since 1999 and an overall increase of 0.63 in the past 20 years (1984-2004).','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective4','A4_3','','In Cyprus, the Town and Planning law will incorporate the measures suggested for Natura 2000 network in the Management Plans of the areas. Besides, the Town and Planning Department will amend the Rural Policy where this new updated policy will include the measures suggested for the designated areas. ','','','','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective4','A4_4_1','','','','','','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, there was no direct spending from Cyprus under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity. Indeed, no spending under biodiversity categories (51, 55 and 56) is foreseen by the Cyprus Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Cyprus has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of introduction, possession and trade of IAS. Under Article 30 of Law Nº 153(I) 2003 on the protection and management of nature and wildlife, the introduction of non native species of fauna and flora is prohibited unless Ministerial permission has been obtained. No other provisions deal specifically with the import and export or control and eradication of IAS although an inventory of most invasive fauna is being prepared to support a future decree to prohibit their import.According to the Member State, Cyprus has prepared a \"red list\" of invasive species the possession and import of which is considered to be a threat to island’s biodiversity. This list is currently undergoing legal inspection in order to assure its compatibility with the EU legislative framework','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','4/5/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 28 are present in Cyprus. This equates to less than 0.10 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','     ','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Cyprus has not developed a national invasive alien species (IAS) strategy or action plan and does not yet have a national biodiversity strategy but is currently preparing the terms of reference for tendering the preparation of the biodiversity strategy. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Cyprus has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to the Member State, no legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming been adopted. However, Cyprus is currently preparing a study on the issue, in order to scientifically examine the issue of co-existence on such as small island with high biodiversity. This study will show if co-existence is possible, under what terms and how this could affect biodiversity.  According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, 7 municipalities are declared GMO free zones at the beginning of 2010.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','4/5/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective6','A6_1_1','','As of 6 November 2009, no 4th National Report has been submitted to the CBD. No National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan has been submitted to the CBD.Cyprus had paid her annual contribution to the CMS and Ramsar Convention. While there are no arrears from previous years, Cyprus, as of 30 Sept 2009, had not paid her annual contribution to the CBD General Trust Fund the same is true as of 31 Dec 2008 for the World Heritage Convention. AEWA entered into force in Cyprus only on 1 September 2008 so no annual contribution was made for 2008 as of August 2008.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Cyprus for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Cyprus for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','11/05/2010','','','06/01/201013/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Cyprus has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective7','A7_2_2','','SEA is being carried out for plans or programmes that fall under the SEA Directive. Until today, the Environmental Authority has evaluated around 10 SEA reports dealing with the mining industry, the Fisheries Plan, the Agricultural Development Plan, as well as a plan concerning the development of an area. EIA is being carried out since 2001 when the relevant legislation came into force. All the projects that fall under the two Appendices of the Directive are being evaluated and an environmental opinion by the environmental authority is being prepared with terms to be included in the planning permit for the specific project. ','','','','4/5/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective8','A8_1','','Cyprus does not have national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing and has not undertaken activities raising awareness of the Guidelines. Cyprus has adopted national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and has raised awareness of it. Information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available. Cyprus has issued very few import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and very few items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','11/05/2010','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Cyprus does not have national legislation on implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists. In addition, Cyprus does not have national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing.','','','','11/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Cyprus did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','11/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Cyprus has national legislation on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In addition, Cyprus has implemented national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. ','','','','11/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The information is not available.','','','','11/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 4 and the combined number of export and re-export applications issued for the same period is 44. Information on the number of import, export or re-export applications denied was not available. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 1 for 2007 and 2008. This is a combined figure for 2007 and 2008 as presented in the biennial report in question. National capacity was built through oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the enforcement authorities and traders. Training was provided to the Management Authority and NGOs. According to the biennial period for 2007 and 2008, Cyprus has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Cyprus paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','11/05/2010','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','','','The future Biodiversity Action Plan that will be prepared by Cyprus will include climate change issues and adaptation measures. Besides, the implementation of CBD on adaptation to climate change is going to be considered as well. ','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Cyprus does not use plants for biofuel and bioliquids. Research on the issue is being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Research. Besides, a Regional Renewable Action Plan was developed but is currently under revision.','','','','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_4_1','','The future Biodiversity Action Plan that will be prepared by Cyprus will include climate change issues and adaptation measures. Besides, the implementation of CBD on adaptation to climate change is going to be considered as well. ',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','05/04/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Cyprus','Objective9','A9_4_3','','In Cyprus, the sea level is expected to rise due to climate change effects, and several habitats like sand dunes are expected to disappear. Several studies were conducted covering both fauna and flora speciesm with for instance studies on coastal zones with pilot implemented at Larnaka District. However even if the status of most of the the fauna species is still unknown, some findings showed that 2 turtles species are endangered in Cyprus. Besides several raptor species has been extinct and some other are under threats.','','','Climate Change, Habitat Loss, Protected Areas and the Climate Adaptation Potential of Species in Mediterranean Ecosystems Worldwidehttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006392Predicting the impacts of climate change on a globally distributed species: the case of the loggerhead turtlehttp://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/213/6/901','05/04/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','MandE','C1_2','','The Czech Republic currently uses 24 of the 26 SEBI indicators, with the two remaining indicators (Marine Trophic Index of European Seas and Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) not being applicable to the country. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009, and on additional information provided by the Czech Republic. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009, augmented by information from the Czech Republic.                                                                                                            Weblink','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','MandE','C1_2_1','','The Czech Republic currently uses 24 of the 26 SEBI indicators, with the two remaining indicators (Marine Trophic Index of European Seas and Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters) not being applicable to the country.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and on additional information provided by the Czech Republic.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; additional information from the Czech RepublicWeblink:','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','MandE','C1_3_1','','There is a common monitoring scheme for all habitats. For species, there is a Czech Birds Directive monitoring scheme, and all species of the annexes of the Habitats Directive are also covered by specific monitoring schemes.','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:www.biomonitoring.cz','8/3/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Measure1','B1_1_1','','According to the information presented by the Commission at the recent CGBN meeting in Brussels, the annual Natura 2000 costs in the Czech Republic were calculated at 84,610,335 EUR; this figure is based on data on financing Natura 2000 provided by the Czech Republic to the Commission in 2009. At this moment it is not possible to provide more detailed or updated information, including any division into expenditure for management and expenditure for restoration. The Ministry of the Environment administers and implements the Operational Programme Environment, which draws financial help from the EU sources. The Programme´s axis 6 – Improving the State of Nature and the Landscape – is particularly relevant for biodiversity conservation. The MoE also administers several important domestic subsidies programmes of relevance for biodiversity financed from the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. The State Environmental Fund also finances from the MoE budget one programme aimed at land purchasing in specially protected areas. Projects focused on nature and landscape protection can also be applied for using the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms, and Swiss Financial Assistance will be available in future.The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for drawing funds under the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy, focused, among other things, on environmental protection and rural development. Within the EU Fisheries Policy, the European Fisheries Fund supports the Operating Programme for Fisheries 2007-2013, also under the Ministry of Agriculture. Measures aimed at the protection of aquatic environments include environmentally friendly pond management, focused primarily on areas of high natural value.','','The information on national programmes is taken from the Czech Republic’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the Czech Republic contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project database, augmented by information from the Czech Republic.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','18/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Measure1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Measure1','B1_1_4','','The Czech Republic’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR605.9m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR67m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR65m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','18/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Measure1','B1_1_7','','This action is covered under Objective 7. Please see the measures of progress under A.7.1 and A.7.1.3 for your country’s international development assistance funds for projects directly benefiting biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Measure1','B1_1_8','','We are not able to provide the precise information on the amount of national funding allocated to biodiversity research activities and programmes for years indicated above. It does not mean, however, that research activities and programmes do not exist; we are not able at this moment to statistically assess the funding directed only to biodiversity research. According to the Czech Statistical Office, we are only able to provide the cumulative sums for research activities within the fields of biology, agriculture and Earthscience, which does not necessarily mean that they are addressing directly issues connected to biodiversity. ','','DONE (PH)','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=611','18/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure2','B2_4','','The Czech Republic has a new policy in development in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The Ministry of the Environment is currently reviewing its strategic document - State Policy on the Environment. This document shall be in place until 2020. A special chapter in this document is dedicated to biodiversity issues and nature and landscape protection issues. ','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','09/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','','','One example was provided by the Czech Republic of a way in which business and biodiversity partnerships were encouraged: Regular meetings of Commissions on genetic resources are held, in which all stakeholders participate. Eight participants regularly attended these meetings. ','','The number (eight) indicates participants to these meetings. It does not indicate partnerships as such. ','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','B3_1_2','','One example was provided by the Czech Republic of a way in which biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships were encouraged.  A National Programme on Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was organised in 2008/2009 and included 1000 participants representing different stakeholders. These included farmers, keepers of genetic resources, universities, the Academy of Science, research institutes, breeders companies etc.','','The numbers provided (980, 11, 9) above indicate the number of participants to the National Programme on Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These do not indicate the number of actual farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships in the Member State.','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','B3_1_5','','TheAct on Town and Country Planning and Building Code (No. 183/2006) includes provisions regarding the environment. Tools are used such as GIS, guidance documents and biological diversity surveys. Planning policies and strategies are not limited to central government. Authorities at the regional level have also elaborated and approved their plans for nature conservation and landscape protection. For example the Central Bohemia Region authority approved the Conception of nature and landscape protection of the Central Bohemia Region for 2006 - 2016. For town and country planning, regional and local authorities have developed and approved plans in their territorial units which integrate nature conservation and landscape protection. However, the Czech Republic does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships at national, regional or local levels.','',' No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnershipsat the local, regional and national levels.','Reference or title: Czech Republic CBD 4th National ReportsWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','18/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','15/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','B3_1_6','','One example was provided by the Czech Republic of a way in which business and biodiversity partnerships were encouraged: Regular meetings of Commissions on genetic resources are held, in which all stakeholders participate. Eight participants regularly attended these meetings. ','','The number (eight) indicates participants to these meetings. It does not indicate partnerships as such. ','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','B3_1_7','','Currently, no common platform has been established in order to bring together experts on biodiversity and experts from the financial sector.','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','15/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No Information was provided concerning the implementation of CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to publically funded projects.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','15/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communication strategy related to the EU Biodiversity Action Plan has been implemented or developed. ','','Communication strategies are however developed and updated annually within the Ministry of the Environment and correspond to actual national or international activities, like e.g. the International Year of Biodiversity.','Reference or title:Weblink:-','18/03/2010','','','15/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of the Czech Republic has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by the Czech Republic between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','18/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','15/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Continental biogeographical region, the condition of all habitats has been assessed. 3 of the 5 (60%) of heath and scrub habitats are in favourable condition. Over half the bog, mire and fen habitats (4 of the 7,  57%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. All alpine coastal, dune, sclerophyllous scrub and forest habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 8 of the 9 (89%), 73% and 71% of freshwater habitats, grasslands and rocky habitats are also in an unfavourable- bad condition respectively.The condition of all Pannonian biogeographical region habitats has been assessed. Half of all continental rocky habitats and bogs, mires and fens are reported to be in favourable condition. All coastal, dunes, heath and scrub and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 4 of the 5 (80%), 8 of the 9 (89%) and 9 of the 10 (90%) of freshwater habitats, forests and grasslands are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regions HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%111%889%00%00%9Heath & Scrub360%120%120%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands19%218%873%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens114%457%229%00%00%7Rocky habitats114%114%571%00%00%7Forests00%00%16100%00%00%16PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%120%480%00%00%5Heath & Scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%1100%00%00%1Grasslands00%110%990%00%00%10Bogs, mires & fens150%00%150%00%00%2Rocky habitats350%233%117%00%00%6Forests111%00%889%00%00%9','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title andhttp://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','15/03/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','The Czech Republic has designated 1087 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 7857 km², totalling 9.96% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 41, with a total area of 7037 km², totalling 8.92% of the country’s area.','','Details on marine sites do not apply for the Czech Republic','Reference or title: Weblink: http://drusop.nature.cz','15/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','0.27% of Natura 2000 sites of the Czech Republic have a management plan completed  and 99.63% a management plan in preparation -','12/03/2010','Only a small number of the so-called \"Set of recommended actions for Natura 2000 sites\" were completed and adopted. But, in case that the Natura 2000 site is identical with the Nationally designated area, the management plan for the area can be used as well. In the Czech Republic every Nationally designated area has its own management plan approved by the nature administration body. We expect that a Set of recommended actions will be developed for each Special Area of Conservation regardless of whether it will match with a Nationally designated area. ','Reference or title:Weblink:-','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_2_3','','A territorial system of ecological stability consists of a mutually integrated complex of natural, and modified but naturally close ecosystems which maintain natural stability. It is made up of ecologically significant landscape segments, efficiently located on the basis of functional and spacial criteria.  It is a system of biocentres, biocorridors and interaction elements.   ','','A territorial system of ecological stability is based on linking protected areas; not necessarily only the Natura 2000 network. The obligations of creating the ecological stability system is required under Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape, as amended.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.ochranaprirody.cz/index.php?cmd=page&id=1757&lang=en','04/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 290 regularly occurring bird species in the Czech Republic, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 6 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of the Czech Republic, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! The conservation status of birds according to the national Red List looks as follows: total 210 species, Red listed 110, Extinct 10, Near threatened 14, Least concern (not threatened) 76. See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Continental biogeographical region, 15 of the 21 (71%) amphibians and reptiles, 16 of the 42 (8%) plants and 12 of the 37 (32%) of mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition while 8 of the 13 (62%) fish, 26 of the 42 (70%) invertebrates and 14 of 42 (33%) plants are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 10 of the 37 (27%) and 8 of the 42 (19%) mammals and plants are in a favourable condition and in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, respectively.Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 3 of the 13 (23%) fish, 6 of the 25 (24%) invertebrates and 10 of the 30 (33%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 16 of the 19 (84%) amphibians and reptiles, 6 of the 13 (46%) fish and 6 of the 17 (35%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 15 of the 25 (60%) invertebrates and 8 of the 17 (47%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable- bad condition. The condition of 7 of the 30 (23%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported ContinentalAmphibians and reptiles 15%1571%523%00%00%21Fish 215%323%862%00%00%13Invertebrates717%819%2670%12%00%42Mammals1027%1232%719%822%00%37Plants 819%1638%1433%410%00%42PannonianAmphibians and reptiles 15%1684%211%00%00%19Fish 323%646%431%00%00%13Invertebrates624%416%1560%00%00%25Mammals1033%930413%723%00%30Plants 16%635%847%212%00%17','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','03/03/2010','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','The Czech Republic has the following completed species action plans: 2 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 1 for invertebrates and 4 for plants. In addition, the following species action plans are in preparation: 2 for mammals, 1 for invertebrates and 1 for plants. An indicator is built on the common bird monitoring scheme and the data have been collected for approximately 30 years. The baseline comes from the monitoring activity in 1982. The indicator is a population trend of the selected common bird species (divided into farmland species and woodland species. The Czech Republic created the Red List of Threatened Species which is regularly updated according to current circumstances. The Red List covers all vertebrate groups, as well as invertebrates and plants.','','The Red lists serve as a theoretical basis for the protection of the gene resources. The threat level of each species is based on the current best known scientific knowledge.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.nationalredlist.org/site.aspx?pageid=108&cty=Czech%20Republic','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective10','A10_1','','The Czech Republic does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, but biodiversity research programmes are incorporated into other funding programmes or contained within sub-programmes in the biological sciences.  For example, the goal of the Research Programme of the Ministry of Environment is to ensure protection of the environment, particularly in the Czech Republic, by means of sustainable use of sources and on the basis of improving the quality of knowledge on interactions of biosphere, ecosystems, and human activities,. Projects relating to biodiversity have been and continue to be funded by the Ministry of Environment as well as other national institutions such as the Ministry of Culture, the Czech Science Foundation, the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Agriculture. ','','-','Reference or title:Weblink: Research and Development and Innovation Information System of the Czech Republic: http://www.isvav.cz/, Research & Development Council: www.vyzkum.cz   ','3/3/2010','','','08/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective10','A10_1_2','','-','','The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment project (MA) has been followed-up by an ecosystems assessment for Europe (EURECA) that will cover the pan-European region and is due to be completed by 2012. The Czech Republic actively participates within the EEA on further development of the EURECA project. However, concrete outcomes of this European project are yet to be developed and finalised. In the meantime at the national level, different components of the environment, including components of biodiversity, are independently assessed. Accounting methods for the assessment of ecosystem services have not yet been developed within either the framework of the EURECA project or at the national level in the Czech Republic.The Czech Republic utilises the framework, experiences and findings of the original Millennium Assessment (2001-2005) utilized in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation.','Reference or title: Weblink: -','17/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective10','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The Czech Republic has a national bioplatform with objectives in line with those of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). Post-project this website continues to work and activities are planned for 2010.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info; http://www.ibot.cas.cz/biop/ ','17/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective10','A10_1_9','','The Czech Republic is not currently a Participant or Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (ASCR) is a public non-University scientific institutions encompassing a complex of research institutes engaged in research. Both the Institute of Botany and the Institute of Entomology, from the ASCR, are members of the ENBI Consortium. They, along with the Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University Prague, are members of Work Package 2: ENBI forums. This Work Package provides other ENBI work packages and users with a communicative space, making available the outcomes of this communication as an information resource, open to all parts interested in European activities about Biodiversity.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','17/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Additional GAEC standards that have been introduced of relevance to biodiversity control certain invasive species (Impatiens glandulifera, Heracleum mantegazzianum) and prohibit stubble burning. In addition, other GAEC measures refer to the application of solid farm fertiliser or solid organic fertilisers, and the use of plant species as under-sow. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://eagri.cz/public/eagri/zivotni-prostredi/ochrana-pudy/organicka-hmota-v-pude/gaec/navrh-podminek-dobreho-zemedelskeho-a.html ','10/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in the Czech Republic total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2815.51 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 3614.07 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1554.16 million EUR, and 1945.74 million EUR including co-financing. Axis 2 equated to 55.2 and 53.84 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in the Czech Republic was 841.01 million EUR (1052.91 with co-financing) and amounted to 29.87 per cent of the EAFRD (29.13 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 47.69 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.69 per cent of EAFRD) and 59.71 million EUR of public expenditure (1.65 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 9.79 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.35 per cent of EAFRD) and 12.26 million EUR of public expenditure (0.34 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 10.59 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.38 per cent of EAFRD) and 13.26 million EUR of public expenditure (0.37 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.5820.727Agri-environment payments (214)111.231139.041Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy has been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. Projects on the in situ conservation of crop varieties (1 launched, 2 just starting and 2 being prepared; with a total estimated budget of 24,000 Euro). The main aims of the projects are to conserve and monitor landraces (ecotypes, populations) in their original habitats and allow their dynamic conservation. Of most importance is the ongoing project on in situ conservation of selected fruit trees (ca 790 fruit trees- landraces of 6  species) maintained in 12 locations in the Czech Republic. Valuable landraces typical for particular regions are included. In situ conservation is proposed especially in locations within protected areas and /or on municipal or state-owned land. Contractual collaboration with nature protection authorities has been established. Another two smaller locations were proposed for in situ conservation of some endangered herb species and two locations are monitored with the aim of preparing in situ projects.15-20 projects are annually implemented on the in situ conservation of livestock breeds and races (totalling some 500,000 – 700,000 Euro).','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1)-(4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. No information on payments for genetic conservation measures was available for Hungary.','-','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','16/013/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed that specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used. Below an overview of the legislative requirements for afforestation and deforestation operations impacting biodiversity is provided.Afforestation: Operations are implemented in accordance with national legislation. Foreseen measures mainly support biodiversity indirectly, and assessment of biological diversity is not the primary focus of most of these regulations. Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape, as amended, states that binding opinion of the relevant nature conservancy authority is required for the approval of forest management plans and forest management guidelines, for afforestation of land exceeding 0.5 ha, for building of forest roads and forest drainage systems. In addition, the nature conservancy authority may order compensatory planting of trees. Act No. 289/1995 Coll., on Forests, as amended, states that seeds or transplants of forest tree species from the same or corresponding natural forest area and from the corresponding altitude must be used for afforestation activities. Act No. 149/2003 Coll., on Trade in the Reproductive Material of Forest Woody Plants sets out the conditions under which the reproductive material of forest woody plants may be introduced for forest regeneration and reforestation, for maintaining and enhancing the biological diversity, including the genetic diversity of trees, and for sustainable cultivation of forests. Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on EIA, as amended explicitly requires EIA assessment for afforestation activities larger than 25 ha. This act comprises the impacts on the environment, on fauna and flora, ecological systems, the soil, the geological environment, water, air, climate and landscape, natural resources, and on the mutual interactions between them.Deforestation:Deforestation operations must also be provided in accordance with several legislative acts. Previously mentioned Act No. 114/1992 Coll. applies also to deforestation activities - binding opinion of the relevant nature conservancy authority is required for the approval of forest management plans and guidelines, for deforestation of land exceeding 0.5 ha, for building of forest roads and for forest drainage systems. It also stipulates permitting procedure and conditions for logging activities concerning non-forest land - e.g. standalone trees, alleys, trees in urban areas, etc. Act No. 289/1995 Coll. states that logging activities must be done in accordance with the forest management plans and guidelines and in a way that reduce the damage to the stand to a minimum. Act No. 100/2001 Coll. on EIA, as amended explicitly requires EIA assessment for deforestation activities larger than 5 ha. This act comprises the impacts on the environment, on fauna and flora, ecological systems, the soil, the geological environment, water, air, climate and landscape, natural resources, and on the mutual interactions between them.     ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.mzp.cz ','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 the Czech Republic had a total certified forest area of 1.94 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.65 million hectares, which corresponds to approximately 73 per cent of the total forest area. 53,282 hectares (approximately two per cent of the total forest area) were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 1.88 million hectares in the Czech Republic were certified (approximately 71 per cent of the total forest area). According to reporting my the Member Stat, no forest area was certified under other forest certification schemes in 2010. ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','15/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in the Czech Republic amounted to 1.04 million ha, representing a share of 21.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_4','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Additional GAEC standards that have been introduced of relevance to biodiversity control certain invasive species (Impatiens glandulifera, Heracleum mantegazzianum) and prohibit stubble burning. In addition, other GAEC measures refer to the application of solid farm fertiliser or solid organic fertilisers, and the use of plant species as under-sow. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://eagri.cz/public/eagri/zivotni-prostredi/ochrana-pudy/organicka-hmota-v-pude/gaec/navrh-podminek-dobreho-zemedelskeho-a.html ','10/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010',NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Advisory services to farmers are carried out especially during various agricultural exhibitions and fairs, (e.g. TECHAGRO in Brno or Země Živitelka in České Budějovice). Usually, issues related to the biodiversity protection and conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture are presented. Various genetic resources that are the subject of conservation efforts are exhibited and relevant information on importance of genetic resources for crop and animal breeding and plant protection is presented. As far as local farmers are concerned, workshops on biodiversity have been organized as part of the Cross Compliance requirements.','15/10/2010','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_8','','National monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	Tree species composition.In addition the Czech Republic is able to evaluate most of the SEBI2010 indicators the majority of which are directly or indirectly related to biodiversity. As well as the populations of farmland birds and tree species composition in forests, indicators can be evaluated for forest bird species, common birds, species of European interest, livestock genetic diversity, national designated protected areas, fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas, and other themes.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, 4th National Report of the Czech Republic to the CBD Secretariat (chapter 1.4 - Biodiversity and agriculture)Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04 ','15/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 42 million € has been added to the Czech national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, the Czech Republic provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: no link','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, currently neither a monitoring programme for soil biodiversity exists at the national level, nor projects identifying potential indicators for soil biodiversity have been undertaken. However, many local scale research projects have been carried out to map the state of soil biodiversity, for example by the Institute of Soil Biology, which operates under Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. In addition, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture have also been subsidising different research projects on soil biological diversity. For detailed information on the projects see links below.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.upb.cas.cz. http://aplikace.isvav.cvut.cz/ ','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the 14 occurrences of Pannonian and continental freshwater habitats in the Czech Republic have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data. ','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for freshwater habitats.ALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences14000100%0%0%0%14            Pannonian Number OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U11  U24       Continental Number OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9000100%0%0%0%U11   U28       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in the Czech Republic, oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, going from 3.38 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.18 mg O3/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. No information on ammonium concentrations was available.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 3.32 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.04 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were clearly above the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 14.8 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 15.2 mg NO3/l in 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005; values were 0.112 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.087 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly lower than the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','No additional changes and information needed.','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 the Czech Republic had a total number of 97 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 51.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the Czech Republic has developed all four assessment methods for rivers and lakes, including phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish fauna.According to reporting by the Member State, as of 31 March 2010, for rivers no assessment method on phytoplankton was developed or no information was available. As regards macrophytes and phytobenthos methods still were under development or information was incomplete. For lakes no biological assessment methods were developed or no information was available.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','01/04/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','In 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by the Czech Republic under the Water Framework Directive.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2008 the Czech Republic had a total number of 1803 IPPC installations and issued 1294 permits. 35 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/cz/eu/ippc/envswehtg/Q2.1-_ippc-q2-template_CZ.xls/manage_document  ','12/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to the Czech Republic’s national reporting under the NEC Directive, in 2008 relevant pollutant emissions (ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds) were already below NECD ceilings. Air pollution went through a phase of moderate decline from 2007 to 2008. Emission model projections based on existing measures indicate that national emission ceiling targets will be met in the Czech Republic for all air pollutants in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','18/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in the Czech Republic the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 28 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 27,626 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 22 and 20 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 5 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 99 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','19/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, the Czech Republic’s gross nitrogen balance was 70 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 9 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','31/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, the Czech Republic’s national farmland bird indicator has decreased. In 2006 the indicator was at 68.1 per cent, a 31.9 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 20 species were assessed.Further information on trends of farmland bird species can be found in the 4th National Report of the Czech Republic to the CBD Secretariat submitted in May 2009 (figure 20, page 20)','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04 ','15/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in the Czech Republic generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitat with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the continental heath and scrub habitats, where 60 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 40 per cent is unfavourable). All of the Pannonian heath and scrub habitat in the Czech Republic has an unfavourable conservation status. The highest percentages of unfavourable conservation status are found in the Pannonian and continental grassland habitats of the Czech Republic (100 and 91 per cent respectively). The remaining 9 per cent of continental grassland habitats in the Czech Republic have a favourable conservation status. A high percentage of the Pannonian and continental forest habitats of the Czech Republic have an unfavourable conservation status (89 and 100 per cent respectively). The remaining 11 per cent of the Pannonian forest habitats have a favourable conservation status. The vast majority of the continental peat land habitats (86 per cent) in the Czech Republic have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining continental peat land habitat is favourable. 50 per cent of the Pannonian peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 50 per cent is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage212010095%5%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U11  U29       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage111010091%9%0%0%U12   U28       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage252410096%4%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9810089%11%0%0%U10  U28       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1616000100%0%0%0%U10   U216       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7430057%43%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U11   U21       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9720078%22%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U10  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U14   U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Czech Republic','Objective3','A3_4','','The Czech Republic’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes some environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 2 is €15,902,583 and among other measures includes specific environmentally friendly activities such as protecting and improving the natural environment in relation to aquaculture. Axis 3 (€18,432,539) supports the protection of aquatic organisms alongside other measures. There are no activities or funding under Axis 1 and Axis 4 as the Czech Republic has only an inland fishery and no marine fishery (being land-locked). ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm  http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_13_en.htm ','10/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective3','A3_5_2','','The National Strategic Plan for Fisheries (2007-2013), which sets out priorities for the Czech Republic freshwater fisheries, includes the protection and development of aquatic animals and plants. This priority encompasses: the restoration of inland water bodies including places for spawning; construction of fish passages for free migration; and modernization and enlargement of hatcheries which enable appropriate restocking of watercourses. One of the overarching aims of the Operational Programme (2007-2013) is to improve the status of water organisms through measures of common public interest, primarily through creation of new reproduction areas in the existing river systems and construction of fish passages. Another activity includes the introduction of eels into the river systems to enhance existing species community. Specifically, the objective is to implement at least 5 projects for creating spawning areas, and at least 5 projects for construction of fish passages with the aim to achieve free migration corridors for species from water and water related ecosystems. In addition: a species survival/recovery programme is in place for river mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera); there is an ongoing project for reintroduction of salmon (Salmo salar) called LOSOS 2000; and a proposal for a framework for the restoration of free migratory passages within the riverine environment. Lastly there are activities to keep selected populations of threatened species as a gene bank for future restorations. ','','-','Weblink: http://www.vurh.jcu.cz/en','16/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective4','A4_3','','The ecological networks constitute a system called \"territorial systems of ecological stability\" which is basically embedded in two acts of the Czech legislation framework:- in Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Conservation of Nature and Landscape, as amended, which employs several instruments for the general territorial protection, i.e. territorial systems of ecological stability, important landscape elements, landscape character, nature parks, and temporarily protected areas. The competent spatial planning authorities and nature conservancy authorities are obliged by law to designate the territorial systems of ecological stability (differentiated to local, regional and supra-regional biocentres and biocorridors) in cooperation with water management, agricultural and forestry authorities. These territorial systems are also being regularly assessed by the authorities that designated them. Moreover, this act stipulates in paragraph 2 that nature and landscape protection shall be, among other measures, ensured by the protection and creating of these territorial system of ecological stability.- in Act No. 183/2006 Coll., on Town and Country Planning and the Czech Building Code also stipulates that territorial systems of ecological stability are part of the town and regional plans.The above mentioned systems are being considered during various decision making processes and before the particular development project can be implemented.','','-','Reference to Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Conservation of Nature and Landscape: http://portal.gov.cz/wps/portal/_s.155/701?number1=114%2F1992&number2=&name=&text= Reference to Act No. 183/2006 Coll., on Town and Country Planning:http://portal.gov.cz/wps/portal/_s.155/701?number1=183%2F2006&number2=&name=&text=','16/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective4','A4_4_1','','In Czech Republic, the CBD Guidelines implementation process is in the initial phase and covers mainly areas of the national parks (its main steps and principles are reflected in recently prepared National Parks Development Strategy), besides the CBD Guidelines were taken into account when preparing the State Conception of Tourism Policy, State Environmental Policy, State Program of the Nature and Landscape Conservation, on the National Biodiversity Strategy of the Czech Republic and are the basis for preparing a large project for the creation of the sustainable tourism certification system (Ministry for Regional Development in the cooperation with Ministry of the Environment). The Czech Agency for Nature and Landscape Conservation is also working with guidelines principles in the frame of its working group for Recreational, Sportive and Touristic Activities in Protected Areas when developing methodologies and recommendations for the Protected Areas Authorities.The main goals of the State environmental Policy of the Czech Republic for the Years 2004 - 2010 are :1) to monitor tourism development effects using indicators of its impacts on the environment and local development;2) to promote the development of sound, environmentally acceptable forms of tourism and/or attempt to increase the share of this type of tourism in the total volume of tourism;3) to create a network of regional centres of environmentally sound tourism coordinated by a national centre for the purpose of greening regional tourism, methodical and practical support;4) to promote the creation of a National System of Certification of Environmentally Sound Tourism Services (accommodation and catering services, tour operators and entire destinations);5) in specially protected areas, to support the implementation of the principles of the “European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas” and take into consideration the introduction of the NATURA 2000 network;6) to extend tourism and hiking to include less attractive areas using European structural funds;7) to introduce environmental certification and promotion of tourist destinations that respect the principles of protection of the living environment;8) to concider landscape management through the development of rural tourism, eco-tourism and eco-agro-tourism;9) to promote the development of environmentally sound transport systems in all tourism areas, support public mass transport, especially in Protected Landscape Areas, National Parks and historical cities;10) to provide conditions for pedestrian or cyclist accessibility of the landscape through reconstruction and establishing of field and forest roads in connection with land-use planning.The CBD Guidelines were verified in the frame the GEF project in the area of the Biosphere Reserve Sumava Mountains. The title of this 3-years (2005 - 2008) project was \"Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe\" and the main output was the \"Strategy of sound tourism development\" in Sumava region.All the principles of the CBD Guidelines were used here and this project serves as a model for the rest of the biosphere reserves (and rest of area) of the Czech Republic. The Guidelines principles are promoted also through the National Geoparks (1 European Geopark UNESCO in Bohemian Paradise, 2 others in  process of preparation).','','','Reference to the State Environmental Policy: http://www.mzp.cz/en/sep_czReference to the GEF project in Sumava:http://www.tourism4nature.org/results/su_activities/su03.htm ','16/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Czech direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 737.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).Moreover the Czech Republic was using the resources from these financial sources for biodiversity also in the period 2004-2006. This was done through the Operational Programme Infrastructure (OPI) being at that time one operational programme for both transport and environment sectors in the Czech Republic. Two axis of OPI were designed to support measures for biodiversity conservation - 3.1.A (river revitalisation measures, restoration of water spring areas, environmental renovation of ponds and polders) and 3.1.B (removal of barriers for migrating animal species in water courses) with the total spending of some EUR 16,242,760 (total public sources) froe which EUR 12,994,208 were allocated from ERDF.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','16/03/2010','','','04/01/2010','30/04/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The Ministry of Environment Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Nature and the Landscape Protection (as amended) in the Czech Republic addresses invasive alien species (IAS) in general with a focus on introduction. There is also specific legislation that addresses the issues of introduction, import and export and control and eradication of IAS. The deliberate introduction of alien species into the Czech Republic is prohibited by the Ministry of Environment Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Nature and the Landscape Protection (as amended) unless a permit has been obtained from the nature protection authority. In protected areas, deliberate introduction of alien species is prohibited (with some forestry exceptions). The import and introduction of non-native animal species is covered by the Game Management Act No. 449/2001 of 27 November 2001. Under the Act, some alien species have to be hunted by game managers. The import of alien plant species is covered by the Phytosanitary Act (No. 326/2004) which focuses on agricultural weeds and pests. Possession and trade of IAS is not addressed by legislation in the Czech Republic.According to reporting by the Member States, as for the aquatic species, according to the Act No. 99/2004 Coll. on Fisheries, fish and aquatic organism that have occurred less than three subsequent generations in a particular fishing ground are considered as non-native. Thus, such species / taxa may be introduced only with a permit of the Nature Conservancy authority. Furthermore, the Act No. 254/2001 Coll. on Water prohibits releasing non-indigenous, genetically improper or unverified populations of fish and other aquatic fauna into water courses and water reservoirs without an approval of the respective water authority. As for the aquatic species, according to the Act No. 99/2004 Coll. on Fisheries, fish and aquatic organism that have occurred less than three subsequent generations in a particular fishing ground are considered as non-native. Thus, such species / taxa may be introduced only with a permit of the Nature Conservancy authority. Furthermore, the Act No. 254/2001 Coll. on Water prohibits releasing non-indigenous, genetically improper or unverified populations of fish and other aquatic fauna into water courses and water reservoirs without an approval of the respective water authority. In terms of forestry, according to the Act No. 289/1995 Coll. on Forests, forest owners are obliged to take measures to prevent damage to forests caused by any harmful agent. This includes obligations to identify, monitor and report the occurrence of harm / harmful agent / damage. In general, IAS can be considered to also fall under this legislation.Furthermore, Act No. 17/1992 Coll. on the Environment introduces penalties for parties causing damage to the environment. The Act defines ecological damage as “a loss or impairment of the natural functions of ecosystems, caused by damaging their components or disturbing their natural relations and processes as a result of a human activity”. According to the Member State’s this Act could also be used to address environmental damage caused by unapproved intentional imports and/or regulation of non-native species.Possession and trade of IAS is not addressed by legislation in the Czech Republic.Finally, according to the Member State the national IAS database is envisaged to be finalised by 2011. This database will be based on the IAS National Strategy, which is also planned to be finished by 2011.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','17/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 19 are present in Czech Republic. This equates to between 0.10 to 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','17/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_1_2','','The Czech Republic has no national plan or strategy specifically in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), but IAS are addressed in the National Biodiversity Strategy albeit not in the biodiversity action plan. The Czech Republic has no national plan or strategy specifically in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), but IAS are addressed in the National Biodiversity Strategy albeit not in the biodiversity action plan. However, the updated version of the State Programme of Nature and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic was published on 30 November 2009. According to the Member States, this Programme has the same functions as the national biodiversity action plan, The Programme outlines the trends in the status of and threats to Czech nature and landscapes (e.g. biodiversity), setting out concrete targets, required measures and deadlines for conservation. One part of the Programme is specifically targeted to species protection, e.g. dealing with issues related to invasive alien species. The relevant objectives include: By the end of 2011 and from 2011 onwards: establish an enabling framework (e.g. risk assessment) to 1) prevent the release and further spread of IAS and 2) allow for a rapid action and long-term management of IAS. It is foreseen that any possible legislative changes at the national level are to follow / seek synergies with the EU level developments (Measure D8).By the end of 2011: create a national list of IAS and/or priority areas to which regulative measures should be specifically targeted at (Measure D9). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','17/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_1_3','','The Czech Republic has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','17/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, up until now, the Czech Republic has no comprehensive early warning and information system for IAS at national level.  The list of IAS has been developed, but is currently operational only for the phytosanitary sector.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:- ','17/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective5','A5_2_2','','The Czech Republic has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. There are no specific procedures in place with regards to the cultivation of genetically modifed crops for the different regions within the Czech Republic. The titles and references of the co-existence legislation in the Czech Republic are: Act No. 441/2005 Coll. on Agriculture (amended Act No. 252/1997 Coll. on Agriculture) and; Decree on more detailed requirements for cultivation of GM variety.  (Decree 89/2006, amended on 16 February 2010 under the reference of 58/2010 Coll). Accordint to the Member State, there are no bans on GMO cultivation at national level in the Czech Republic. ','','  According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','10/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in May 2009. The “National Biodiversity Strategy of the Czech Republic” was published in 2005.The Czech Republic had paid their contributions to the CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','17/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any aid budget for the Czech Republic.','No clarification on the information presented above','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any aid budget for the Czech Republic.','In the period of 2006-2008, Ministry of the Environment financed 2 bilateral development projects focused on biodiversity protection: - Biodiversity Protection of the Southern Altai in the Context of Contemporary Environmental Transformations and Socio-Economic Development in Kazakhstan (2005-2007)- Support to Natural Reserves and National Parks in Senegal (2007-2009)Therefore, quantification of annual spending on biodiversity-related bilateral aid in the table is not correct. Total sum that Ministry of Environment has provided for biodiversity projects was in the particular years following: 115 080 € in the year 2006, 166 480 € in the year 2007 and 100 000 € in the year 2008.','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','18/03/2010','','','06/01/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective7','A7_1_4','','The Czech Republic contributed EUR5.80 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.24% of the total replenishment. The Czech Republic contributed EUR5.51 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.26 % of the total replenishment.','The figures presented Czech Republic anticipates to contribute to 5th GEF Replenishment about 116,9 mil. CZK (=4,6 mil. Eur), whereby it forms 0,30% of the total replenishment. Please note that the final decision on the exact national financial contribution will yet be made at the GEF Assembly in May 2010 thus the information given above has a preliminary character only. ','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','18/03/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective7','A7_2_2','','No additional clarification on the information presented above.','','The implementation of SEA and EIA assessments is ensured by Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on Environmental Impact Assessment, as amended. Several steps in the process of the EIA assessment takes place before the final decision takes place, and thus the thorough verification of the biodiversity status is ensured. If the investor’s intention according to Annex 1 of this Act lays in or is in the neighbourhood of the Natura 2000 site, the specific Natura 2000 assessment of influence of this intention on species and habitats is being carried out according to Article 45 i) of Act 114/1992 Coll. and is an important part of the EIA/SEA. ','Reference or title: Weblink:www.mzp.cz ','17/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective8','A8_1','','The Czech Republic provided EUR10,000 for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing in 2008. While there is no legislation specifically implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing and no specific public awareness activities relating to the Bonn Guidelines have been undertaken, the Czech Republic is a Party to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and its ABS principles are embedded in the national legislation. Three seminars were held specifically on the issue of the International Treaty’s Standard Material Transfer Agreement with the various stakeholders.  The majority of forests in the Czech Republic are certified under the PEFC certification system. In addition, some forests are also certified under the FSC system. Therefore, the majority of forests are managed in a sustainable way and therefore the majority of wood products are derived, at the national level, from sustainable forest sources. Non-EU countries (e.g. Russia, Canada, USA and others) contributed very marginally to the import figures.The Czech Republic has issued a large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008 and many items were seized. There is no information on import, export and re-export applications denied. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','17/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The Czech Republic is a Party to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and its ABS principles are embedded in the national legislation - mainly Act No. 148/2003 Coll. on Conservation of plant and microorganism genetic resources for agriculture. For more information, please consult the 4th National Report of the Czech Republic to the CBD Secretariat.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/?type=nr-04','17/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','The Czech Republic provided financial resources of the amount of EUR10,000 to the CBD Secretariat for ABS-related issues in October 2008.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','17/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is implemented through national legislation and public awareness of it is being raised. Three seminars were held specifically on the issue of SMTA with the various stakeholders.  ','-','','-','17/03/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective8','A8_1_4','','As indicated in other part of this questionnaire, the majority of forests in the Czech Republic are certified under the PEFC certification system. In addition, some forests are also certified under the FSC system. Therefore, the majority of forests are managed in a sustainable way and therefore the majority of wood products are derived, at the national level, from sustainable forest sources. According to the 2006 National report on the State of the forest management in the Czech Republic, the total import of roundwood was 1,366,000 m³ from which 1,342,000 m³ (88 %) were imported from EU countries. Non-EU countries (e.g. Russia, Canada, USA and others) contributed very marginally to the import figures.In 2007, 1,267,000 m³ were imported from which 1,090,000 m³ (86 %) came from EU countries. In 2008, 1,122,000 m³ were imported from which 1,073,000 m³ (96 %)  came from EU countries. Even though we cannot present exactly the precise percentage, we are convinced that the overall majority of wood products on the market in our country were derived from sustainable sources.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.uhul.cz/zelenazprava/ ','17/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 971, 315 and 24, respectively. An aggregated number of denied import, export or re-export applications was 19. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 1057 for 2007 and 1588 for 2008. The most significant quantity of specimens confiscated include 171 dead mammals in 2007, 294 and 393 dead invertebrates in 2007 and 2008, respectively and 1044 live reptiles in 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to staff and stakeholders involved with CITES implementation. The Czech Republic has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. The Czech Republic paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','01/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','','','In December 2009, the Government of the Czech Republic adopted the document \"Proposed thesis for the adaptation to climate change in the Czech Republic\". Based on this document the full version of Adaptation strategy to climate changes has been under development with participation of all relevant sectors with the aim of finalising this strategy till 31.12.2010.','','','Unfortunately, this thesis is not publicly available yet; MoE plans to finish the strategy by the end of this year.','17/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_3_2','','-','','Some clarifications need to be added on the issue of key mechanisms in implementing sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids in Czech Republic. The recently amended Act No. 86/2002 on the Protection of Air basically transposes two European directives - 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC into the Czech legislation framework, including sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids. However, the regulation setting up concrete measures, controlling and certification mechanisms has been still under development, mainly because the European Commission has not yet issued the detailed conditions on implementation of these criteria. The national regulation scheme needs to be based on the full framework of the legislation at the European level.','Act No. 86/2002 on the Protection of Air:http://portal.gov.cz/wps/portal/_s.155/701?number1=86%2F2002&number2=&name=&text=','17/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_4_1','','In December 2009, the Government of the Czech Republic adopted the document \"Proposed thesis for the adaptation to climate change in the Czech Republic\". Based on this document the full version of Adaptation strategy to climate changes has been under development with participation of all relevant sectors with the aim of finalising this strategy till 31.12.2010.',NULL,NULL,'Unfortunately, this thesis is not publicly available yet; MoE plans to finish the strategy by the end of this year.','17/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'30/04/2010',NULL),
	('Czech Republic','Objective9','A9_4_3','','A number of research projects financed through the Departmental Research Programme of the Czech Ministry of Environment are under way to identify habitats and species at risk from climate change and to indicate suitable adaptation measures.They are for example: Specification of existing estimates of climate change impacts in hydrology, water management, agriculture and forestry sectors and proposals for adaptation options; The impact of forest management type on biodiversity of forest ecosystems in the context of global climate change; The dynamics of spreading of invasive plant species in the Czech Republic taking into account different scenarios of global climate change; Specification of current estimations of impacts of climate change in the sectors of water management, agriculture and forestry management, and adaptation measures proposals; and Long-term changes in abundance and distribution of waterfowls in the Czech Republic in relation to climate and environmental change.','','-','These studies are not finalized and published yet. Unfortunately we cannot provide the links at this moment.','17/03/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','MandE','C1_2','','Denmark currently applies 15 of the 26 SEBI indicators. The implementation of indicators is based on monitoring and the national commitments to the relevant EU Directives. Model-based indicators such as indicator 11 (impact of climate change on bird populations) are found to be rather difficult to use at the national level. The remaining 4-6 further SEBI indicators will be finalised in 2010.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; national weblinkWeblink: http://www.blst.dk/Biodiversitet/Indikatorer/DK ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','MandE','C1_2_1','','Denmark applies 15 national biodiversity indicators, which mirror 14 of the SEBI indicators, with the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality split into two national indicators. The national indicators address all CBD focal areas, with the exception of Status of access and benefit-sharing.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. ',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; national weblinkWeblink: http://www.blst.dk/Biodiversitet/Indikatorer/DK ','15/02-2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','MandE','C1_3_1','','Through the National Monitoring and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment (NOVANA/DEVANO) Denmark has a systematic monitoring of habitats and species encompassed by the Habitats Directive and the Wild Birds Directive. The programme also covers other EU Directives, international conventions, and national plans regarding nature and environment. The programme covers the above mentioned habitat types and species groups. The primary goal of the programme for monitoring of habitat types within NOVANA is to monitor state (area of coverage, structure and function), pressures and development of the relevant habitat types. The primary goal of the programme for monitoring of species within NOVANA is to monitor population size and distribution of the relevant species. NOVANA is currently under revision and the revised programme is scheduled to enter into force in 2011. Results from the National Monitoring and Assessment Programme for the Aquatic and Terrestrial Environment (NOVANA) is reported yearly. The latest report (2007 data) was published in April 2009 (‘Aquatic and Terrestrial environment 2007’). In early 2010 \'Aquatic and Terrestrial environment 2008’ will be published (2008 data).','','','','23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Since 1989 the Danish Parliament has through the yearly Fiscal Act provided financial resources for a fund for Nature Management operated by the Danish Forest and Nature Agency of the Ministry of Environment. In addition funds are allocated each year to the counties for use at regional level for the same purposes excl. afforestation. The state funds for Nature Management - Natura 2000 are as follows:  2004:  DKK 96,1 mill – 2005: DKK 62,7 mio – 2006: DKK 88,8 mio – 2007: 27,1 mio – 2008: awaiting final account – 2009: awaiting final account  Funding from Hunting license is as follows: 2006= 8.4 mio. DKK; 2007= 12.4 mio. DKK; 2008= 13.7 mio. DKK; 2009= 12.2 mio. DKK.Due to restructured Danish public administration the municipalities now have much broader responsibilities with regard to nature and biodiversity. The amounts of public funds for biodiversity financing at municipality level is unknown.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Denmark spent up to EUR5,637,649 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Denmark spent up to EUR3,158,665 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Denmark’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009.The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 sites refers to Denmark’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated.  The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','25/02/2010 ','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Measure1','B1_1_4','','While there is no allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013, Denmark’s allocation for category 55 (protection of natural assets) is EUR6.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) also EUR6.1m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/02/2010','','','06/10/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Measure1','B1_1_8','','There is no specific Danish research programme dedicated to biodiversity.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Measure2','B2_4','','In June2009, the Danish government and Danish People’s Party agreed a long-term plan for both the environment and nature policy and for the agricultural industry growth conditions—called ‘Green Growth’. This plan will ensure that a high level of environmental, natural and climate protection go hand-in-hand with modern and competitive agricultural production. The Green Growth agreement includes several actions in accordance with the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Green Growth: http://www.fvm.dk/Fakta_om_Grøn_Vækst.aspx?ID=41803 ; http://www.fvm.dk/Groen_Vaekst.aspx?ID=41799 ','25/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have yet been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, the Forest and Nature Agency has, in recent years, acquired experience in economic partnerships with foundations, waterworks and municipalities in co-financing nature-restoration, afforestation and recreational use of the country side. Several agreements have been made with waterworks and municipalities for co-financing and buying agricultural land resulting in the establishment more than 10.000 hectares of new state forest. Several financial foundations have co-financed nature-restoration and related projects in co-operation with the Agency e.g. Vilsted Lake in Northern Jutland, Vestvolden close to Copenhagen, Visitors centre at Moen, Nygaard lake in North Zealand and Svanninge Hill on FunenFurthermore, a Nordic Business and Biodiversity initiative (including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) will be initiated in 2010 during the Danish Presidency for the Nordic Council of Ministers. ','','','','19/02/2010','','','04/05/10',''),
	('Denmark','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Measure3','B3_1_2','','Twenty one farming and biodiversity partnerships exist consisting of grazing cooperatives between farmers, established with support under the Danish RDP2007-13. These may include partnerships with and co-financing from the relevant municipality. Denmark facilitated the creation of a web-site for national coordination of grazing animals to grasslands in need of grazing through work with a local farming association, Vesthimmerlands Landboforening, Local green partnerships existed between 2007-2009 as a partnership between the Ministry of the Environment, the association of the communities and two NGOs the Outdoor Council and the Danish Nature Protection Association. During this period, 133 forestry and biodiversity projects were initiated with 50 million Danish kroner of funding. The projects were spread in 65 out of the 99 Danish communities. The purpose of the projects was improving nature, open air activities and nature interpretation.   New funding from the Ministry of the Environment of 5 million Danish kroner year from 2010-2015 will secure that this local partnerships will continue in the years to come.','','','http://www.graesning.dk/','1) 01/02/20102) 25/02/2010','','','03/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Regular meetings are held between Ministries concerning biodiversity objectives. Inter-ministerial working groups are established ad-hoc to address challenges for biodiversity and farming/forestry at the local, regional and national levels.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.graesning.dk/',' 16/02/2010 ','','','03/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have yet been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, the Forest and Nature Agency has, in recent years, acquired experience in economic partnerships with foundations, waterworks and municipalities in co-financing nature-restoration, afforestation and recreational use of the country side. Several agreements have been made with waterworks and municipalities for co-financing and buying agricultural land resulting in the establishment more than 10.000 hectares of new state forest. Several financial foundations have co-financed nature-restoration and related projects in co-operation with the Agency e.g. Vilsted Lake in Northern Jutland, Vestvolden close to Copenhagen, Visitors centre at Moen, Nygaard lake in North Zealand and Svanninge Hill on FunenFurthermore, a Nordic Business and Biodiversity initiative (including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) will be initiated in 2010 during the Danish Presidency for the Nordic Council of Ministers. ','','','','19/02/2010','','','04/05/10',''),
	('Denmark','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity. However, the Forest and Nature Agency has, in recent years, acquired experience in economic partnerships with foundations, waterworks and municipalities in co-financing nature-restoration, afforestation and recreational use of the country side. Several agreements have been made with waterworks and municipalities for co-financing and buying agricultural land resulting in the establishment more than 10.000 hectares of new state forest. Several financial foundations have co-financed nature-restoration and related projects in co-operation with the Agency e.g. Vilsted Lake in Northern Jutland, Vestvolden close to Copenhagen, Visitors centre at Moen, Nygaard lake in North Zealand and Svanninge Hill on Funen.Furthermore, a Nordic Business and Biodiversity initiative (including Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) will be initiated in 2010 during the Danish Presidency for the Nordic Council of Ministers.','','','','23/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The Akwe Kwon guidelines have not been directly applied in projects affecting the territorial  lands of indigenous and local communities. However, the principles in the guidelines are being applied indirectly: projects involving biodiversity and indigenous peoples in protected areas take the appropriate considerations into account. No projects are in violation of the Akwe Kwon Guidelines.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Denmark','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign has been developed or initiated at the national level in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). However, communication and information on Nature Conservation & Biodiversity are widely distributed to the general public and to specific target groups.','','',' http://www.blst.dk/English/  Danish Nature Interpretations Service http://naturvejledernet.skovognatur.dk/NR/rdonlyres/BD562C93-4D22-44FD-B2C3-FADAA4D6B58A/93984/TheDanishNatureInterpretationService.pdf; http://naturvejledernet.skovognatur.dk/Nyheder/engelskfolder.htm','22/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Denmark','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Danish Ministry of the Environment launched the Danish Countdown 2010 initiative on 9 February 2007 in Copenhagen and promoted the Countdown 2010 initiative as a useful communication tool at local level. In February over a third of all municipalities in Denmark had  signed the Countdown 2010 declaration by committing to 1-3 actions with the aim of halting biodiversity loss. Several Danish NGOs also signed the declaration.Four of the Countdown 2010 municipalities (Kolding, Hedensted, Herning and Holstebro) also took part in a project under the Council of Nordic Ministers with the aim of disiminating the 2010 goal to the local level and engaging the local level with the aim of halting biodiversity loss. Denmark communicated to the IUCN Countdown Initiative that funding will be increased in a number of areas including: nature conservation with action funds on nature restoration and local green partnerships; strengthening the engagement of local and regional authorities around biodiversity matters; raising the awareness of the 2010 biodiversity target in Denmark through outreach activities such as biodiversity games and involving civil society on nature and biodiversity issues; and developing and implementing a Danish response to the EC Biodiversity Communication. Between 2006 and 2008, Denmark contributed at total sum of 13,000 euros in funding towards Countdown 2010 projects. ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedReference or title: Nordic ProjectWeblink: http://www.dirnat.no/2010-malet/','22/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, all (3 of 3) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 6 of the 7 (86%) forest habitats are in favourable condition. 67% or more of freshwater (5 of the 7), heath and scrub (2 of 2), grasslands (3 of the 4), and bog, mire and fen (4 of the 6) habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of 1 (100%) sclerophyllous scrub and 4 of the 8 (50%) coastal habitats is unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, the condition of all coastal habitats and rocky habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad and unknown respectively.In the Continental biogeographical region, 6 of the 9 (67%) forest habitats are in favourable condition. 12 of 2 (100%), 6 of the 7 (86%) and 4 of the 5 (80%) heath and scrub habitats, bogs, mires and fen habitats and grassland habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. The condition of all sclerophyllous scrub and rocky habitats is unknown.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticCoastal habitats00%00%3100%00%00%3AtlanticCoastal habitats113%00%338%450%00%8Dunes habitats217%433%325%325%00%12Freshwater habitats00%114%571%114%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands00%00%375%125%00%4Bogs, mires & fens00%117%467%117%00%6Forests686%00%00%114%00%7Marine Baltic Coastal habitats00%00%4100%00%00%4Rocky habitats00%00%00%1100%00%1ContinentalCoastal habitats111%111%333%444%00%9Dunes habitats217%217%542%325%00%12Freshwater habitats00%114%571%114%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands00%00%480%120%00%5Bogs, mires & fens00%00%686%114%00%7Rocky habitats00%00%00%1100%00%1Forests667%111%111%111%00%9','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Denmark has designated 261 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 19,300 km², totalling 12.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 118 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 7959 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 113, with a total area of 14,709 km², totalling 5.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 59, with a marine area of 12.173 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','17/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Development of management plans for each of the 246 Danish Natura 2000 sites is in progress. The legally binding plans are published in a hearing in January 2010.   ','','Eight marine Natura 2000 sites submitted to the Commission in 2009 have status as pSCI and a management plan for these sites will be developed.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.blst.dk/Vandognatur/','17/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Ecological corridors are considered in the spatial planning by the municipalities, see also 4.3 on the basis of guidelines from the Ministry of Environment','','',':http://www2.sns.dk/udgivelser/2006/87-7279-752-5/pdf/87-7279-752-5.pdf','02/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 278 regularly occurring bird species in Denmark, 8 are globally Near-threatened and 2 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Denmark, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! The national Danish red list for birds comprises 31.6% of the 209 breeding species.See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) mammals are reported to be in a favourable and an unfavourable-bad condition, respectively. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates, 8 of the 13 (62%) mammals and 3 of the 11 (27%) plants were reported to be in a favourable condition. 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates and 3 of the 11 (27%) plants are in are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of the 7 (43%) amphibians and reptiles and 2 of the 4 (50%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 2 of the 7 (29%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 8 (50%) fish and 4 of the 13 (31%) mammals is unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) mammals are in a favourable condition while 2 of the 3 (67%) are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. Of the species in the Continental biogeographical region, 10 of the 18 (56%) mammals are in a favourable condition and so are 25% of amphibians and reptiles (3 of the 12), fish (2 of the 8) and plants (3 of the 12). 5 of the 12 (42%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 12 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 7 of the 13 (54%) invertebrates and 4 of the 12 (33%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 4 of the 8 (50%) fish and 5 of the 18 (28%) mammals is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern , Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html; http://www.dmu.dk/Dyr_planter/redlistFrame/Artsgrupper/ ','24/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','National action or management plans are under implementation or being prepared for: Birds: Corncrake, Red Kite, Ruff, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit; Mammals: Otter, Eurasian Beaver, Dormouse, Grey Seal, Harbour Seal, Common Porpoise, and in preparation are Northern Birch Mouse, European Bison, and 17 species of bats; Fish: Houting and Salmon; Invertebrates: Euphydryas aurinia (a butterfly species); Plants: Saxifraga hirsute. Besides species-specific action plans 246 Natura-2000 plans provide concrete actions for species covered by the Habitats and Birds Directives. Indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes include, among others, indices on farmland birds, woodland birds, and other common birds. Denmark has a red list for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.dmu.dk/Dyr_planter/redlistFrame/Artsgrupper/ ESBEN TINDMore information:http://www.dmu.dk/International/Monitoring/NOVANA/http://www2.blst.dk/download/blst/NOVANA2007_6maj.pdf ','02/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective10','A10_1','','Denmark does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. However, biodiversity occupies a marginal position the following research programmes, in the sense that the programmes are not specifically targeting international challenges and obligations regarding biodiversity in Habitats, Birds, Water Frame and Groundwater directives as well as the 2010-target of halting the loss of biodiversity: National Strategic Research Programme, Pesticide Research programme, Organic Farming Research Programme, Wildlife Research Programme. The Danish Council for Strategic Research encompasses environmental technology and hence addresses biodiversity. The Danish Council for Independent Research addresses all aspects of natural sciences including biodiversity. ','','','The Danish Council for Strategic Research: http://en.fi.dk/councils-commissions/the-danish-council-for-strategic-research; The Danish Council for Independent Research: http://en.fi.dk/councils-commissions/the-danish-council-for-independent-research; National Strategic Research Program: http://www.fi.dk; Pesticide Research Program: http://www.mst.dk; Organic Farming Research Program: http://www.icrofs.dk; Wildlife Research Program: http://www.sns.dk ','22/02/10','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Denmark does not currently have any plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) at either a national or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. ','','','','11-02-2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Denmark has national biodiversity platform. The Ministry of Environment has a contract with the Danish Research Institute (DMU) that is renewed every year. In between, several meetings are held with different units of the DMU and the Ministry of the Environment. ','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info DMU: http://www.dmu.dk/','25/02/2010','','','15/03/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Denmark has been a Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) voting Participant since January 2001. The Danish Biodiversity Information Facility (DanBIF) is Denmark’s national node for GBIF. DanBIF carries out the work on making Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic biodiversity data and resources accessible. DanBIF is a also a communication forum for a Danish Network of biodiversity researchers.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Zoological Museum at the University of Copenhagen is a member of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). They are a lead contractor of Work Package 13 (Non European Data Globally Available) and Contributors to Work Packages 4 (IPR, Copyrights & Financial issues),10 (Generic analysis tools and data mining) and 12 (Info Services on European Data).','','According to the DK FP7 Danish researchers have received 7.93 %  financing for biodiversity  under the programme for environment. There is no relevant Danish contribution from the research infrastructure ESFRI etc.','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','23/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Denmark:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features at archaeological sites. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* only concerning archaeological sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Denmark total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 577.92 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 1020.91 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 320.73 million EUR, and 537.32 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 55.49 and 52.63 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Denmark was 180.03 million EUR (301.61 with co-financing) and amounted to 31.15 per cent of the EAFRD (29.54 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 6.99 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.21 per cent of EAFRD) and 11.7 million EUR of public expenditure (1.15 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Denmark for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)36.86078.422Forest environment payments (225)0.0040.007According to reporting by the Member State, for the period 2007 to 2009 the Danish Rural Development Programme has executed EAFRD payments of 153.9 million. €. Of these 72.8 million € were paid according to budget line 214 agri-environment payments and 36,645 euro was paid on line 225.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','16/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to reporting by the Member State, a national strategy which specifically addressed the conservation of genetic resources is under development. A national strategy has been developed to address the conservation of tree genetic resources, and action plans exist for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (2008-10) and farm animals (2009-2012). The action plan on plants includes a 3-year project on in situ conservation of Crop Wild Relatives (CWR), with an annual budget of €134000. The aim of the project is to assess the distribution and status of conservation of approximately 100 high priority species of CWR. Denmark also supports in situ conservation of old crop varieties through the RDP. The cost of in situ measures for maintaining the genetic resources of commercial tree species is estimated to have been approximately €100,000 for the period 2005-2010. The current action plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources for food and agriculture includes several actions with regard to in-situ conservation through national support schemes. Support is paid to breeders, who own and keep records of Danish endangered breeds, and financial support is given to small breeders organizations.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, DEN LEVENDE KULTURARV\" Fødevareministeriets handlingsplan 2008-10 for jordbrugets plantegenetiske ressourcer (Februar 2008), ”Vision, mål og strategi for Genressour-ceudvalgets arbejde med husdyrgenetiske ressourcer 2009-2012” (September 2009  Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri), Weblink: http://pdir.fvm.dk/Admin/Public/Download.aspx?file=Files%2fFiler%2fVirksomheder%2fFroe%2fPlantegenetik%2fDen_levende_kulturarv.pdf   http://www.netpublikationer.dk/FVM/978-87-7083-504-6/978-87-7083-504-6.pdf ','1) 25/02/20102) 16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Denmark in this regard, and thus no payments were made. However, according to reporting by the Member State, Denmark has used payments under the Rural Development Programme, to support plant genetic resources. Accordingly a supporting scheme has been implemented amounting to around € 537,000, of which 55 per cent was EAFRD funding and 45 per cent national funding. ','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Additional planning tools such as local planning and site surveys for afforestation operations are in use. The application of all tools is generally not limited to the size of an area affected, with the exception of EIA for deforestation. EU Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA) was transposed into national law BEK No. 1335 of 06 December 2006 (Bekendtgørelse om vurdering af visse offentlige og privates anlægs virkning på miljøet i medfør af lov om planlægning).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.plantevalg.dk ','25/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Denmark had a total certified forest area of 416,214 hectares out of a total forest area of 500,000 hectares. 192,147 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system under which 224,067 hectares were certified. In total, 83.24 per cent of the forest area in Denmark was certified.According to reporting by the Member State, some forests are certified under both the FSC and PEFC scheme. This is the case for all state owned forests, which account for 21 per cent of the forest area, and for some private forest areas as well. ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','25/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Denmark amounted to 0.17 million ha, representing a share of 5.0 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','25.02.10','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Denmark:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features at archaeological sites. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* only concerning archaeological sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State, training or advisory services have not been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to reporting by the Member State, national level monitoring schemes have been put in place or are under development for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.As for the farmland birds index, Denmark has chosen to rely on the index proposed originally by the JRC/IRENA: Reversing Biodiversity decline Change in trend measured by population index for 18 farmland bird species, baseline index value106.1 (2001). Target is to maintain value in 2013.Additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators refer to environmentally and ecosystem-friendly management of grassland. The indicator measures whether progress has been achieved to maintain grass area and ensure their conservation. The concrete target refers to the maintenance of 100,000 ha under agri-environment support agreements in Denmark’s Rural Development Programme by 2013. The baseline used refers to the existence of approximately 177,000 ha grass area in 2005 (permanent grass or uncultivated grass). In addition forest indicators (including biodiversity indicators) are collected on national level and are reported to Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE).','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','25.02.10','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 124 million € has been added to the Danish national Rural Development programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Denmark attributed € 34 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 27 per cent of total national additional programmed funding. ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. For the Sustainable Agriculture and Soil Conservation (SoCo) project, performed by the Joint Research Centre\'s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, the Danish University of Aarhus and University of Copenhagen prepared a case study on soil/land management in the two Danish municipalities Bjerringbro and Hvorslev in 2008. In addition, the Member State emphasised that the Danish Administration has prepared a tentative delineation for the further deliberations of Less Favoured Areas on the basis of eight bio-physical indicators (including soil).','',' Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Report on ‘Threats to soil quality in Denmark - A review of existing knowledge in the context of the EU soil thematic strategy (DJF rapport Markbrug, Nr. 143, 2009)Weblink: http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/index.asp?action=show&id=1073 ','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 86 per cent of the Atlantic and 86 per cent of the continental freshwater habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remainder is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage141202086%0%14%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U11  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U11   U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Denmark oxygen demand (BOD5) figures decreased from 2002 to 2005, going from 1.68 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.49 mg O3/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.72 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a slight decrease from 0.13 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.11 mg N/l in 2004. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers moved upward from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 4.65 mg N/l in 2002 to 4.76 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 5.05 mg N/l in 2004. No data were available for 2005. 2004 figures were clearly above the weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 24.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 37 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a more or less stable tendency from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.063 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.064 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly below the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a downward trend, decreasing from 0.113 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.107 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values well above the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.According to reporting by the Member State, 20 years monitoring results show a statistical significant drop for all the indicators mentioned above.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','25.02.10','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Denmark had a total number of 92 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 80 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Denmark developed all four biological assessment methods for lakes, but methods were only partially available for macrophytes and phytobenthos and undeveloped for phytoplankton assessment in rivers. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were developed, including phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, and macro-algae and angiosperms.According to the Member State in 2010, the following applies:The Danish rivers are relatively small – therefore no assessment methods for phytoplankton in Danish rivers have been developed.For lakes the assessment methods for phytoplankton have been only partly developed. The method for chlorophyll has been accepted in the first phase of the intercalibration process under the Water Framework Directive. The missing elements are under development.Assessment methods for macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish in lakes are still under development.For coastal waters, assessment methods using phytoplankton are only partly developed. The missing elements are under development.For coastal waters, assessment methods for benthic invertebrates are developed. The method for the North East Atlantic GIG area has been accepted. The method for the Baltic Sea is included in the ongoing intercalibration process.For coastal waters, an assessment system for angiosperms is developed and accepted in the Baltic Sea. The method is included in the ongoing intercalibration process for the North East Atlantic GIG area.For coastal waters,an assessment system for macroalgae is developed and is included in the ongoing intercalibration process in both the Baltic Sea and in the North East Atlantic GIG area.The missing assessment methods will be finished during the intercalibration phase II.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Denmark under the Water Framework Directive.Reporting on the number of the monitoring stations within protected areas will be part of the submission of Denmark’s Water District Management Plans due by March 22, 2010.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','25/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, at the end of 2008 Denmark had a total number of 1689 IPPC installations and issued 0 permits. 23 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaire, Reporting under the IPPC DirectiveWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/dk/eu/ippc/colsqpg7q/envsqphww/Template_question_2_1_final__2_.xls/manage_document ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to Denmark’s national reporting under the NEC Directive, in 2008 Denmark complied with the ceiling for sulphur dioxide by a very large margin, and with the ceiling for ammonia by a smaller. Nitrogen oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions significantly exceeded Denmark’s ceilings. However, according to the country’s projections, the country expects to meet related ceilings.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Denmark the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 50 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 3,584 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 42 and 37 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 2 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction in 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 99 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.According to reporting by the Member State, during 2009 the Danish government developed and endorsed a Green Growth plan with the aim of significantly reducing the problems of eutrophication. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure that a high level of environmental, nature and climate protection goes hand in hand with modern and competitive agriculture and food industries. According to Denmark, it is an ambitious and long-term plan defining environmental and nature policies and the agriculture industry’s growth conditions. A total of DKK 13.5 billion is to be invested in Green Growth until 2015, which is about a 50 per cent increase in investments compared to previous initiatives. The funding of the plan will primarily be provided by national funding and repatriation of funds under the European Rural Development Programme.Among the targets in the plan are:  19,000 tonne reduction in nitrogen discharge to the aquatic environment from 2010 to 2015210 tonne reduction in discharge of phosphor to the aquatic environment from 2010 to 2015. Improvement in the physical conditions of selected stretches of watercourses totalling 7,300 km from 2010 to 2015 Among the concrete initiatives to reduce the discharge of nitrogen and phosphor to the aquatic environments are the establishment of a quota system for the use of nitrogen, establishment of permanent spraying-free, fertilizer-free and cultivation-free buffer zones and wetlands, as well as taking out agricultural land of production and to establish new aquatic nature areas.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicators, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','25/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Denmark’s gross nitrogen balance was 127 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 29 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.According to the Member State, Denmark’s field balance for nitrogen was i 141 kg N/ha n 1991 and 78 kg N/ha in 2008. ',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaire, NERIWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, Denmark’s national farmland bird indicator has decreased. By 2006 the indicator was at 62.7 per cent, a 37.3 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 16 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','','02/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Denmark generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitat with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the Atlantic and continental forest habitats, where 86 and 67 per cent respectively are considered favourable. The remaining 14 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats have an unknown status. 22 per cent of the continental forest habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable status, the status of the remaining 11 per cent is unknown. All of the Atlantic and continental heath and scrub habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable conservation status. 75 per cent of Atlantic grassland habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable status, the status of the remaining 25 per cent is unknown. Of the continental grassland habitats in Denmark, 80 per cent have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 20 per cent has an unknown status. The vast majority of both the Atlantic and continental peat land habitats in Denmark have an unfavourable conservation status (83 and 86 per cent respectively), the status of the remaining peat land habitat is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9702078%0%22%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4301075%0%25%0%U10  U23       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5401080%0%20%0%U10   U24       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage162122013%75%13%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage706100%86%14%0%U10  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9261022%67%11%0%U11   U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10   U22       Status of peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131102085%0%15%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6501083%0%17%0%U11  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U10   U26       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','Ref. Commission. We do not verify the above information. We refer to DG Mare for check and verification. You can not assess individual member states in this respect. Stocks are shared between several member states.','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below.  Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Denmark found that the three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region all had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). Of the  five marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region, four had a ‘Bad’ status (80%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (20%). There were 8 coastal habitats assessed in the ‘Atlantic’ biogeographical region of Denmark—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (12.5%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (37.5%) and the remaining four had an ‘Unknown’ status (50%). There were nine coastal habitats assessed in the ‘Continental’ biogeographical region of Denmark—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (11.1%), one had an ‘Inadequate status’ (11.1%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (33.3%) and four were ‘Unknown’ (44.4%). A total of three marine species, all mammals, were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and the remaining two had a ‘Bad’ status (67%). There were also three marine species assessed in the Marine Baltic region—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and the remaining two had a ‘Bad’ status (67%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=TitleChecklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','10/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Denmark reported that, in 2009, it had 34 surveillance stations and 51 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Denmark has 141 coastal water bodies. Approximately 22% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates.  A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is being developed.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','27/02/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_1_5','','The local government structure in 2007 has elevated the municipal plan to be the most important type of plan in Denmark. A municipal plan contains objectives and guidelines for development and protection in towns, the countryside and in the coastal zone as well. In 2009 all municipal plans were revised. According to the Planning Act the municipal plans must include guidelines for the land use in coastal zones. These guidelines have to comply with national objectives as:- to preserve the coastal areas so they continue to be a part of the landscape with high value of nature and landscape character- to promote the quality of the development of housing and infrastructure, which needs to be located in the coastal zone- that the future development in the coastal zone is based on solid and updated knowledge and decisions - that the development of tourism and recreation areas along the coasts respects and is based on the value of nature and landscape characterThe municipal plans are binding and set the framework for sectoral activities.','','The Danish planning system is in general perceived to be adequate for managing the use of coastal areas while balancing development and protection. All existing or planned activities in the coastal zone have to be mapped as an annex to the municipal plan.All municipal plans in Denmark have to be revised every four year.','https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=127131 Chapter 2 (the legal provisions) and http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/2006/Statslige_interesser_2009.htm chapter 18 (guidelines for the municipal planning regarding national interests)For further information a publication in English \"Spatial Planning in Denmark\" describes the spatial planning system in Denmark after the local government structure in 2007, see especially page 13 \"Planning in coastal areas\":http://www.blst.dk/NR/rdonlyres/8C9E90F0-9086-4934-A6F1-C577149057D5/49285/Planning_260907_NY.pdf','16/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_2','','Denmark currently has 1,149 coastal bathing waters. The large majority of these reach mandatory standards: 96.4% in 2008; 92.9% in 2007 and 93.5% in 2006. Less of the bathing waters have reached the stricter guidelines standards and the percentage has dropped slightly over the past three years: 84.2% in 2006; 80.9% in 2007 and 79.9% in 2008. Eight bathing areas had to be closed in 2006 and six in 2007. However no areas had to be closed in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations, there has been a declining trend when year to year variation in fresh water discharge is taken into account.  Between 1985 and 2005, 5 out of 46 recording stations showed decreases in both nutrients in the Baltic Sea, as has 1 out of 21 stations in the North Sea. Concentrations of nutrients were low in 2005 and 2006 (based on Member State data). ','','-','','19/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_4','','Denmark’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €53,730,684 and includes measures such as reducing discards and by-catch. Axis 2 (€75,299,048) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and conversion to organic production. Axis 3 (€70,330,532) promotes biological sustainability and certification systems and Axis 4 (€24,922,558) aims to make fisheries areas attractive both ecologically and socially.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_99_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','19/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','Ref. Commission. We do not verify the above information. We refer to DG Mare for check and verification. You can not assess individual member states in this respect. Stocks are shared between several member states.','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Denmark had 3,136 vessels and 10% were involved in a serious infringement (323 vessels). A total of 181 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €542 and maximum fine of €2,682.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','19/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Denmark has a long tradition of release plans in streams and coastal areas, especially for trout. Denmark also has a detailed action plans for salmon, houting and eels. Within these plans Denmark undertakes habitat restoration for trout, salmon and houting; stock enhancement for trout, salmon and eels and has removed migratory barriers for trout, salmon, houting and eels. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink: http://fd.fvm.dkTrout plan: http://www.fiskepleje.dk/vandloeb/udsaetning.aspxSalmon plan: http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/2004/laks.htmEel plan: http://fd.fvm.dk/Ål.aspx?ID=34550Houting plan: http://www.sns.dk/udgivelser/2004/Forvaltningsplan_for_snaebel_DK1.pdf','19/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Denmark has a large fishing fleet but this capacity has reduced consistently between 1999 and 2008. The number of vessels has dropped from 4,220 to 2,893 (31% reduction) and tonnage has dropped from 104,455 to 73,038 tons (30% reduction). Fishing power has also reduced from 387,873kW to 265,855kW (31% reduction).  Between 2000 and 2006 seven scrapping orders were carried out under the FIFG programme with a total of 304 vessels decommissioned. Since the autumn of 2005, Denmark has operated a rights-based system where fishing shares can be sold and transferred. In practice this has meant that fishing rights have been concentrated within fewer but more efficient vessels. The result of both these initiatives has been better fishing opportunities for the remaining vessels in the fleet today. ','','2008 data: 2893 vessels; 73038 tons; 263855 kW','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5//2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Denmark had 3136 active vessels. There were 90 type D breaches in this year, with 63 penalties imposed with an average fine of €587.  There have also been initiatives to reduce by-catch, for example Denmark has signed an bilateral agreement with Sweden to introduce closed areas in the Kattegat and the northern part of Oresund to protect cod stocks. Denmark is also a lead country in a project on discard elimination in the Baltic Sea.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_6_2','','The oldest monitoring programme for seabirds is the international annual mid-winter-counts of waterbirds coordinated by Wetlands International. These started in 1965 and have been carried out annually since then (i.e. for over 45 years). National countrywide counts were carried out in Denmark during the following periods: 1968-73, 1987-92 and in 2000. The NOVANA programme started in 2004, and national countrywide mid-winter-counts of waterbirds have been carried out in 2004 and 2008. Moulting sea ducks and other waterbirds are monitored in countrywide surveys every 6th year, the latest taking place in 2006. Breeding seabird species (terns and alcids) are monitored annually, every 3rd year or at least every 6th year ','','','http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/FR713.pdf','24/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','23/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','In 2008, Denmark had 88 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below). Denmark created 6 new marine areas to the Site of Community Interest (SCI) list in 2009: eight new areas were designated and three existing areas were merged.  DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.Denmark has not made any specific requests to the Commission regarding fisheries management within any marine Natural 2000 site. However the need for Fishery regulations within marine Natura 2000 sites is under consideration. Draft management plans for two marine Natura2000 areas (1170 and 1180) contain requirements for protection of natural habitats against physical harm, including bottom trawling. The sector ministry will analyse to what extent there is a need for fisheries regulation in these specific areas to enable the fisheries measures before 31 December 2015.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 101Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 5Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','10/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Denmark has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. The Danish National Programme for the collection of fisheries data for 2009-2010 for the collection of data includes environmental indicators listed in Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. To calculate indicators 1, 2 and 3 listed in Appendix XIII of the Commission Decision data is required on species abundance and length distribution by species from fishery independent research surveys. Such information is collected routinely in established trawl surveys such as IBTS (North Sea and East Arctic region) and BITS (Baltic Sea Region). The Danish information is available for part of the marine region where the Danish vessel has surveyed on a haul by haul basis.Indicator 4 requires extended information on age, length, sex and maturity from fishery independent research surveys. During the ICES/PGCCDBS, the ICES/IBTSWG and the ICES/WGBIFS is has been discussed how to coordinate and to standardize this data collection. Denmark from 2009 onwards collect this information for the target species in the surveys mentioned above.VMS data is required for indicators 4-7.  VMS data has been made available for DTU Aqua for research purpose under certain conditions such as safeguarding the confidentiality of the identity of individual the vessels. The data are available is on a resolution of one record every 1 hour. Management of the data, logbooks and selling slips data are also available. Therefore, it is possible to link VMS, Logbook and sales slips data.Indicator 8 can be calculated by using the at sea observer data. The economic data collection carried out by DST includes data on fuel consumption. It is therefore possible to estimate fuel costs per quarter and métier for some segments for Indicator 9. ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture',' Danish National Programme for collection of fisheries data for 2009-2010 https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_tabs1=folders&_20_folderId=95004&_20_cur1=1&_20_delta=20&_20_keywords=&_20_advancedSearch=false&_20_andOperator=true&cur2=1 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','19/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The trophic index for EEZ in Denmark (excluding Faroe Islands and Greenland) is 3.10. It has decreased by 0.05 between 1999 and 2004, and has decreased by 0.24 during the past 20 years (1984-2004). In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','The data does not include the EEZ of Faroe Is. and Greenland. From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx  Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','15/03/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective4','A4_3','','Regarding spatial planning, Danish municipalities are required to take into consideration the planning of ecological networks, and most of them have done so. The Danish Ministry of Environment endorses the municipality plans. Before 2007 the former counties have considered ecological networks in their spatial plans, as shown in the referenced link.','','','http://www.blst.dk/Naturbeskyttelse/naturnetvaer','25/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective4','A4_4_1','','In Denmark, the following initiatives have had fundamental impacts to secure the development of sustainable tourism in accordance to the CBD guidelines: Planning law: the country is divided into three different planning zones: Town zones, country zones and coastal zones. The planning law secures that the 7,300 long coastal zone is free of all unnecessary building construction and tourism businesses. It also means that Denmark has avoided buildings close to the water, as it is commun to see in many touristic areas around the world.Clean water: an indicator of sustainable tourism is clean air and water. For the past 25 years, the changing Danish governments have invested massively in securing a clean water environment. Today, the water bathing quality along the 7,300 km of the Danish coasts is good, and the environmental authorities only discourage swimming along 10 km of the coast. Environmental assessment: a third decisive factor that secures sustainable tourism is the obligation for large tourist businesses (e.g. hotels, holiday resorts and amusement parks) to undergo a special environmental assessment before their construction is approved.Protection and restoration of nature : a fourth important aspect is the old Danish tradition of protecting natural areas by legislation.Environmental schemes: the majority of Danish tourist businesses and operators are conscious of the fact that a clean environment and a rich biodiversity nature are all-important prerequisites for them to make their living. Tourism has introduced a labelling scheme \"The Green Key\", for environmental quality as an addition to the state environmental schemes (\"the swan and the flower”). The labelling scheme requires accommodation places to act on energy and water consumption, reduction of waste and use of renewable energy sources. Furthermore, there are requirements to use environmentally labelled cleaning products, organic food and reduce pesticides use in green areas management.','','','','15/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Danish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 12.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spendings under categories 55 and 56 are foreseen by the Danish Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS, provided by DG Regio.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','23/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Denmark has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). Specific legislation in Denmark addresses a number of issues related to import, introduction, control and eradication of IAS but does not address export or possession and trade. Import of muskrat and American gray squirrel has been prohibited according to statutory order 1987/78. For an updated list of regulation see chapter 4.3 in the Danish Action plan on Alien Invasive Species. Under a statutory order of the Nature Protection Act (Lovbekendtgørelse no. 749, updated on 21 June 2007) alien species that are considered to be a threat to native species can be eradicated. §31 of the Act contains a general prohibition on the release into the wild of non-native animals without permission. Exemptions are decided by the Environment Minister. Chapter 12, Article 63 of the Fishing Act (828/2004) prohibits the deliberate introduction of fish and eggs or the brood thereof without permission. The Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries has to approve any species to be introduced and the plan for the introduction. The Hunting Act (no. 114/1997) regulates the introduction of game animals including alien species. This includes those alien game animals deliberately introduced or those that unintentionally escaped and established self-reproducing populations in the wild. The Statutory Order on eradication of muskrats (819/1987) states that an owner or user of real estate/real property is responsible for notifying the authorities should they suspect or sight the presence of a muskrat and are subsequently obliged to perform or assist in its eradication.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkhttp://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Myndighed/InvasivHandlingsplan.htm','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 69 are present in Denmark. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2. In comparison, the Danish Action Plan on Alien Invasive Species has a black list of 54 species. The action plan also includes an \"observation\" list of IAS.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity http://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Myndighed/InvasivHandlingsplan.htm ','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Denmark adopted an Action Plan on Invasive Alien Species in February 2009. The plan contains IAS specific activities, e.g. to control American Prayfish. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkhttp://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Myndighed/InvasivHandlingsplan.htm http://www.skovognatur.dk/NR/rdonlyres/DB812145-4733-4D7F-95AA-9EB940A61D1E/0/Handlingsplanforinvasivearter2.pdf','23/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Denmark has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  However, according to the Member States comments, Denmark expects to provide the legislation necessary.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions. MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Denmark has established a portal where you can register on a map an observation of most of the alien species found in Denmark. No early warning and information system for Invasive Alien species is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.skovognatur.dk/DyrOgPlanter/invasivearter/Indberetning/  ','23/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Denmark has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The titles and references for the legislation are as follows: Act on Growing etc. of GM Crops; Executive Order on the Growing etc. of GM Crops; Executive Order on Compensation for Losses due to Certain Occurrences of GM Material; Executive Order on the Growing etc. of GM Crops References; and Executive Order on Compensation for Losses due to Certain Occurrences of GM Material. There are no specific procedures for different regions in Denmark with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops.  According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Denmark.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in January 2010, as was an additional national report for Greenland. The National Biodiversity Strategy was adopted in 2000. The Action Plan for Biodiversity and Nature Conservation in Denmark 2004-2009 was adopted in 2004. In 2006 the Government adopted a statement concerning Nature Policy (Naturpolitisk Redegørelse) and in 2009 the government adopted an agreement for Green Growth. Denmark has paid all contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/cda/ramsar/display/main/main.jsp?zn=ramsar&cp=1-31^7761_4000_0__http://whc.unesco.org/document/102009  ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_1','','While the OECD markers do not show multilateral spending on biodiversity, the publication ‘Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity’ shows support in form of multilateral aid for implementation of the CBD for the years 2001 to 2005 as follows (in DKK mill.): 1,332 (2001); 1,418 (2002); 1,241 (2003); 1,255 (2004), and 1,260 (2005). In addition, through support to REDD-related activities as well as to climate adaptation activities related to integrated land and water management, Denmark supports activities which are aimed at reducing the pressure on natural resources.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. ','Reference or title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2007. Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity. Copenhagen.OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','18/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Denmark spent EUR45.2m in 2006 and EUR3.0m in 2007 for biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which is 0.04% and 0.003%, respectively, of the total bilateral biodiversity-related aid. The publication ‘Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity’ shows support in form of bilateral aid for implementation of the CBD for the years 2001 to 2005 as follows (in DKK mill):  745 (2001); 470 (2002); 438 (2003); 1,112 (2004) and 935 (2005).','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. 2007. Danish Development Assistance in Support of Implementation of the Convention on Biodiversity. Copenhagen.OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','25/02/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Denmark contributed EUR36.03 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 1.48% of the total replenishment. Denmark contributed EUR40.91 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.91 % of the total replenishment. Denmark expects to make a contribution to the 5th replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_1_6','','The table below is illustrating financial funding to biodiversity in Greenland through an ad hoc funding to biodiversity project in Greenland. The fund is called DANCEA. That means that it is not a specific financial contribution each year but a case by case decision.20092008200720062005Biodiversity1511846','','','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_2_2','','This information cannot be provided.','','','','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective7','A7_2_5','','For Danish overseas countries and territories, ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects is mandatory. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','11/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective8','A8_1','','Denmark has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing in 2009, and in addition supported an ABS Ministers Conference in March 2010 in Namibia. National legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on ABS is under development, and Denmark raises public awareness of ABS issues. While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, the common Nordic genebank NordGen is using the sMTA. While no statistics on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is available, the Government has declared a national target addressing timber trade and timber procurement and has launched guidance on public procurement of timber. Many import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens were issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.  ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','19/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','National legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing is under development. Regular meetings are arranged by Ministry of Environment with representatives from the private sector, research institutions, other ministries and with NGOs on ABS matters.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Denmark provided DKK300,000 for five CBD meetings, which include the 8th meeting of the ABS Working Group in 2009. In addition, Denmark provided DKK600,000 for the participation of indigenous and local community representatives in the 8th and 9th meetings of the ABS Working Group and the 6th meeting of the Article 8(j) Working Group. In 2009 the Danish Government further decided to financially support an ABS Ministers Conference in March 2010 in Namibia. The funding was of approximately EUR0.5mio. The Conference supported the African Ministers of Environment and their ABS National Focal Points to coordinate and develop further the African positions in the international ABS negotiations and provided an opportunity to exchange views on critical matters with Ministers from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and Norway. The conference was arranged by the “ABS Africa Initiative”.','','The amount indicated for 2009 was calculated through an equal allocation to each of the meetings indicated, using the exchange rate of 1 January 2009.','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, the common Nordic genebank NordGen is using the sMTA.','','The majority of Danish ex situ conserved PGRFA material is stored in the common Nordic genebank, NordGen. When implementing the treaty, we started at the Nordic level, that is with material in NordGen. NordGen is now using the sMTA and has informed about  the sMTA on its website.','','22/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective8','A8_1_4','','Statistics addressing the issue are not available. However, wood consumption in Denmark corresponds to approx. 7-8 million cbm raw wood equivalents annually. The annual Danish timber production is approx. 2-2½ million cmb. Thus an estimated 5-6 cbm raw wood equivalents or just about 60-70 % are net imports, with the lions share in terms of volume being imported as construction wood and paper. No statistics account for the share of, for example, certified timber. An estimated 85-90 % of all imports of wood based products (per value) to Denmark is exported from other EU countries. A large share of the imports is supposed to originate from certified sources even if the timber is not sold and marketed as certified (due either lack of CoC-certification amongst Denmark retailers or lack of demand). The Danish government has declared a national target addressing timber trade and timber procurement. Thus, in the 2009 strategy on sustainable development (Growth with Care) it is stated that: The government will promote legal and sustainable forest management both through initiatives in relation to timber trade and through policy on public procurement of legal and sustainable timber. The goal is to eliminate the presence of illegally produced timber in the market and that public and private purchasers actively seek to buy legal and sustainable timber. To these ends the government supports the adoption of an ambitious EU due diligence regulation, which prohibits the marketing of illegal timber in the EU, and promotes a public procurement policy for timber aiming to increase public demand for verifiably legal and sustainable timber, e.g. verified by certified forest products. Guidance on public procurement of timber has been launched in 2003 and 2006. New and improved guidance is under development.','','','','23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 1993, 426 and 415, respectively. There were no import, export or re-export applications denied. The number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 61 for 2007 and 79 for 2008, representing a net increase of 18. As to capacity-building at the national level, The Danish CITES authorities provided oral or written advice/guidance and training to the Management Authority and the enforcement authorities and oral or written advice/guidance to traders and the public. Denmark has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Denmark paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2009, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2009 was used.','','18/02/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Denmark','Objective9','','','','','','http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Klima-%20og%20Energipolitik/klimatilpasningsstrategi_UK_web.pdf','25/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Danish National biomass strategy issues will be included into the NREAP.','','','','11/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Klima-%20og%20Energipolitik/klimatilpasningsstrategi_UK_web.pdf','25/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Denmark','Objective9','A9_4_3','','More studies relevant in this field can be accessed with the links hereunder. Denmark also refers to a catalogue of 14 indicators which demonstrate the impact on climate change on terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems in the Nordic region (findings published in \"Signs of Climate Change in Nordic Countries”','','','\"Signs of Climate Change in Nordic Countries\", to be ordered from www.norden.org/order   (TemaNord 2009:51)http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/MB13.pdf National reports in the framework of UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','23/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','MandE','C1_2','','Estonia currently implements one of the SEBI indicators: nationally designated protected areas. The Estonian environmental indicator system is still under development and cannot be considered an official complete set as there has not been yet a decision on it at state level','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and additional information provided by Estonia. As mentioned in the answer to the EEA survey, the Estonian environmental indicator system is still under development and cannot be considered an official complete set as there has not been yet a decision on it at state level. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink','05/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','MandE','C1_2_1','','Estonia currently implements one of the SEBI indicators: nationally designated protected areas.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and additional information provided by Estonia.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink','05/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','MandE','C1_3_1','','Monitoring schemes exist for the following habitats: coastal landscapes and meadows; alvars and heaths; dry and wooded meadows, floodplain meadows, coastal meadows, agriculture landscapes; bogs, fens, forest and moor fire zones; forests, and forests on clint. There is a range of monitoring schemes for all the vertebrate groups, for invertebrates, plants, fungi and soil biodiversity.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','08/03/2010','     ','',' 09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Funding programmes for biodiversity relate in particular to the financing of activities under the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP), which includes, among others, funding for the preservation of landscapes and biological diversity. Local budget financing was the most extensive in the field of water management. The State Budget Strategy 2007-2010 provides the principles of the government for composing the state budget within four years, as well as the priorities and goals for use of the EU funding within the 2007 – 2013 period. The foreword to the document mentions, among others, preservation of the unique natural environment as a detail of a more flexible and sustainable model of the welfare society nature capital, including biodiversity. As a part of Priority 4: Lower environmental load, preservation of biodiversity as a basis for assuring generally favourable environment is seen, mostly by means of Natura 2000 areas and other protected areas and general nature protection management. The applied action plan of the document for environment includes measure 2.3 Preservation of biodiversity and securing sustainable use of natural resources as an investment from the European Regional Fund.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Estonia spent up to EUR816,337 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites.','','The information on national programmes is taken from Estonia’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Estonia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward and the zero figures for restoration above do not reflect that Estonia does indeed fund restoration. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Measure1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Estonia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR21.7m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR12.2m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) also EUR12.2m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','08/03/2010','     ','     ','06/01/2010','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Measure1','B1_1_8','','According to the EU Biodiversa project, in 2006 the total annual funding for biodiversity research in Estonia amounted to approximately € 2.8M. The Ministry of Education and Research is the main biodiversity research funder. There are no specific programmes for funding for biodiversity. The sums given below refer to funding research fields connected to biodiversity research from two general per review R&D funding instruments: targeted funding by the Ministry of Education and Research according to the proposal of Scientific Competence Council and research grants allocated by the Estonian Science Foundation. The majority of biodiversity research is funded from these budgets. However, these funds are included under an overall environment and natural sciences research headline. A separation is currently not possible. The funded topics include ecology, biosystematics and -physiology, forest science, and agricultural sciences, state of the environment and environmental protection research, environmental hazardous substances, environmental politics, environmental economy, and law. The Ministry of Education and Research environmental research funds for the years 2006 to 2009 are as follows: 2006: 5,477,031 EUR, 2007: 5,837,759 EUR, 2008: 7,167,235 EUR, and 2009: 6,741,247 EUR. Research can also be funded by the Environmental Investments Fund (species inventories, monitoring, research, birds survey) that has allocated the following funds for the years 2006 and 2009: 2006: 255,624 EUR, 2007: 657,115 EUR, 2008: 464,035, and EUR 2009: 50,971 EUR. There are funds allocated for biodiversity monitoring by the Environmental Board (a subsidiary of the Ministry of Environment). The funds allocated for the years 2006 and 2009 were: 2006: 255,624 EUR, 2007: 153,846 EUR, 2008: 192,308 EUR, 2009: 170,929 EUR, and 2010: 160,256 EUR. The Ministry of Agriculture is devising research and development programmes within the field of activity of the Ministry and organising their implementation. The annual funding for biodiversity research amounted to approximately € 0,1M (data from the 2006 EU Biodiversa project). Overview of current agricultural research: In agricultural science there is the Estonian Agricultural Research Development Plan 2007 – 2013, which foresees the preservation of the following fields of research: plant breeding; developing environmentally friendly and effective plant breeding technologies; rural economy and its sustainable development; research on the protection and monitoring of the agricultural environment; food safety and biological diversity. There is the National Programme \"Applied Research and Development in Agriculture. 2004-2008\" and \"Applied Research and Development in Agriculture 2009-2013\" which includes the topics of food safety and health, plant production and plant health, animal husbandry (including aquaculture), activities supporting agriculture, research in rural economy and social study. The funds are: 2006 1,528,759 EUR, 2007 1,602,379, EUR 2008 1,832,357 EUR, 2009 1,161,525 EUR, and 2010 1,373,592 EUR, The main goals and tasks of activities are defined in the National Programmes „Collection and Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2002–2006“ and “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007–2013“. The objectives of the programme are as follows: collection, conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources of Estonian origin; characterization, evaluation and documentation of accessions; development of the online searchable database (cooperation with the Nordic Genebank); regional and international cooperation. The characterisation and evaluation of accessions is a main task of genebanks and will result in further utilisation of collections. These efforts are directed towards further co-operation between plant genetic resources holders, to assure the most efficient exchange of information and preserved germplasm. The funds are: 2006 161,703 EUR, 2007 160,744 EUR, 2008 185,670 EUR, 2009 191,423 EUR, and 2010 191,423 EUR. National Programme \"National programme for plant breeding 2009-2019\". The aim of the national programme for plant breeding is to guarantee the sustainable development of plant breeding in Estonia and to safeguard the preservative breeding of the existing varieties by means of a funding scheme for coordinated activities. Other objectives include the increase in the competitiveness of the Estonian agricultural sector (production, processing); healthy and safe food; sustainable use of natural and environmental resources, preservation of genetic and landscape diversity; and mitigation of threats arising from climatic change. 2009 430,142 EUR, and 2010 557,970 EUR','','As statistics do not allow us to separate sums especially dedicated for biodiversity research and sums above include also other research aspects, all of those sums cannot be taken for biodiversity research only and therefore we did not put an amount into above boxes. ','Reference or title:Weblink:See links from Target: A10.1. https://www.etis.ee/index.aspx','3/03/2010','     ','','09/05/2010     ',''),
	('Estonia','Measure2','B2_4','','The Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 will be adopted in 2010. It is an umbrella strategic document, involving all areas regulated under the Conservation on Biological Diversity (CBD), including areas that do not have any strategic documents so far (e.g. protection of nature outside of protected areas, soil, biosafety, and alien species). The Development Plan is based on Environmental Strategy until 2030 and on the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also takes into account also other international conventions  such as the European Landscape Convention. The Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’ as such is not the basis of the document, but indirectly the principles of it have been incorporated into the development plan.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','1/03/2010','     ','',' 19/03/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, in 2009, a scientific research centre FIBIR (Frontiers in Biodiversity Research) in Tartu University was created with the aim, among others, to promote business and biodiversity partnerships. ','','One of the FIBIR first projects with the private sector was to develop across ecosystems regionally, and globally repeatable bio monitoring tools based on environmental DNA. Other examples of initiatives are mentioned in the agriculture and forestry related parts of the report. There is a regular round table organised by the Ministry of Environment with the Estonian Council Environmental NGOs.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','     20/03/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Measure3','B3_1_2','','The Forestry Council was created by the Minister of Environment in 2007 (order nr 1319) to support the implementation of Forestry Development Plan and the involvement of the various stakeholders for solving strategic problems in forestry. Members of the Council include: Estonian University of Life Sciences, Centre of Forest Protection and Silviculture, Estonian Private Forestry Union, Estonian Fund for Nature, Estonian Forest Industries Association, State Forest Management Centre, Environmental Board, Private Forest Centre, Environmental Inspectorate and Ministry of Environment (the head of the council). Other partnerships include the contract system in forestry (set by Forest Act) for preserving valuable forest habitats (protected by forest owners). Farming and biodiversity partnerships include those where farmers apply for support under agri-environment measures. ','','It is difficult to quantify the number of partnerships.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','','     ','','     20/03/10',''),
	('Estonia','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Estonia does not have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development of biodiversity and planning partnerships.  ','','Although no forum or similar platform/framework are set up for biodiversity and planning partnership,   under the Planning Act, all plans have to be made public during the preparatory process. This enables all stakeholders to participate in the planning process. Some efforts have been made at sectoral planning level, for instance there is under compilation handbook for road planners on wildlife passages held by the Estonian Road Agency. Some municipalities have used expert advice on updating local level green network plans and integrated these in their comprehensive plans','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for EstoniaWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','03/03/2010','     ','     ','11/12/2009','  20/03/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. However, in 2009, a scientific research centre FIBIR (Frontiers in Biodiversity Research) in Tartu University was created with the aim, among others, to promote business and biodiversity partnerships. ','','One of the FIBIR first projects with the private sector was to develop across ecosystems regionally, and globally repeatable bio monitoring tools based on environmental DNA. Other examples of initiatives are mentioned in the agriculture and forestry related parts of the report. There is a regular round table organised by the Ministry of Environment with the Estonian Council Environmental NGOs.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','     20/03/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage biodiversity partnerships with the finance sector. However, some companies and banks have supported biodiversity related activities on their own initiative (e.g. gathering funds for flying squirrel, supporting species at the zoo etc). The Estonian Environmental Investments Fund under Ministry of Finance finances projects from environmental usage fees. These funds are available for businesses to apply.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','  20/03/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','     ','','    19/03/2010 ',''),
	('Estonia','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. ','','      The EU BAP will be covered in the Nature Conservation Development plan until 2020 which will be adopted in summer 2010.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','1/03/2010 ','     ','','   24/04/2010  ',''),
	('Estonia','Measure4','B4_1_2','',' The Estonian Ministry of Environment made a declaration in support of the 2010 Countdown Initiative on 20th October 2006. Estonia joined IUCN at the end of 2007. As part of this, Estonia declared that a biodiversity development plan and related detailed action plan for years 2007-2013 would be drafted and adopted in 2007 with the 2010 target as one of the main objectives.  No funding contributions appear to have been made by Estonia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','Although there have not been direct contributions to the Countdown 2010 initiative, Estonia has paid its annual contribution (10 000 EUR) to IUCN since joining. ','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown InitiativeWeblink: unpublished','03/03/2010','     ','     ','11/12/2009','     19/03/10'),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_1','','','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine Baltic Coastal habitats3100%00%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats990%110%00%00%00%10Dunes habitats563%113%00%225%00%8Freshwater habitats00%229%457%114%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Sclerophyllous scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands338%563%00%00%00%8Bogs, mires & fens00%563%225%113%00%8Rocky habitats375%125%00%00%00%4Forests110%660%330%00%00%10','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','03/03/2010','     ','    ','12/01/2010','    09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Estonia has designated 531 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 11,321 km², totalling 16.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 36 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 3716 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 66, with a total area of 12,592 km², totalling 13.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 26, with a marine area of 6654 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available. The total amount of Natura 2000 areas in the marine environment is 45.1 % (out of this 51.3 % are SPA and 32.9 % SCI areas). However, it is currently not possible to calculate how much of the territorial waters are covered by Natura 2000 areas. ','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','03/03/2010','','     ','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Estonia has 531 Natura 2000 sites. Management plans have been compiled and adopted for 3.5% of the areas and are in the last stages of preparation for 20% of the areas. However, many Natura sites are already partly covered with management plans, which might not cover the whole Natura 2000 area (there are different protected areas in one Natura site). So the actual coverage of the areas by management plans is bigger. In addition, in 2010 Estonia is planning to order another 78 management plans. Management plans for all Natura sites are planned to be ready by 2013.','','One management body has been established to manage all the Natura 2000 sites.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','08/03/2010','     ','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_2_3','','The following information corresponds to the information provided in Measure of Progress 4.3. Green network protection in Estonia is regulated by law. The Planning Act enacts that one of the objectives of the national spatial plan is to create the basis for a system ensuring the preservation of various types of ecosystems and landscapes and balancing the impact of settlement systems and economic activities; the system is comprised of natural and semi-natural biotic communities (hereafter green network). The National Spatial Plan Estonia 2010 is in force until the end of 2010 and the new National Spatial Plan Estonia 2030+ is currently in preparation. On the lower level of planning one of the objectives of the County plan is to plan measures to ensure the preservation of natural resources, valuable arable land, landscapes and natural biotic communities, and the functioning of the green network, as well as take account, in planning, of protected areas and of the provisions for their use and, where necessary, to make proposals for the amendment of such provisions, the establishment of new protected areas or the termination of the protection regime. As a thematic plan for the County Plans the specified plans “Green Network” have been composed. The main aim of the “Green Network” plans is to prevent that the network will be fragmentized by the developments planned by the comprehensive and detailed plans. Through these regulations and plans the green network should be protected in Estonia, although there might sometimes be the problem that the green network protection is not always the first priority. As comprehensive and detailed plans can suggest changes in county plans, which can threaten the integrity of the green network. Also the conceptual basis and meaning of the green network should much more be explained to planners, as currently many cases within the green network are treated as social value and kept as recreational land for human beings, building sport facilities etc; it is not always understood to be kept as a migratory corridor network for wild species. As according to the Planning Act the national spatial plan shall be prepared in co-operation between the county governors, county local government associations and ministries; and a county plan in co-operation between the local governments of the planning area, the county governors of counties neighbouring the planning area, the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries whose area of government covers matters treated in the planning; we can say that there is a mechanism for interministerial coordination which addresses inclusion of ecological network considerations in spatial planning. Protection of the green network is covered by planning, but this, however, is not always considered sufficient legal protection. Also, compensatory measures for private properties that are in green corridors and therefore can be in principle restricted at their activities have not been drafted yet. In forestry in addition to a high proportion of forest cover and planned buffer zones around habitats, the Forest Act favours narrow clear-cut areas, strips along streams and waterbodies, maintaining key habitats and retention trees in commercial forests to strengthen coherence and connectivity. ','','','Reference or title:','03/03/2010','','','     09/05/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 254 regularly occurring bird species in Estonia, 6 are globally Near-threatened and 3 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Estonia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 2 of 2 (100%) mammals was reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, the conservation status of 3 of the 9 (33%) amphibians and reptiles, 11 of 23 (48%) mammals and 7 of the 25 (28%) plants are in a favourable condition. 5 of the 9 (56%) fish and 14 of the 25 (56%) plants, are in an unfavourable-inadequate and so are 4 of the 9 (44%) amphibians and reptiles and 15 of the 29 (52%) invertebrates. The conservation status of 2 of the 9 (22%) fish is in an unfavourable-bad condition. 11 of the 29 (38%) invertebrates, 9 of the 23 (39%) mammals and 2 of the 9 (22%) fish were reported unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below.Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrencesNumber of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Baltic Amphibians and reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Fish00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%2100%00%00%00%2Plants00%00%00%00%00%0BorealAmphibians and reptiles333%444%111%111%00%9Fish00556%222%222%00%9Invertebrates27%1552%13%1138%00%29Mammals1148%14%29%939%00%23Plants728%1456%14%312%00%25','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International data                         Weblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','03/03/2010','     ','','12/01/2010','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Estonia has the following completed species action plans: 10 for birds, 5 for mammals, 2 for amphibians and reptiles, and 7 for plants. In addition, the following action plans are in preparation: 1 for birds, 1 for invertebrates and 5 for plants. Estonia has developed indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes; the Farmland Bird Index has been developed and is used. The Red Data List was first compiled in 1979 and the latest update was made in 2008 (in this version reptiles were not assessed). According to the Red Data Book out of 4300 assessed species (16% of total species number) 1296 (30%) are under threat.','','Concerning species action plans, the numbers indicated are the ones that have been adopted or in the last stages before adoption. In 2010 there are plans to start preparing species actions plans for another 73 protected species. ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://elurikkus.ut.ee/prmt.php?lang=eng','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective10','A10_1','','Estonia does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, but biodiversity research is incorporated into other research programmes. The majority of biodiversity research in Estonia is funded by Ministry of Education and Research as well as by its subsidiary agency Estonian Science Foundation. Research can also be funded by Environmental Investment Fund (species inventories, monitoring, research, birds survey) and by Environmental Board (monitoring). The National Programme on Environmental Technology and Research which is currently under preparation will include biodiversity research. With regards to research in agriculture, The Estonian Agricultural Research Development Plan 2007 – 2013 foresees the preservation of the following fields of research in the institutions belonging to the governance of the Ministry of Agriculture: plant breeding; developing environmentally friendly and effective plant breeding technologies; rural economy and its sustainable development; research on the protection and monitoring of the agricultural environment; food safety and biological diversity.','',' ','Reference or title:Weblink: Estonian Science Foundation http://www.etf.ee/  Ministry of Education and Research http://www.hm.ee/index.php?0 Environmental Investment Center http://kik.ee/?setlang=eng https://www.etis.ee/index.aspx','03/03/2010','     ','','   19/03/2010  ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Estonia does not currently have any plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. ','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:      ','05/03/2010','     ','','  19/03/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective10','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Estonia’s national bioplatform was developed in the form of  EELIS, an Estonian Nature Infosystem. It is a central national database which includes information such as protected areas in Estonia, protected nature monuments, list of species protected in Estonia, list of habitats protected in Estonia, legislative acts of protected species and a database of water bodies. The website is used by nature conservation specialists, administrators of protected areas, research institutes and government bodies. EELIS is administered by the Estonian Environment Infocentre of the Nature Bureau. EESLIS is not the only platform disseminating biodiversity-related information in Estonia. There is also the Estonian Biodiversity Clearing-House Mechanism and a biodiversity database eElurikkus held by the University of Tartu. In 2009, the scientific centre FIBIF (Frontiers in Biodiversity) of University of Tartu was created. It concentrates specificially on biodiversity research and one of its aims is also to promote the science-policy interface and partnerships. ','','','Reference or title: European Bioplatform websitehttp://www.bioplatform.info/index.htmEPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info eElurikkus:  http://elurikkus.ut.ee/   ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','19/03/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Estonia became a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in September 2003. Estonia currently hosts 34,561 records for the country shared on GBIF. Estonia has also recently established a task force of taxonomy and phylogenetics under the Academy of Sciences of Estonia that has started to coordinate data streamlining into GBIF databases from Estonia.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.The Institute of Zoology and Botany of the Estonian Agricultural University (renamed The Estonian University of Life Sciences in 2005) is the Estonian organisation participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). They are members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums, which provide other ENBI Work Packages and the ENBI Community at large with a communication space and also consolidates outcomes of the communications as an open access information resource.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','02/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','   19/03/2010  '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Estonia:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture: Requirement 1: natural features and grasslands placed under protection according to the Nature Conservation Act, the requirement for mowing and/or grazing must be met by 20 August.Requirement 2: when grass is mown it must be gathered by 31 July; cutting is allowed from 1 July. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Damaging or destroying individual protected natural features is prohibited under the Nature Conservation Act and immovable monuments under the Heritage Conservation Act. Other additional GAEC measures related to biodiversity include:Arable stubble management: burning forage, hay and straw on agricultural land is prohibited. Requirements for crop rotation plans (except for permanent grassland, fruit crops and berries or medicinal plants or herbs or in case of a field smaller than 0.3 ha).','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfRegulation on GAEC\'s https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/ert.jsp?link=searchRes   ','03/03/2010','','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Estonia total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 723.74 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 934.95 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 267.57 million EUR, and 334.46 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 36.97 and 35.77 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Estonia was 168.71 million EUR (210.89 with co-financing) and amounted to 23.31 per cent of the EAFRD (22.56 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 6.92 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.96 per cent of EAFRD) and 31.44 million EUR of public expenditure (0.93 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 25.15 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (3.48 per cent of EAFRD) and 31.44 million EUR of public expenditure (3.36 per cent of public expenditure). There are no forest-environment payments (measure 225) for Estonia for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.530.662Agri-environment payments (214)2.6293.286Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/03/2010 ','','','',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','There is no national strategy covering all types of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds is promoted in the Estonian Nature Conservation Development Plan and through the Estonian National Programme “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013”. The Programme aims to collect, conserve and sustainably use genetic plant resources of Estonian origin; to describe, evaluate and document them; to develop an online searchable database (in cooperation with the Nordic Genebank); and to participate in international cooperation. The budget for the Programme from 2007-2013 is approximately 1,350,000 EUR. In addition, the national biodiversity strategy and action plan refer to the conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds and races. Information is provided on commercial tree species and a 10,000 EUR genetic resources project has been established for the Purdi spruce tree (15.6 ha). A Ministry of Agriculture regulation provides protection for listed endangered livestock breeds (1 bovid and 3 horses). Most of these also have conservation and breeding programs, which are supported by RDP measures.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:      ','05/03/2010','     ','','    12/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Estonia in this regard, and thus no payments were made. However, according to reporting by the Member State, the following local endangered breeds and crop varieties are supported in the framework of the Estonian Rural Development Plan 2007 – 2013: Estonian native cattle, Estonian native horse, Tori horse and Estonian heavy draught; winter rye variety \"Sangaste\".','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','03/03/2010 ','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation into account. A limited list of foreign tree species (13) is allowed for afforestation (e.g. forest regeneration).No national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to deforestation into account. Nevertheless, in addition to high proportion of forest cover and planned buffer zones around habitats, the national Forest Act favours narrow clear-cut areas, strips along streams and water bodies, and the maintenance of key habitats and retention trees in commercial forests to strengthen coherence and connectivity.According to the Member State, no planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. However, other tools have been implemented. The strategic objectives on forestry are derived from the Estonian Forestry Development plan up to 2010. It stipulates that the productivity, renewal capacity and vitality of forests must be preserved to ensure the long- and short-term production of benefits from forests. The preservation of all of the current elements of biological diversity in Estonian forests must also be guaranteed. Deforestation is only allowed if a valid planning document (detail plan) exists. The area of deforestation is ca 1000-1500 ha annually, being 10 times lower than natural afforestation of unused agricultural lands during previous years. Deforestation measures are set by the national Forest Act and other related acts. ','04/03/2010','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, List of allowed alien tree species for afforestation Weblink: http://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=771527 ','','','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Estonia had a total certified forest area of 1.08 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.28 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Estonia was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 47.41 per cent of the total forest area. According to reporting by the Member State, most of the certified forest was state owned. Also some private forest was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','05/03/2010','','     ','','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Estonia amounted to 0.38 million ha, representing a share of 22.5 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area.According to reporting by the Member State, national HNV areas in agriculture currently include all semi-natural habitats covered by the Natura 2000 network. Related sites amount to 57,000 ha, of which 21,000 ha are supported by the national Rural Development Programme.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented by Estonia:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture: Requirement 1: natural features and grasslands placed under protection according to the Nature Conservation Act, the requirement for mowing and/or grazing must be met by 20 August.Requirement 2: when grass is mown it must be gathered by 31 July; cutting is allowed from 1 July. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Damaging or destroying individual protected natural features is prohibited under the Nature Conservation Act and immovable monuments under the Heritage Conservation Act. Other additional GAEC measures related to biodiversity include:Arable stubble management: burning forage, hay and straw on agricultural land is prohibited. Requirements for crop rotation plans (except for permanent grassland, fruit crops and berries or medicinal plants or herbs or in case of a field smaller than 0.3 ha).',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfRegulation on GAEC\'s https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/ert.jsp?link=searchRes   ','03/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'     12/05/2010   ',NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. RDP measure 1.1 provides training and information activities for priority topics including environmental-friendly agriculture, organic production and forestry issues  related to biodiversity and cross-compliance etc. Measure 1.3 provides support for an advisory system and services, that provide advice to agricultural producers and private forest owners. Advice is given by agricultural advisors, who have been trained in issues connected to biodiversity, cross compliance and environmental friendly agriculture.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.    ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:      ','02/03/2010','','','','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_8','',' National monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (as compulsory baseline and impact indicators).HNV farming.An additional programme-specific biodiversity impact indicator has also been developed for bumble bees. The monitoring, which started in 2006 and is coordinated by Agricultural Research Centre, is carried out annually at 66 monitoring sites.In Estonia there are two different monitoring schemes for compulsory baseline indicator ‘Population of farmland birds’ and impact indicator ‘Reversing biodiversity decline (change in trend in biodiversity decline as measured by farmland bird species population)’. This has caused some problems, and the quality of the baseline indicator is very low as it is based on the Estonian National Bird Monitoring Scheme which has few sample sites on agricultural land. The monitoring of the bird impact indicator is coordinated by Agricultural Research Centre for the evaluation of agri-environment schemes, and the monitoring methodology is different to that used for the baseline indicator. The monitoring of the bird impact indicator started in 2005 (30 monitoring areas and from 2006 66 monitoring areas) and is carried out every year. In the context of the Estonian RDP and HNV baseline indicator, HNV areas are considered to be semi-natural habitats. According to the advice of the Ministry of Environment, only Natura 2000 sites are currently considered as supported areas of HNV farming and forestry in the RDP and all indicators (including obligatory indicators) in the frame of RDP relate to semi-natural communities. However, according to the CMEF, HNV farmland areas should include more than just semi-natural areas. The Agricultural Research Centre has therefore started to define HNV farmland more broadly, although no monitoring schemes have been put in place yet.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','08/03/2010','     ','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 9 million € has been added to the Estonian national Rural Development programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Estonia provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’. ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','02/03/2010','     ','','     ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are herby mandatory.  In addition, projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. In 1995, a National Monitoring Programme started on earthworm diversity in Estonian agriculturally used soils (including natural grassland soils). Monitoring parameters included: abundance of earthworm community, number of species, abundance of species, ecological structure of community (relative importance of ecological groups), relative importance of dominant species Aporrectodea caliginosa in arable soils, microbial biomass SIR and respiration activity. In the framework of the Agri-Environmental (AE) Programme, the monitoring of earthworms and biomass activity started in 2004 and lasted until 2008. The number of monitoring sites was about 10-36, depending on the year. The goal of monitoring was to identify the impact of AE measures on soil biodiversity according to different farming types. The results indicate the positive influence of organic farming on the number of earthworm species, sensitive to farming and biomass activity. In 2009, the elaboration of a new soil biodiversity indicator – abundance and species diversity of Collembola – was started. If the method turns out to be suitable for description of arable land soil biodiversity, the introduction of a monitoring programme including the indicator will start. Other factors influencing soil biodiversity are monitored in the framework of the National Environmental Monitoring Programme (started in 1983), which currently involves 30 monitoring sites and has a monitoring interval of 5 years. It is responsible for especially monitoring parameters which describe the change in soil organic matter status by the use of the following parameters: depth of humus horizon, content of humus (%) and the stock of humus (t/ha). 2008/2009 results showed positive trends of organic matter status where in most of the monitoring sites the depth of humus horizon, content of humus and stock of humus had been stable or had slightly increased. Only for three monitoring sites out of 16, the parameters describing organic matter status had decreased. In addition, bulk density was determined at the same monitoring sites to observe the compaction of agricultural soils. Results showed an increasing trend towards more compacted soils, with potentially negative influence on soil biodiversity.Between 2006 and 2009, several studies were carried out to identify the geographical risk areas for wind and water erosion. The GIS queries and analyses of the Estonian soil map in conjunction with data from ARIB (Agricultural Registers and Information Board) indicated that soils vulnerable to water erosion exist on 40,000 ha of ARIB registered land, of which 16,000 ha is arable land. Although this finding means 40 per cent of agricultural land is at risk from water erosion, the proportion of arable land varies considerably from one county to another. The use of water erodible soils for arable land is greater in counties, in which intensity of erosion is low and the proportion of erodible soils is fairly small (27-54 per cent). Estimates, based on the GIS queries, indicated that wind erodible soils comprised approximately 100,000 ha of Estonia’s agricultural land, of which about 34 per cent are high wind erosion risk arable fields. The Universal Soil Loss Equation model enabled to estimate the average soil erosion intensity of fields covered by natural vegetation as a low rate of 0.04 t ha-1 y-1, even in the high risk areas (i.e counties where the eroded soils are wide spread). However, changes in land use from natural vegetation to intensively managed arable land accelerate the intensity of soil erosion to 0.43 t ha-1 y-1.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.   ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eelis.ic.envir.ee:88/seireveeb/index.php?id=13&act=show_reports&subact=&prog_id=628219542&subprog_id=937429638    http://eelis.ic.envir.ee:88/seireveeb/index.php?id=13&act=show_reports&subact=&prog_id=95920640&subprog_id=-2087961898  http://pmk.agri.ee/pkt/index.php?valik=53&keel=1&template=template_test.html  ','03/03/2010','','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 86 per cent of the boreal freshwater habitats in Estonia have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 14 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','     ','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Estonia.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U12  U24       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','05.03.2010','     ','     ','     ','   12/05/2010     '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Estonia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 1.66 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.52 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly below the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data remained the same between 2002 and 2005, amounting to 0.08 mg N/l in 2002 and 2005 and with a peak of 0.11 mg N/l in 2003. 2005 values were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.32 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.29 mg N/l in 2005, but with a peak of 1.47 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were slightly below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 6.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 4.8 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 7.1 mg NO3/l in 2003. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.034 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.029 mg P/l in 2005, but with a peak of 0.044 mg P/l in 2003. 2005 values are well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a downward trend, decreasing from 0.057 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.047 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values slightly below the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes.The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink:http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Estonia had a total number of 21 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 75 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has increased, though at the same time the number of all inland bathing waters has decreased. ','     ','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','     ','     ','     ','','     '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Estonia developed three out of four biological assessment methods for lakes, with the exception fish fauna. However, all methods on biological assessment for rivers were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). All biological assessment methods for coastal waters were under development or the information was incomplete','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','In 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Estonia under the Water Framework Directive.','No additionl comments','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives.','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, in October 2009 Estonia had a total number of 112 IPPC installations and issued 86 permits. 0 permits were outstanding. According to reporting by the Member State, at the end of 2009 the following applied:Number of installations: 90 Total number of permits issued: 90 Total number of outstanding permits: 0 ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ee/eu/ippc/envst2_ja ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','    12/05/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, In 2008 Estonia’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic (NMVOCs) compounds were well below the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Emissions are also expected to remain below these targets levels in 2010, although a slight increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and  NMVOC is further anticipated for 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','03/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','  12/05/2010      '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Estonia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 67 per cent respectively, considering an area of 24,728 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will still be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 57 per cent in 2010 and 47 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 5 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink:http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','03/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','   12/05/2010     '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, Estonia’s gross nitrogen balance was 63kg/ha with mineral fertilizers (161kg/ha with organic fertilizers) kilogram of nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 10 per cent (42 per cent) compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information availablePercentages have been calculated based on information provided by the Member State.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 1994, Estonia’s national farmland bird indicator had decreased by 24.6 per cent from the 1990 baseline. By 2006 the indicator was at 91.9 per cent, an 8.1 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 12 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','08/03/2010','     ','','',''),
	('Estonia','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Estonia generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status in Estonia are the boreal grassland habitats, where 38 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining boreal grassland habitats have an unfavourable status). The only existing boreal heath and scrub habitat in Estonia has an unknown conservation status. The highest percentage (90 per cent) of unfavourable conservation status is found in the boreal forest habitats of Estonia, the remaining 10 per cent have a favourable status. The majority of the boreal peat land habitats in Estonia have an unfavourable conservation status (88 per cent), the status of the remaining peat land habitat is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Estonia.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U15  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10910090%10%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10910090%10%0%0%U16  U23       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8701088%0%13%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8701088%0%13%0%U15  U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/03/2010 ','','     ','',''),
	('Estonia','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL).Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole.In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','01/03/2010','na','     ','10/12/2009','na     '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Estonia found that of the three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all had a ‘Favourable’ status (100%). There were ten coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region—nine had a ‘Favourable’ status (90%) and the remaining one had an ‘Inadequate’ status.  There were two marine species assessed, both mammals, and both had an ‘Inadequate’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below: Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticMarine habitats3100%00%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats990%110%00%00%00%10SpeciesBiogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%2100%00%00%00%0The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','     ','     ','10/12/2009','25/03/2010     '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Estonia reported that, in 2009, it had 55 surveillance stations and 0 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Estonia has 16 coastal water bodies. About 100% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Methods for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates and for monitoring macroalgae or angiosperm were under development. Programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is developed in the frames of water management plans of WFD (which are currently in the final stages of adoption in government).','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework','09/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10','  19/03/10   '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_1_5','','An ICZM plan/strategy is being developed','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','08/03/2010','     ','','   19/03/2010  ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_2','','Estonia has 28 coastal bathing waters. In 2008 100% of these reached the mandatory water quality standard which has been an improvement from 91.2% in 1996 and 1997. Under half of coastal bathing waters currently reach the stricter guideline standard (42.9% in 2008), with similar percentages in 2006 (47.1%) and 2007 (42.9%). In terms of nutrient concentrations, there has been no change in nitrogen concentrations between 1985 and 2005, but one sampling station out of the three in Baltic coastal waters off Estonia has shown a decrease in phosphate concentrations.','','-','Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387','09/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink:2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_4','','Estonia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €20,352,708 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and introducing more environmentally friendly fishing measures. Axis 2 (€32,778,572) contributes to the sustainability of the aquaculture sector. Axis 3 (€28,279,552) involves improving the selectivity of fishing gear and restoring spawning grounds and Axis 4 (€25,708,684) promotes socio-economic diversification.','','-','Reference or title:Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/8&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','01/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10',' 12/5/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL).Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole.In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','01/03/2010','na','     ','10/12/2009','na     '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. Estonia had 994 vessels operating in 2006. Although the commission report on MS behaviours that infringed rules of the CFP did not record any serious infringements by the Estonian fleet, more up to date records from the Estonian Environmental Inspectorate (and sent to the commission in February 2009) record 32 serious infringements in 2006 (representing 3.2% of the fleet). ','01/03/2010','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','     ','     ','13/01/10','12/5/2010     '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Estonia has two relevant plans for the management of salmon: 1. IBSFC Salmon Action Plan 1997-2010 and 2. State program for reproduction and re-stocking of fish 2002-2010. Through implementation of these plans, Estonia carries out stockings of salmon with the purpose of restoring the natural populations of salmon and sea trout. For the future, Estonia is waiting for a new proposal on salmon management plan from the European Commission.Estonia also has a specific management plan for Eel, developed in 2008. For the purposes of Eel management Estonian water bodies are divided into two management units: 1) Narva River Basin District – where the main measure is to maintain the population of eel through stocking; and 2) West-Estonian Basin District (coastal waters and West-Estonian inland water) where the priority is on reducing fishing pressure to protect the natural eel population. A research project is looking at options for restoring natural river habitats for the enhancement of sea trout spawning and production (2008-2011).  In the context of the Water Framework Directive, Estonia has planned several projects to reopen migratory routes for migratory species to the spawning grounds and habitats.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','02/03/2010','','','     ',' 12/5/2010    '),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Since the break-up of the USSR there have been dramatic reductions in fishing capacity for example out of 75 distant-water fishing vessels there around 12 units now active. Since accession to the EU, Estonia has used FIFG funds to fund specific decommissioning schemes. Estonia’s fishing capacity decreased between 2004 and 2008 from 1053 vessels to 966 vessels (8% reduction); from 24923 tons to 17813 tons (28.5% reduction) and from 63322kW to 45973kW (27% reduction). The Estonian fleet is subject to TAC reductions for cod in the Baltic Sea and to the NAFO rebuilding plan. The operational programme 2007-2013 reports that fishing capacity still exceeds the available resource and will need to be reduced further. It is suggested that a scientific study is carried out to determine the amount of reduction required and the means by which it can be achieved.  ','','2008 data: 966 vessels; 17813 tons; 45973 kW.','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','03/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_6_1','','In terms of Type D infringements of the CFP (which concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats), there were no recorded Type D infringements for Estonia in 2006 or 2007. Estonia has contributed to reduction in by-catch by implementing the Council Regulation 1226/2009 which requires the use of a wider top window codend BACOMA trawl net in the Baltic Sea which reduces the by-catch of juvenile cod.','','-','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','02/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10','     12/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Estonia has undertaken some seabird monitoring but there are no specific monitoring programmes for sharks. The project ‘Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea’ (LIFE05NAT/LV/000100) (2005-2009) included monitoring of seabirds.. During this project by-catches of seabirds was assessed and found to be around 2,200 birds per year in Estonian coastal waters. The main species caught as by catch are  the long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) and tufted duck (Aythya fuligula). ','','     ','Reference or title: Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea Project (LIFE05NAT/LV/000100Weblink: http://www.balticseaportal.net      ','','12/5/2010   ','','     ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','','     ','',' 12/5/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Estonia has 63 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarifications below). All these sites are within territorial waters. There are no offshore Natura 2000 marine sites. It is possible in Estonia to regulate fisheries activities in Natura 2000 sites (within territorial waters) on a case-by-case basis by establishing and implementing protection rules, which are approved by the Government. This has been implemented in some cases (in more than 3 Natura 2000 marine sites).','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data:Marine sites within territorial waters: 38Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. ',' DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','01/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/10','12/5/2010   ');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Estonia has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem will be carried out in the Estonian EEZ; in other areas fishing activities of the Estonian fleet is limited, and therefore sampling for these areas is also limited. However, data concerning other regions will be collected and delivered, if needed, in the frame of international cooperation.  The surveys which contribute to the collection of data for the estimation of ecosystem indicators are Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS Q4), Baltic International Acoustic Survey (Autumn) and Gulf of Riga Acoustic Herring Survey. In addition to the indicators (conservation status of fish species, proportion of large fish, mean maximum length of fishes and size at maturation of exploited fish species) will be calculated for the gill-net test-fishing data available since 1992 (in one area) or 1993-97 (other permanent research areas) VMS data will be available for North Atlantic fisheries from the Environmental Inspectorate.','',' Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Estonian National Programme for collection of fisheries dta for 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1841&folderId=94846&name=DLFE-15005.pdf Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','02/03/2010','          ','','  19/03/2010        ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective3','Objective3','','The mean marine trophic index for Estonian EEZ waters was 3.19 in 2004. This represents a 0.05 decrease since 1999 and a decrease of 0.46 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially over aggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx ','09/03/2010','     ','     ','10/12/2009','    04/05/2010 '),
	('Estonia','Objective4','A4_3','','Green network protection in Estonia is regulated by law. The Planning Act enacts that one of the objectives of the National Spatial Plan is to create the basis for a system ensuring the preservation of various types of ecosystems and landscapes and balancing the impact of settlement systems and economic activities. The system is comprised of natural and semi-natural biotic communities (hereafter green network). The National Spatial Plan Estonia 2010 is in force until the end of 2000, and the new National Spatial Plan Estonia 2030+ is currently under preparation. On the lower level of planning, one of the objectives of the County plan is to determine measures to ensure the preservation of natural resources, valuable arable land, landscapes and natural biotic communities, as well as the functioning of the green network. Besides it seeks to take it into account in planning of protected areas and of the provisions for their use and, where necessary, to make proposals for the amendment of such provisions when establishing new protected areas or terminating a protection regime. As a thematic plan for the County Plans the specified “Green Network” plans have been composed. The main aim of the “Green Network” plans is to prevent fragmentation of the network by comprehensive planning. Through these regulations and plans the green network should be protected in Estonia, although there might sometimes be the problem that the protection is not always the first priority. In fact comprehensive and detailed plans can suggest changes in county plans, and therefore threaten the integrity of the green network. The conceptual basis and meaning of the green network need to be more explained to planners, as currently the green network areas are often treated as social and recreational values, but it is not always understood as a key migratory corridor network for wild species. According to the Planning Act, the national spatial plan shall be prepared in cooperation between the county governors, county local government associations and ministries; and the county plan in cooperation between the local governments of the planning area, the county governors of counties neighbouring the planning area, the Ministry of the Environment and other ministries whose area of government covers matters treated in the planning. There is also a sort of mechanism for interministerial coordination which addresses inclusion of ecological network considerations into spatial planning. Protection of the green network is covered by planning, but this, however, is not always considered sufficient legal protection. Also, compensatory measures for private properties located in green corridors are being drafted and will soon enable to restrict their activities. In forestry in addition to a high proportion of forest cover and planned buffer zones around habitats, the Forest Act favours narrow clear-cut areas, strips along streams and waterbodies, maintaining key habitats and retention trees in commercial forests to strengthen coherence and connectivity.','','   ','Reference or title:     Weblink:','03/03/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective4','A4_4_1','','In 2006 Estonia adopted its National Tourism Development Plan for 2007-2013 which includes a chapter on sustainable tourism. Estonia is also preparing a National Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020, (to be adopted in summer 2010) that will include a chapter on nature tourism and will integrate elements from the CBD Sustainable Tourism Guidelines.','','     ','Estonian National Tourism Development Plan from 2007-2010 http://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12755212','','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Estonian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 46.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). ','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','04/03/2010','     ','     ','04/01/2010','24/04/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Estonia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), however, there is specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. The possession and trade of IAS is not addressed.The Nature Conservation Act (2004, amended 2007) prohibits the introduction of non-native species into the wild. Permits may be granted to fur farms but regulations are in place to prevent escape into the wild. Secondary legislation from 2004 under the Nature Conservation Act provides a list of species it is prohibited to import into Estonia (13 plant species, 30 animal species). Also, all transactions related to these species are prohibited. The Fisheries Act (1995, amended in 2007) prohibits the introduction of alien fish or other aquatic species without written permission from the Minister of Environment. The Environmental Surveillance Act of 2004 contains regulations for the environmental surveillance of organisms potentially harmful to human health or the environment and the Environmental Register Act (2003, amended 2005) contains an obligation for a national environmental database which includes alien species. The alien species database is currently under development by the Estonian Environment Information Centre. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','02/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 43 are present in Estonia. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2. According to the most recent information provided by the Member States 40 of the 163 worst invasive alien species are present in Estonia.  In addition, Cervus Nippon and Pontogammarus robustoides have been eradicated and/or died out naturally.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10, EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','01/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_1_2','','There is currently no national strategy or action plan in Estonia for invasive alien species (IAS). For reasons of limited funding, it is not possible to develop IAS management plans more than once every one or two years. The Nature Conservation Development Plan is currently under development (to be adopted in 2010), with one of its subchapters focused on alien species. However, it is not yet clear whether this plan will deal with IAS in a comprehensive manner.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','02/03/2010 ','     ','     ','     ','     12/05/2010   '),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Estonia has not yet ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. According to the current plans, the convention is to be ratified in 2013.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','02/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','   12/05/2010     '),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to Member State Reporting, Estonian database is mainly based on species information. In some cases information on IAS impacts and the origin / pattern of introduction is documented. Estonia is participating actively in NOBANIS and uses its possibilities and contacts for early warning system. NOBANIS is also developing automated early warning system, which will be used by Estonia.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eelis.ic.envir.ee/voorliigid/    ','02/03/2010','     ','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Co-existence measures are developed in cooperation with Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture. Estonia notified EC from draft of coexistence measures in May 2009 and sent the Answer for EC detailed Opinion in December 2009. They have been revised by the EC and will be adopted in 2010. According to the unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Estonia.','','      According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','1/03/2010','     ','','     12/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted on 5 December 2008, the first 4th National Report submitted to the CBD Secretariat among all CBD Parties. The Estonian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan was published in 1999, however, it has not been formally adopted (it is a guideline document). Instead, Estonia started to develop the Nature Conservation Development Plan until the year 2020 that has most of the elements of the previously mentioned strategy. The development plan is expected to be adopted by the Government in summer 2010.Estonia had paid her annual contribution to the CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention, AEWA and World Heritage Convention.','','','','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective7','A7_1','','Estonia does not provide multilateral biodiversity aid.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Estonia. However, the Estonian Ministry of Environment has a bilateral environmental cooperation project with Georgia that includes elements about forestry (budget 13,000 EUR), but there are no projects directly connected to biodiversity.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','02/03/2010','     ','','06/01/2010; 09/05/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Estonia has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','02/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Estonia does not give external development assistance.','','     ','Reference or title:Weblink:      ','02/03/2010','     ','','  09/05/2010   ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective8','A8_1','','Estonia has not inserted the CBD Bonn Guidelines into its national policy. However elements of it exist in national strategies and plans. The Ministry of Agriculture has compiled the Estonian National Programme “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013”. From the year 2008 crop genetic resources information is available in the Nordic and Baltic common web-based database SESTO. The Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 will have a special chapter about genetic resources. Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I and maintained in Estonia have been included in the Multilateral System. Germplasm held in the collections listed above will be made available to users under the conditions of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Nearly 100% of the national consumption of wood products derives from sustainable sources. Estonia has issued a small number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008 and a small number of items were seized in 2005/2006. No import, export and re-export applications were denied. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','02/03/2010','     ','     ','13/01/2010','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','Estonia has not inserted the CBD Bonn Guidelines into its national policy. However elements of it exist in national strategies and plans. The Ministry of Agriculture has compiled the Estonian National Programme “Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2007-2013”. From the year 2008 crop genetic resources information is available in the Nordic and Baltic common web-based database SESTO. The Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 will have a special chapter about genetic resources.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','05/03/2010','','',' 09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Estonia has not provided funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','05/03/2010','     ','     ','09/12/2009','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I and maintained in Estonia have been included in the Multilateral System. 1. The collections held by the Genebank of the Jõgeva Plant Breeding Institute, located in Jõgeva. 2. The potato collection held by the Department of Plant Biotechnology EVIKA of the Estonian Agricultural Research Centre, located in Saku. 3. The Malus, Prunus, Pyrus, Ribes, Rubus, Fragaria collection held by the Polli Horticultural Research Centre of the Estonian University of Life Sciences, located in Polli. Germplasm held in the collections listed above will be made available to users under the conditions of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. ','','   ','Reference or title:Weblink:Detailed data on the composition of the collections is available through the website: http://www.nordgen.org/sesto/index.php?scp=est&thm=sesto','03/03/2010','     ','     ','     ','     09/05/2010'),
	('Estonia','Objective8','A8_1_4','','For the years 2006 and 2009 there were less than 1 % of fellings, where regulations were violated.','','Estonia does not import CITES listed tree species from outside the EU.','Reference or title:Weblink:     ','05/03/2010','     ','',' 09/05/2010    ',''),
	('Estonia','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 122, 12 and 8, respectively. Information on the number of import, export or re-export applications denied is not available. An number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 10 for 2007 and 11 for 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, training was provided to the enforcement authorities. Oral and written advice/guidance was provided to the public. Estonia has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Estonia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2009, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). ','','02/03/2010','06/01/2010','     09/05/2010','     ','     '),
	('Estonia','Objective9','','','There is no special biodiversity adaptation plan to climate change developed in Estonia. However, a draft climate change chapter is expected to be part of the Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 to be adopted by mid-2010.','','     ','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','1/3/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_3_2','','There is an existing Estonian Biomass and Bioenergy usage enhancement development plan for the years 2007-2013, which was adopted in 2007. The NREAP is in development and should be completed in summer 2010. It will also include a biomass development plan.','','This information, based on Internet search, has not been re-checked by experts and suffered from a lack of available information.','This information based on Internet search and has not been re-checked by experts.','08/03/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_4_1','','There is no special biodiversity adaptation plan to climate change developed in Estonia. However, a draft climate change chapter is expected to be part of the Nature Conservation Development Plan until 2020 to be adopted by mid-2010.',NULL,'     ','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','1/3/2010','     ',NULL,'24/04/2010',NULL),
	('Estonia','Objective9','A9_4_3','','There have not been special assessments focusing on climate change impacts on species and habitats. In Estonia, Tallinn University\'s Institute of Ecology is performing some research on impacts of climate change on environment, in particular on landscape changes and development (but not on species or habitats). ','','     ','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php','05/03/2010','     ','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Finland','MandE','C1_2','','Finland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 4 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances and another one is under development. There are several other biodiversity-relevant indicators, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','MandE','C1_2_1','','Finland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 4 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances and another one is under development. There are several other biodiversity-relevant indicators, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Of particular importance regarding funding programmes for biodiversity are Finland’s National Forest Programme 2015, the METSO Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland for 2008–2016 and the Finnish Agri-Environment Scheme (AES). Within Life projects, from 2004 – 2008, Finland spent up to EUR3,363,307 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Finland’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Finland’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Finland’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR1.9m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR2.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR12.1m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','07/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Measure1','B1_1_8','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure2','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Finland has created a new national plan or strategy or updated an existing one in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure3','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure3','B3_1_5','',' The planning process in Finland has helped to identify and protect many valuable ecosystems, and has introduced new practices such as the maintenance of connectivity areas such as commercially managed forests. Natural resource and landscape ecological plans have been produced for all state-owned lands. Significant policy tools for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity include legislation and environmental impact assessments for development projects, land use planning for protected areas and other forms of land use planning. Finland  does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships. ','','No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnershipsat the local, regional and national levels.','Reference or title: Finland CBD 4th National ReportsWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','','','','11/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Finnish Ministry of the Environment made a declaration in support of 2010 countdown initiative on 21st September 2006. The Finnish government communicated its support to the 2010 biodiversity target by helping to integrate the 2010 target to address environmental concerns in the Peruvian Amazon via its BIODAMAZ Project; adopting a Second Finnish National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2006-2016 focusing on the 2010 target. Additionally, it proposed helping to prepare the EU Environmental Council Conclusions on the EC Biodiversity Communication and to promote Youth & biodiversity during the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy meeting in Helsinki in November 2006. Between 2006 and 2008, 10,000 euros was contributed by Finland to fund Countdown projects.','',' In 2007 Finland contributed 10,000 euros to the project “C2010 in Finland”','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, the condition of all freshwater, grassland and rocky habitats is favourable. The condition of 6 of the 7 (86%) bogs, mires and fens, 4 of the 5 (80%) forests and 1 of 1 (50%) health and scrub habitats is also reported as favourable. The remaining 1 of the 2 (50%) health and scrub habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate.The condition of all Marine Baltic coastal habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate.In the Boreal biogeographical region, 3 of the 4 (75%) rocky habitats are in favourable condition. 5 of the 7 (71%) dune habitats, 8 of the 12 (67%)forests, 5 of the 8 (63%) freshwater habitats and 5 of the 9 (56%) bogs, mires and fens are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 9 of the 11 (82%) grassland habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats6100%00%00%00%00%6Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands2100%00%00%00%00%2Bogs, mires & fens686%114%00%00%00%7Rocky habitats3100%00%00%00%00%3Forests480%120%00%00%00%5Marine BalticCoastal habitats00%3100%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats330%440%330%00%00%10Dunes habitats00%571%229%00%00%7Freshwater habitats113%563%225%00%00%8Heath & scrub133%133%133%00%00%3Grasslands19%19%982%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%556%333%00%111%9Rocky habitats375%125%00%00%00%4Forests00%867%433%00%00%12','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','10/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Finland has designated 1715 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 48,552 km², totalling 12.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 98 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 5460 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 468 with a total area of 30,838 km², totalling 7.5% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 66 with a marine area of 5567 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage of ‘Terrestrial area’ refers here to the total area of the Finnish territory, including the marine area. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','07/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','The latest statistics is included in the art 17 reporting.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','11/05/2010','07/01/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Regional and General plans under the physical planning system of the Land Use and Building Act; METSO-programme for the additional protection of valuable forest ecosystems in private land; The Natural Resource Planning system in state-owned land. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 266 regularly occurring bird species in Finland, 6 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Finland, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of 1 or 100% of amphibians and reptiles, 3 of 3 or 100% of fish, 2 of the 4 (50%) invertebrates, 7 of the 9 (78%) mammals and 9 of the 15 (60%) plants was reported to be favourable. 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates and 2 of the 15 (13%) plants are in an unfavourable-adequate condition while 1 of the 4 (25%) invertebrates and 3 of the 15 (20%)  plants were reported to be unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) mammals was reported to be favourable and the status of the other 1 of the 2 (50%) mammals was reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 2 of the 4 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of the 9 (89%) fish, 9 of the 39 (23%) invertebrates, 12 of the 21 (57%) mammals and 12 of the 44 (27%) plants are in a favourable condition. 15 of the 39 (38%) invertebrates and 20 of the 44 (45%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. As for the conservation status of species that was reported unknown, this includes 1 of the 4 (25%) for amphibians and reptiles, 13 of the 39 (33%) for invertebrates, 6 of the 21 (29%) for mammals and 11% apiece for fish (I of the 9) and plants (5 of the 44). ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.  An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Alpine Amphibians and reptiles 1100%00%00%00%00%1Fish 3100%00%00%00%00%3Invertebrates250%125%00%125%00%4Mammals778%00%111%111%00%9Plants 960%213%17%320%00%15Marine BalticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals150%150%00%00%00%2Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0BorealAmphibians and reptiles 250%125%00%125%00%4Fish 889%00%00%111%00%9Invertebrates923%1538%25%1333%00%39Mammals1257%210%15%629%00%21Plants 1227%2045%614%511%12%44','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/;http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','12/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Finland has the following completed species action plans: 5 for birds, 5 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 10 for invertebrates and 65 for plants. In addition, the following species action plans are in preparation: 1 for birds, 2 for mammals and 2 for plants. Red lists exists for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','The number of action plans for plant species includes action plans for lichens and other fungi.','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=1757&lan=fi#a2http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=1758&lan=fi','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective10','A10_1','','No information provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity in Finland.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective10','A10_1_2','','No information provided on Finland’s plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS) site link to a national biodiversity platform directs users to the FIBRE website. FIBRE was a six year biodiversity research programme in Finland which ended in 2002. BITUMI, a project under FIBRE aimed to provide a platform for the transfer of scientific knowledge in Finland and promote communication. However, it is not clear whether this programme has carried over into a national biodiversity platform that is current and still updated regularly. ','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Finland has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility since April 2001. Finland has a national GBIF node, which coordinates the activities for GBIF within the country. The Finnish GBIF node carries out a number of projects, including a project in cooperation with the Environmental Administration, an update of the metadatabase of Finnish collections, biodiversity surveys, databases and datasets of biodiversity data. A project currently underway is developing a joint Nordic e-infrastructure for organism names to facilitate data sharing, in collaboration with the other Nordic GBIF nodes.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. From Finland, the University of Turku Dept. of Biology-Centre for Biodiversity and the Finnish Museum of Natural History both participate in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). The University of Turku Centre for Biodiversity is the lead contractor on ENBI Work Package 7: Observational Survey Data. The goals of this Work Package are to: Develop strategies and networks for common European standards on analysing and presenting biodiversity data that is based on observations, systematic sampling or surveys; Define methodologies linking taxonomic, collection and specimen databases with the observational data; and Establish links with existing projects and programmes that analyse and promote the use of GIS and remote sensing in biodiversity studies.The Finnish Museum of Natural History is an independent research institution functioning under the University of Helsinki. The museum is a collaborator on Work Package 7: Observational Survey Data and also a member of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Finland total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2154.43 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 6823.5 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1550.09 million EUR, and 5498.2 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 71.95 and to 80.58 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Finland was 682.21 million EUR (2420.24 with co-financing) and amounted to 31.67 per cent of the EAFRD (35.47 per cent with co-financing). There are no payments in Finland for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)179.595642.046Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Finland in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Finland had a total certified forest area of 20.82 million hectares out of a total forest area of 22.5 million hectares. 9706 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the vast majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification scheme (PEFC) under which 20.81 million hectares were certified. In total, 92.51 per cent of the forest area in Finland was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Finland amounted to 1.33 million ha, representing a share of 44.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'11/05/2010',NULL),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.birdlife.org/eu/EU_policy/Agriculture/eu_agriculture_do_better.html ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 68 million € has been added to Finland’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Finland attributed € 1 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 17 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the alpine and 13 per cent of the boreal freshwater habitats in Finland have a favourable conservation status. The status of the remaining (88 per cent) boreal freshwater habitats is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A breakdown of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of fresh water habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage14770050%50%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U15  U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage606000%100%0%0%U10 U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Finland oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.56 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.69 mg O3/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.70 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated no clear trend, remaining at the same level of 0.06 mg N/l between 2002 and 2005, with a peak of 0.09 mg N/l in 2003. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 0.33 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.44 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.51 mg N/l in 2004. Figures corresponded more or less to the weighted average of 0.45 mg N/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden, Finland and Norway only) in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2004, amounting to 1.2 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 1.5 mg NO3/l in 2005.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Finland had a total number of 232 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 88.9 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009 , Finland developed three out of four biological assessment methods for lakes, with fish fauna presumably under development. Phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates assessment were also developed for rivers, the other two probably under development. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were implemented.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009,  the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 112 in Finland.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Finland had a total number of 689 IPPC installations and issued 664 permits. 25 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject.The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions were below the targets set by the NEC Directive. As regards ammonia, the country still exceeded the target.  According to projections, emission ceilings can be attained by 2010, taking all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures into account. The projected 2010 non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia emissions, however, are expected to be relatively close to the emission ceilings, causing some uncertainty as to whether the targets will be met. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Finland the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 3 and 47 per cent respectively, considering an area of 273,634 km2 and 240,403 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 2 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 41 per cent in 2010 and 36 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 2 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Finland’s gross nitrogen balance was 55 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 34 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, Finland’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. By 2006 the indicator was at 78.5 per cent, a 21.5 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 9 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. ','','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Finland generally have an unfavourable conservation status. The habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status in Finland are the alpine grassland habitats (100 per cent have favourable conservation status) and the alpine peat land habitats, where 86 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 14 per cent is unfavourable). 89 per cent of the boreal peat land habitats in Finland have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 11 per cent was not reported. The highest percentages of unfavourable conservation status are found in the boreal forest habitats of Finland (100 per cent unfavourable) and the boreal grassland habitats where 91 per cent have an unfavourable status (the remaining 9 per cent have a favourable status). 80 per cent of the alpine forest habitats in Finland have a favourable conservation status, the remaining 20 per cent has an unfavourable status. Of the boreal heath and scrub habitats in Finland, 67 per cent have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 33 per cent has a favourable status. Half of the alpine heath and scrub habitats have a favourable conservation status, the remaining 50 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131030077%23%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage111010091%9%0%0%U11  U29       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10 U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage171340076%24%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1212000100%0%0%0%U18  U24       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5140020%80%0%0%U11 U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3210067%33%0%0%U11  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11 U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage16960156%38%0%6%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9800189%0%0%11%U15  U23       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7160014%86%0%0%U11 U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Finland showed that of three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all had an ‘Inadequate’ status. There were ten coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region—three had a ‘Favourable’ status (30%), four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (40%), and three had a ‘Bad’ status (30%).There were two marine species assessed in the Marine Baltic region—both mammals. One had a ‘Favourable’ status (50%) and the other had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticMarine habitats00%3100%00%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats330%440%330%00%00%10Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals150%150%00%00%00%2Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL150%150%00%00%00%2The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Finland reported that, in 2009, it had 62 surveillance stations and 88 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Finland has 255 coastal water bodies. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates. No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','10/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No information was provided on the status of the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_2','','Finland currently has 86 coastal bathing areas and a high proportion of these reach mandatory standards for water quality. The percentage reaching mandatory standards reached 100% in 2007 but fell slightly to 98.8% in 2008. The proportion reaching stricter guidelines standards for water quality has fluctuated but reached a new high of 76.7% in 2008. Finland has a large number of sampling stations in Baltic coastal waters (111 measuring nitrogen concentrations and 118 measuring phosphate concentrations). Out of these sampling stations the majority have shown no change in nitrogen or phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005. However 5 have shown an increase in nitrogen concentrations (13 have shown a decrease) and 7 have shown an increase in phosphate concentrations (6 have shown a decrease). ','','-','','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_4','','Finland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €7,985,000and includes measures such as improving fishing gear selectivity. Axis 2 (€39,520,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and specifically aims to reduce nutrient loads. Axis 3 (€34,473,827) includes an objective to disseminate good practice and Axis 4 (€8,412,000) promotes diversification of activities (i.e. away from fishing).','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com07/com07_85_fr.htm http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Finland had 3,196 vessels and 0.3% were involved in a serious infringement (11 vessels). A total of 3 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €198 and maximum fine of €360.','','2007 data is not currently available ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_5_2','','No information on restoration programmes for diadromous species was provided by Finland. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_5_3','','There has been an overall decreasing trend in Finland’s fishing capacity from 1999 to 2008, although there have been a very slight increases in fishing power between 2006 and 2008. The overall decrease since 1999 amounts to a reduction of 14% in vessels; 25% reduction in tonnage and a 17% reduction in power. It is currently assessed that the overall capacity of vessels is in balance with fishing possibilities and therefore no further decommissioning is foreseen, although salmon driftnet vessels will be scrapped since the fishing method was prohibited at the beginning of 2008.    ','','2008 data: 3240 vessels; 16046 tons; 169813 kW.','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en ','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Finland had 3,196 active vessels. There were 6 type D breaches in this year but no penalties imposed. No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures in relation to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by Finland.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_6_2','','','','No information on monitoring programmes for sharks or seabirds was provided by Finland.','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','No information on fisheries management plans for N2000 sites within territorial waters was provided by Finland. ','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11//5/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Finland has 84 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). No further information on specific fisheries measures designed for marine Natura2000 sites was provided by Finland. under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','','(1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 113Marine sites outside of territorial waters: Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Finland has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Finland plan on calculating ecosystem indicators 1-4 based on two joint Finnish-Estonian BIAS surveys. Indicators 5-7 will be calculated using VMS data, collected and used by the Finnish fisheries control system. Indicator 8 on the discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated based on logbooks and landing declarations and reported annually. The fuel costs for each fleet segment for Indicator 9 will also be calculated based on logbooks and landing declarations, as well as fish price statistics.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Finland was 3.31 in 2004. This represents a small increase (0.01) since 1999, but a decrease of 0.37 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Finnish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 16.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Finland has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is specific legislation that addresses import, introduction, control and eradication of IAS. The issue of possession and trade of IAS is not addressed. The Finnish Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996) restricts the introduction of alien species. The Hunting Act (615/1993, 1268/1993) prohibits the introduction and import of wild bird and mammal species unless permission has been granted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Under the Plant Protection Law (1203/1994) there are provisions to prevent the introduction of pests and diseases of plants. Secondary legislation provides for import, monitoring, eradication, control and containment which is enforced by the Plant Protection Inspection Centre. The Law for Animal Diseases (551/1980) and subsequent amendments provides a legislative framework for preventing the introduction of animal pathogens in Finland which includes alien pathogens.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 48 are present in Finland. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_1_2','','The preparation for a national invasive alien species (IAS) strategy and action plan began in June 2008 with the aim of being completed by the end of 2010. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are responsible for its development. It is unclear whether IAS are dealt with comprehensively as part of a national or sub national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Finland has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that Data source ','','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, in 2010 the Uusimaa province and the archipelago of Ahven Anmaa were formally or informally declared GMO-free in Finland.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, GMO free EuropeWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in June 2009. The National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland 2006-2016 and National Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland 2006-2016 were published in 2007; they form the second version of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.Finland had paid her contributions to the CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while the payment for the World Heritage Convention for 2008 was still outstanding as of 31 Dec 2008. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid spending for Finland in 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Finland spent EUR2.5m in 2006 and EUR 5.8m on bilateral biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.006% and 0.015%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009, 11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Finland contributed EUR26.99 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 1.11% of the total replenishment. Finland contributed EUR31.12 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.46 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective8','A8_1','','Finland has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. No information on national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing or the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources was provided. Information on activities raising awareness on the Bonn Guidelines and the Material Transfer Agreement was not provided either. No information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources was provided.  A low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Finland provided funds for the 5th meeting (2007), 6th meeting (2008) and the 8th meeting (2009) of the ABS Working Group. The amount for the 8th meeting was EUR10,000.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective8','A8_1_4','','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 236, 11 and 45, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. An aggregate number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 30 for 2007 and 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have purchased technical equipment for monitoring and enforcement; computerisation and have provided oral or written advice/guidance for staff of Management Authority, staff of enforcement authorities, traders and the public. Training was also provided for staff of enforcement authorities. Finland provided financial assistance to facilitate the participation of developing countries in international CITES meetings. The funds were given to the secretariat to be used at their discretion. The funds were given to the Secretariat to be used at their discretion. Finland paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The number of seizures refers to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms; note the figure provided in the table is the combined figure for 2007 and 2008). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','07/01/2010','11/05/2010'),
	('Finland','Objective9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('Finland','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','MandE','C1_2','','','','France is implementing a wide range of environmental and biodiversity indicators.  Of the 26 SEBI indicators, France has adopted directly or amended to the national circumstances 22; with only 4 indicators not applied or under development. There are six additional nationally-used biodiversity indicators.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/France-metropolitaine.html ','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','MandE','C1_2_1','','Of the 26 SEBI indicators, France has adopted directly or amended to the national circumstances 22; with only 4 indicators not applied or under development. There are six additional nationally-used biodiversity indicators','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.Red List Index for European species: a similar indicator is under construction in France. There are currently no successive evaluations with the same method. The revision of the Red Lists, currently in progress, will be the initial reference.Species of European Interest : it applies only to the species annexed to the Habitat directive. France takes part in the tests to apply this indicator in the context of the Bird directive.Forest: deadwood : A “Deadwood” indicator was calculated in France in the context of an evaluation of national criteria for sustainable management. The similar indicator “Quantity (per ha) of large standing and lying deadwood (diam. >35 cm)” was calculated in the context of the art. 17 Habitats directive to evaluate the “structure and function” parameter. Patent applications based on genetic resources: this indicator exists in France but is very difficult to fill in. Technically, the identification of demands of patents concerning biodiversity is very difficult with the present databases and supposes a considerable work of information collection. Indeed, the international classification of patents and the request by keywords do not allow to precisely determining the demands of patents that would relate to genetic resources. There is also the problem of the European and international demands concerning the national level and the problem, as well, of national demands not concerning our country. The origin of genetic resources is not necessarily filled in. Financing biodiversity management: In France, the “accounts of biodiversity” distinguish the financing for the management of natural sites and species, the financing for knowledge, the financing for the reduction of pressures and the financing for other biodiversity-related actions. This indicator also distinguishes the main categories of organisations involved.   Additional indicators: Number of plant varieties;Natural area lost per year (\"Surface artificialisée annuellement\");Leaf deficit index;Forest area  with guarantee for sustainable management and ratio compared to total wooded area;Dominance of natural and semi-natural ecosystems in the landscape;Trend in the pollutant content in waters.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','MandE','C1_3_1','','Habitats A method for assessing the conservation status of forests in Natura 2000 sites was tested in 2009 and could be extended to the whole country. Moreover a study about the opportunity to use a similar method for calcareous grasslands will be conducted in 2010.The cartography of all natural habitats will contribute to monitor the extent of Natura 2000 habitats. The methodology will be finalised in 2010. First results will be available before the next reporting period (article 17).Several local and regional monitoring schemes exist in France.BirdsCoordinated by the research centre on bird populations biology –National Museum of Natural HistoryFrench breeding bird survey (STOC) A breeding bird survey (BBS) was started in France in 1989 following two methods inspired from the North American BBS and the British Constant Effort Site (CES). Both methods are based on volunteer skilled ornithologists counting birds in a standardized way at the same site for several years. For the BBS type of survey, individuals are counted on permanent plots during a fixed period of 5 min, counting visible individuals and singers. To be validated, the count must be repeated on approximately the same date of the year (7 days within April to mid-June), the same time of the day (15 min within 1–4 h after sunrise), by the same observer. Each observer counts for 10 plots in the same morning, plots being at least 200m apart. Counts within these groups are summed before analysis. For the CES type of survey, individuals are counted by means of trapping with mist-nets and are marked with individually numbered metal rings allowing further identification, thus avoiding double counting. The number and placement of mist-nets are fixed within a trapping site, as well as the number and date of trapping sessions (three to five, between May and mid-July).Winter farmland bird survey A winter farmland bird monitoring was started in France in 2009, to complete the information given by the French breeding bird survey . Two counts are conducted each winter. In a 5 km radius circle chosen by the participant, 5 parcels are chosen, (being at least 1 km apart) in which the crop the most abundant in the region is grown, along a 300m transect crossing the parcel. All individuals seen on the ground or flying over the parcel are counted.All surveys below are coordinated by the research unit  7204 (CNRS- National Museum of Natural History)  “species conservation, restauration and population monitoring”Mammals French common bat surveyA common bat survey was started in France in 2006, following a protocol based on detection and recording of time expanded calls, involving a network of volunteers, counting bats in a standardized way at the same site for several years. Each area is surveyed twice a year (1st: 15 June 15 July, 2nd : 15 August 30 September). Two methods co-exist: road survey and point count. For the road survey: the volunteers choose a route of 30 km and a random starting point is defined by the lab. Recording are made on ten segments of 2km each, driven at 25 km/h. For the point count: individuals are counted on permanent plots during a fixed period of 5 min, counting visible individuals and singers. Each observer counts for 10 plots in a square of 2x2 km, 5 plots being located in the typical habitats of the square and the 5 others in habitats favourable to bats.Invertebrates French Rhopalocera  survey (STERF)A butterfly survey was started in France in 2006 following the method developed for the British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (Pollard & Yates, 1993). It involves volunteer skilled entomologists, counting butterflies in a standardized way at the same site for several years. The counts are conducted 3 to 5 times a year along 5 to 15 fixed 10 minutes transects (100 to 500m depending on butterflies richness), each with a homogeneous habitat type. The fieldworkers record all butterflies 2.5 metres to their right, 2.5 metres to their left, 5 metres ahead of them and 5 metres above them (Van Swaay et al., 2002). Butterfly counts are conducted between March-April to September-October depending on the region. Visits are only conducted when weather conditions meet specified criteria. Individuals of every species observed are counted. Garden butterflies surveyStarted in 2006, the garden butterflies survey involves volunteers from the general public. Every month from March to October, in the garden they have chosen, participants count individuals of 28 selected butterflies species, (identification tool provided): counts are made at a chosen frequency. Only the maximum number of individuals seen at the same time is recorded for each month, and for each species. Similar protocols were developed in 2009 for garden snails and bumble-bees.Plants French common plant monitoring (Vigie-Flore)A common plant survey was started in France in 2009, involving a network of volunteer skilled botanists conducting inventories in a standardized way at the same site for several years. A 1x1 km square systematically sampled within a 10x10 km square is allocated to each participant. 8 plots are positioned in this square along a systematic grid pattern. All the species are inventoried (1m² square, ten repetitions) at each spot.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Measure1','B1_1_1','','France’s expenses for biodiversity and landscape conservation comprise 4.2% of the total environmental protection budget. The conservation of biodiversity and landscape is mainly publicly financed, but local funding plays also an important role. At the focus of this funding is the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, in particular the Natura 2000 network. Another focus of funding is the implementation of a new law from 2006 on National Parks, Marine Nature Parks and Regional Nature Parks. For France’s overseas territories, increased funding has been foreseen for biodiversity conservation. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, France spent up to EUR8,027,127 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from France’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to France’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Measure1','B1_1_4','','France’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR175.2m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR48.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR103.4m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Measure1','B1_1_8','','','','','','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Measure2','B2_4','','The French National Strategy for Biodiversity was created in 2004. Its ten action plans were updated in 2009; taking into account the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-plans-d-actions-de-la.html','24/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('France','Measure3','','','France has set up a number of initiatives to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships. These are summarised and listed in chronological order below:In July 2006, a seminar was held on “Offset mechanisms: an opportunity for economic and financial sectors” (included stakeholders such as Shell, BBOP, Forest Trends, IUCN, etc).In 2007, material was published on the advantages biodiversity initiatives for  business «La biodiversité, un atout pour vos sites d’entreprise » (MEDD, EpE, Orée, Comité français de l’UICN). In October, “Grenelle de l’environnement”, was launched consisting of roundtables on different environmental topics (including one on biodiversity, e.g. debates on “green and blue corridors”) with the State, local authorities, NGOs, companies and trade unions.In February 2008 the “Foundation for Biodiversity Research” was created by the Ministries of ecology and of research, within which a structure is dedicated to the dialogue with civil society, the Strategic Orientation Committee, and involves numerous companies. In 2008, the multiyear (2005-2008) programme between the Ministry of ecology and IUCN International ended. One of the outputs included guidelines made with the company Accor on the sustainable use of natural resources in hotels (“Biodiversity: my hotel in action”). This programme was renewed in 2009 until 2013 and will include actions on business and biodiversity, e.g. TEEB report for business.A Conference on Biodiversity in France (in the framework of the International Year for Biodiversity), is planned for May 2010 including panel discussions on business and biodiversity. The involvement of several companies is foreseen.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Measure3','B3_1_2','','Forestry and biodiversity partnerships have been facilitated at the regional and national levels. Twenty have been facilitated at the regional level and one has been facilitated at the national level.Incentives at local level consist in financing territorial partnerships (chartes forestières de territoire) dealing with multifunctional aspects including biodiversity. At regional level, regional action plans for forestry development are implemented, also including biodiversity topics. At national level, an action plan for forest biodiversity includes a number of actions involving diverse partnerships with public/private forest managers/owners representatives, research centres and NGOs. Guidelines for biodiversity integration in forest management have been developed in this context.It seems that similar partnerships for farming and biodiversity have not been facilitated and established.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Regional Planning is guided by the implementation of a seven year programme called Contrats de Projets Etat Région 2007-2013 (CPER). This outlines the projects that the national, regional and local governments have agreed to undertake. Biodiversity concerns are integrated into these projects. The Grenelle de l’Environnement (a series of national workshops on biodiversity) also developed tools which will allow coherence for planning and biodiversity. These will be piloted in each region in partnership with local authorities and stakeholders and the results of this will be included in urban planning documents.France does not have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships. However, the process for the development of biodiversity and planning partnerships in underway. In fact, it rests upon the Grenelle de l\'Environnement (started in 2007) and will be encouraged during 2010, international year for biodiversity. A plan entitled \"Nature en Ville\", an outcome of the Grenelle Environnement is being drafted. Its actions will be implemented through a partnership between all stakeholders (national and local governments, corporate professionals, NGOs, scientific experts). One action of this plan is to create a portal dedicated to the subject of nature in towns. In addition, the \"Ville Durable\" plan which includes actions such as \"Eco quartiers\", Ecocités\" will be based on the same kind of partnership.Following the revision of the National Strategy for Biodiversity in 2011, a system for biodiversity governance involving all stakeholders at national, regional and local levels will be designed. This will involve integrating biodiversity into all sectoral policies of regional and local strategies and ensure policy coherence.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for FranceWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/http://www.biodiversite2010.fr/ http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/grenelle-environnement/spip.php?rubrique293http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Presentation,13737.html','24/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/2010'),
	('France','Measure3','B3_1_6','','France has set up a number of initiatives to encourage business and biodiversity partnerships. These are summarised and listed in chronological order below:In July 2006, a seminar was held on “Offset mechanisms: an opportunity for economic and financial sectors” (included stakeholders such as Shell, BBOP, Forest Trends, IUCN, etc).In 2007, material was published on the advantages biodiversity initiatives for  business «La biodiversité, un atout pour vos sites d’entreprise » (MEDD, EpE, Orée, Comité français de l’UICN). In October, “Grenelle de l’environnement”, was launched consisting of roundtables on different environmental topics (including one on biodiversity, e.g. debates on “green and blue corridors”) with the State, local authorities, NGOs, companies and trade unions.In February 2008 the “Foundation for Biodiversity Research” was created by the Ministries of ecology and of research, within which a structure is dedicated to the dialogue with civil society, the Strategic Orientation Committee, and involves numerous companies. In 2008, the multiyear (2005-2008) programme between the Ministry of ecology and IUCN International ended. One of the outputs included guidelines made with the company Accor on the sustainable use of natural resources in hotels (“Biodiversity: my hotel in action”). This programme was renewed in 2009 until 2013 and will include actions on business and biodiversity, e.g. TEEB report for business.A Conference on Biodiversity in France (in the framework of the International Year for Biodiversity), is planned for May 2010 including panel discussions on business and biodiversity. The involvement of several companies is foreseen.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','Measure3','B3_1_7','','France has set up the following initiatives to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity•  July 2006 : Seminar on “Offset mechanisms : an opportunity for economic and financial sectors” (Shell, BBOP, Forest Trends, IUCN, etc.).• May 2008 : Launch of the first pilot operation in France on compensation banking (with CDC Biodiversité / public bank, in the Plaine de Crau).','','Some banks have adopted the Equator Principles on a voluntary basis in France (BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Dexia, etc.).','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.cdc-biodiversite.fr/  (Website of CDC Biodiversité, sister company of La Caisse des dépôts dedicated to biodiversity)','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('France','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.However, general awareness raising activities on the French National Biodiversity Strategy and biodiversity-related subjects have been developed by the Ministry of Environment. In 2006, the Ministry held a campaign on biodiversity and climate change (national radio and television) together with \"les jardins de l\'écologie\", an event taking place in park in Paris showcasing questions and answers about biodiversity with large potted plants, story telling. It involved visitor participation regarding daily eco-friendly behaviours. Other communication and awareness raising tools used have included: a free exhibition provided for stakeholders with updated information on the importance and relevance of the NBSAP; numerous documents published on biodiversity, including two illustrated booklets on biodiversity; public awareness events on grassland biodiversity and invasive alien species on International Biodiversity dayIn 2009, communication actions were planned to raise awareness in 2010 (international year of biodiversity). Activities of the Directorate of water and biodiversity in the Ministry of Environment include:  1) an institutional campaign: with broadcasting  of short programmes on biodiversity entitled \"les héros de la biodiversité\" from 4 January to 26 December 2010 showcasing concrete actions taken by ordinary people in favour of biodiversity, a press and poster campaign in January and May : “What is Biodiversity ? Why should we take care of biodiversity?”, an internet campaign aimed at raising awareness of young people.2)  general public communication campaigns: a brochure on the issue of biodiversity, a mobile exhibition on invasive alien species, a campaign for amateur gardeners on the reduction of pesticide use; activities in supermarkets and an event \"les rendez-vous aux jardins\", a public rally at the National Museum of Natural History with a  \"pollinator observatory \", updated flyers on species with events in railway stations, motorways and airports, a national call for projects on \"Art and Biodiversity\" with a final event in the autumn, video clips on marine biodiversity on the site of the Ministry of Ecology, French portal for the international year of biodiversity.3) targeted campaign for elected representatives and experts: press and media campaign, brochure on  \"trame verte et bleue\"  (50 000 copies), conference on ‘national action plans, 15 years of policy, experience –sharing’ and a brochure on results and projected outcomes for a wetland policy in France.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-La-biodiversite,1008-.htmlhttp://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-orientations-strategiques-de.htmlhttp://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/2010-annee-internationale-de-la,12584.htmlhttp://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-heros-de-la-biodiversite.htmlhttp://www.biodiversite2010.fr/-Ca-se-passe-pres-de-chez-vous-.html','24/02/2010','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('France','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative on the 10th January 2005.  The French government communicated that it was committed to implementing a strategy for biodiversity based on existing frameworks and restoration plans for threatened species and to reinforce European policies on invasive alien species and biodiversity conservation in the high seas, coastal Mediterranean areas and overseas departments. It also said that a cooperation platform with the private sector would be established on how to reach the 2010 biodiversity target. Between 2006 and 2008, France contributed funding for the supporting the 2010 countdown initiative. The total sum over this period was about 6 million euros. This included about a third of the sum as a contribution to the general budget of IUCN, another third in specifically allocated areas.A new framework agreement was signed in 2009 and hence contributions to IUCN continue.','','Contribution of France to IUCN :                                                                                          2006	     2007	       2008Contribution to the general budget of IUCN (euros)	750 000	   750 00      750 000specifically allocated  contributions (euros)	               627 000	   692 000    627 000technical assistance made available (euros)                 625 000	    625 000    625 000','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedReference or title: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Environmental Diplomacy. Biodiversity.Weblink: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/environment_1097/environmental-diplomacy_4155/biodiversity_4158/french-and-european-positions_5871.html','24/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/2010'),
	('France','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 4 of the 4 (100%) sclerophyllous scrub and 7 of the 11 (64%) rocky habitats are in favourable condition. 3 of the 6 (50%) both heath and scrub and grassland habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 5 of the 8 (63%) bogs, mires and fens is reported to be unfavourable-bad.All rocky habitats in the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) Marine Atlantic coastal habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 50% or more of the coastal (8 of the 12 or 67%), sclerophyllous scrub (1 of the 2 or 50%), rocky (4 of the 7 or 57%) and forest (7 of the 14 or 50%) habitats are reported to be in unfavourable-inadequate condition. The remaining sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. 8 of the 10 (80%), 6 of the 8 (75%) and 6 of the 9 (67%) grassland habitats, bog, mire and fen habitats and freshwater habitats are in unfavourable-bad condition respectively. Over half the dune habitats (6 of the 11 or 55%) are also reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. Assessments of the condition of 1 of the 9 (11%) freshwater habitats are yet to be reported.In the Continental biogeographical region, the condition of 8 of the 10 (80%) rocky habitats and 2 of the 3 (67%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats is reported to be favourable. 3 of the 5 (60%) heath and scrub habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of all coastal habitats and dune habitats is in an unfavourable-bad condition. The majority of freshwater habitats (8 of the 10 or 80%), grasslands (8 of the 11 or 73%) and bogs, mires and fens (5 of the 7 or 71%) in the bioregion are in an unfavourable-bad condition.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 2 of the 4 (50%) coastal habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of the remaining coastal habitats is reported to be bad. There is a slight proportion of uncertainty, with 3 of the 14 (21%) forests and 2 of the 11 (18%) rocky habitats in the Alpine region, 3 of the 16 (19%) forests in the Continental biogeographical region, as well as 3 of the 13 (23%) grasslands and 2 of the 10 (20%) dunes habitats in the Mediterranean reported as of unknown condition.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%440%660%00%00%10Heath & scrub233%350%117%00%00%6Sclerophyllous scrub4100%00%00%00%00%4Grasslands542%650%18%00%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%338%563%00%00%8Rocky habitats764%19%19%218%00%11Forests214%536%321%321%17%14Marine AtlanticCoastal habitats00%133%267%00%00%3Rocky habitats00%1100%00%00%00%1AtlanticCoastal habitats00%867%325%18%00%12Dunes habitats00%436%655%19%00%11Freshwater habitats00%222%667%00%111%9Heath & scrub00%120%480%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands00%110%880%110%00%10Bogs, mires & fens00%225%675%00%00%8Rocky habitats114%457%229%00%00%7Forests00%750%643%17%00%14ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%2100%00%00%2Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%220%880%00%00%10Heath & scrub00%360%240%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub267%00%133%00%00%3Grasslands00%327%873%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%229%571%00%00%7Rocky habitats880%00%110%110%00%10Forests319%638%425%319%00%16Marine Mediterranean Coastal habitats00%250%250%00%00%4Rocky habitats00%1100%00%00%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats00%550%550%00%00%10Dunes habitats00%220%660%220%00%10Freshwater habitats18%650%542%00%00%12Heath & scrub133%267%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub450%338%113%00%00%8Grasslands18%646%323%323%00%13Bogs, mires & fens00%250%250%00%00%4Rocky habitats889%111%00%00%00%9Forests317%633%739%211%00%18','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and  http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, France has designated 1365 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 72,417 km², totalling 8.5% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 94 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 25,722 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 380, with a total area of 70,140 km², totalling 7.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 72, with a marine area of 26,888 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Out of 1747 Natura 2000 sites, 918 have an approved or completed management plan, 501 have a management plan in preparation and 328 have no management plan.','','To date, there are 1392 steering committees for 1747 sites notified to the Commission, i.e. around 80 % management bodies. Strictly speaking, the steering committee does not manage the site directly: it prepares the objectives document and monitors the site\'s activities. As it comprises socio-professionals and local actors, it is rather a framework for exchange, consultation, concertation and debate. The objectives document (docob) translates the management guidelines, the implementation of which is encouraged by the site coordinator. ','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective1','A1_2_3','','A legislative tool  is developed but not in place yet: a draft law is proposed and should be decided in 2010 for the establishment of a \"green and blue infrastructure\" in France by the end of 2012 as part of a land management tool. This ecological network will include protected areas (Natura 2000 and non-Natura 2000 areas) and non-protected areas (which provide essential goods and services).This draft law proposes a system at three levels:    - a national level: national guidelines for the preservation  and restoration of ecological continuity to be approved by decree (= highest level of legislative regulation) to be taken into account by:     - a regional level: regional schemes of ecological coherence to be developed before 2012, containing regional issues of ecological continuities to be taken into account by :    - a local level: the spatial and town project documents of local authorities.However, some French regions, local authorities and local stakeholders have already developed local ecological connectivities on a contractual basis. In 2010, a national resources centre on green and blue infrastructure should be created. It will be a platform which may help local authorities and stakeholders to support ecological connectivity on their territory. This platform will also enable experience sharing.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 352 regularly occurring bird species in France, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 6 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of France, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 12 of the 36 (33%) invertebrates, 10 of the 39 (26%) mammals and 13 of the 41 (32%) plants was reported to be favourable. 4 of the 9 (44%) fish and 13 of the 41 (32%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 13 of the 24 (54%) amphibians and reptiles and 10 of the 41 (24%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 13 of the 36 (36%) invertebrates and 18 of the 39 (46%) mammals is unknown. 1 of the 9 (11%) fish and 2 of the 36 (6%) invertebrates were not reported.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 16 (6%) mammals are in a favourable condition and 1 of the 3 (33%) amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 4 (25%) fish and 2 of the 2 (100%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 3 (67%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 4 (75%) fish and 15 of the 16 (94%) mammals is unknown. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 3 of the 14 (21%) fish and 9 of the 33 (27%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 4 of the 14 (29%) fish and 8 of the 34 (24%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 2 of the 14 (56%) fish were reported to be in unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 33 (67%) mammals, 24 of the 41 (59%) invertebrates and 20 of the 34 (59%) plants was reported to be unfavourable-bad. The conservation status 14 of the 33 (42%) mammals is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 2 of the 22 (24%) fish and 7 of the 47 (26%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 7 of the 22 (32%) amphibians and reptiles and 4 of the 17 (24%) fish are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 13 of the 22 (59%) amphibians and reptiles, 23 of the 47 (49%) invertebrates and 19 of the 35 (54%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 20 of the 39 (51%) mammals is unknown and the conservation status of 2 of the 47 (4%) invertebrates was not reported.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) amphibians and reptiles and 2 of the 6 (33%) of invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 2 of the 3 (67%) amphibians and reptiles, 2 of the 6 (33%) invertebrates and 2 of the 9 (22%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 4 (100%) fish, 2 of the 6 (33%) invertebrates, 6 of the 9 (67%) mammals and 2 of the 2 (100%) plants was reported unknown. In addition, 1 of the 9 (11%) mammals was not reported. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 14 of the 36 (39%) amphibians and reptiles, 12 of the 32 (38%) invertebrates and 12 0f the 41 (29%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 9 of the 17 (53%) fish and 16 of the 41 (39%) plants was reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 5 of the 17 (29%) fish and 11 of the 40 (28%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 32 (25%) invertebrates and 15 of the 40 (38%) mammals was reported to be unknown. The reason why Angiosperms are classified as « unfavourable conservation status » is mainly the identification of poor or bad future prospects (climate change). Other species are declining because of other reasons. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are largely in unfavourable conservation status because of small distribution areas. Moreover, good quality habitats are insufficient for those groups of species. These results are confirmed by national red lists.The distribution of coastal and aquatic species is largely declining, whereas the distribution of species typical of forests and grasslands is rather increasing. The conservation status of Mammals and Reptiles, and, to a lesser extent, Insects is rather encouraging compared to the conservation status of Fishes and Amphibians.Unknown conservation status is rather large for species in France because some groups did not benefit in 2007 and before from accurate monitoring and experts (lichens, mosses). For animal species, assessment criteria were not fully accurate. The distinction between biogeographical zones was not pertinent for some animal species.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Alpine Amphibians and reptiles 313%521%1354%313%00%24Fish 111%444%222%111%111%9Invertebrates1233%26%719%1336%26%36Mammals1026%718%410%1846%00%39Plants 1332%1332%1024%512%00%41Marine AtlanticAmphibians and reptiles 00%133%00%267%00%3Fish 00%00%125%375%00%4Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals16%00%00%1594%00%16Plants 00%00%2100%00%00%2Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 28%521%1667%14%00%24Fish 321%429%536%214%00%14Invertebrates615%512%2459%512%12%41Mammals927%39%721%1442%00%33Plants 39%824%2059%39%00%34Continental Amphibians and reptiles 29%732%1359%00%00%22Fish 424%424%741%212%00%17Invertebrates511%715%2349%1021%24%47Mammals1026%513%410%2051%00%39Plants 514%617%1954%514%00%35Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%133%267%00%00%3Fish 00%00%00%4100%00%4Invertebrates00%233%233%233%00%6Mammals00%00%222%667%111%9Plants 00%00%00%2100%00%2MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 1439%1131%719%411%00%36Fish 212%953%529%16%00%17Invertebrates1238%619%516%825%13%32Mammals820%615%1128%1538%00%40Plants 1229%1639%1024%37%00%41','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','France has the following completed species action plans: 16 birds, 6 mammals, 2 for amphibians and reptiles, and 1 for fish. In addition, the following completed species action plans are in preparation: 4 for birds, 2 for mammals, 9 for amphibians and reptiles, 5 for invertebrates and 11 for plants. France has developed several indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes. These can be grouped as follows: indicators based on growth rates, (habitat specialist indicators and indicators of climate change impacts) and indicators based on community traits (Community Specialisation Index and Community Temperature Index). France has Red Lists for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish and plants. Since 2007, the IUCN France Committee and the National Museum of Natural History, with the support of the Ministry in charge of Ecology, have launched a comprehensive programme aiming at updating national red lists of threatened fauna and flora species (both for mainland and overseas territories). These lists follow the IUCN criteria. So far five lists have been published for mainland France: reptiles & amphibians, breeding birds, mammals, orchids, freshwater fish. As regards the overseas territories, the Reunion island red lists will be published soon. This programme also applies to plants, for which the book \"Livre rouge de la flore menacée de France” has already been issued in 1995 and will be completed in 2010. IUCN red lists for flora will also be issued in 2010.','','The species action plans mentioned are all national. Furthermore, additional action plans will be prepared in 2010 :- 1 for amphibians and reptiles- 1 for fish- 1 for invertebrates- 8 for plants.','Reference or title:Weblink:Olivier, L., Galland, J. P. & Maurin, H., [Eds]. 1995. Livre Rouge de la flore menacée de France. Tome I : Espèces prioritaires. Collection Patrimoines Naturels (Série Patrimoine Génétique). n 20. SPN-IEGB /MNHN, DNP/Ministère Environnement, CBN Porquerolles, Paris. 486 pp.http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/livrerouge1.pdfhttp://www.uicn.fr/Liste-rouge-France.html','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective10','A10_1','','Research on biodiversity and ecosystem services has been progressing steadily since 2000, with yearly calls for proposals of the French National Research Agency (ANR). Complementary calls may be launched by other ministries and, more recently, by the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity , created in 2008. Between 2006  to 2009, the calls for proposals were targeted, with a comprehensive description of the goals and expected outcomes. Projects receive a significant support from ANR (in the range of 500 k€) and last 3 years. Thus, the impact of these research projects on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity may not be yet visible','','The number of scientists involved in research on biodiversity in France may be estimated to be at least 3000. This involves full time scientists from research institutions and university professors (with a part-time on research).   ','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective10','A10_1_2','','In 2009, France conducted a study aimed at describing ecosystems and the services they provide in France. With existing data, France produced a typology of terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems (based on land use and land cover) and of ecosystem services, indicators to assess the state of ecosystems and the quality of the services, and a methodology to assess the link between ecosystems’ state and services. This study will be used next year to launch a second part of the French MA which will most likely involve mobilization of French expertise on biodiversity to assess more precisely qualitatively and quantitatively the state of ecosystems and the services they provide. France has used the framework, experiences and findings of the original Millennium Assessment (2001-2005) in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation. Valuation and accounting methods are not used yet in the MA follow up. However, they have been used in another review linking biodiversity and ecosystem services [rapport CAS, 2009]. France also participated to the work of the EEA about environmental accounting and ecosystem services.','','','','','','','',''),
	('France','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategies provides a link to the French national biodiversity platform, part of the Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité (FRB). Its mission is to lead, coordinate and disseminate information on biodiversity research and associated activities. Their website includes a ‘news’ section, information on ‘Research in France’ showing different actions in biodiversity research, a publications section and links to other sites.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective10','A10_1_9','','France joined the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as a voting Participant in March 2001. The French Participant node is GBIF France. GBIF France’s mission is to collect all data hosted in France, as they related to biodiversity within the French territory and the rest of the world. In addition, GBIF France has the following objectives: to raise awareness of GBIF in France; to offer French researchers the tools developed by GBIF to make their data accessible; to support data providers as they use the central GBIF portal; to enable interoperability of databases on biodiversity; and to enable viewing of multiple datasets using GIS and geo-spatial modelling.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. Participating in ENBI in France is the Museum National D’Histoire Naturelle. The Museum National D’Histoire Naturelle is a scientific establishment and a public service, applying itself to research and the dissemination of knowledge. The Department of Molecular Systematics is a platform for research under the Department for Systematics and Evolution. They are contributors to ENBI Work Package 7: Observational Data and Work Package 23: Information Services on European Data. They are also ‘members’ of Work Package 11: Multilingual access.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.The GAEC standards include a current requirement to maintain environmental areas, such as buffer strips, hedges, woodland edges, fallow land or other habitats of biodiversity value, that are at least 1% of agricultural land. In the calculation of environmental areas, the area of each type of feature is weighted to reflect their biodiversity value. The GAEC rules are being amended and the minimum environmental area will increase to 3% in 2011 and 5% in 2012. The requirement does not relate to farms of less than 15 ha.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfhttp://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/magazine/dossiers/mise-en-oeuvre-du-bilan5127/conditionnalite/  ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in France total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 7557.06 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 13665.9 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 4233.18 million EUR, and 7324.59 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 56.01 and 53.60 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in France was 1876.94 million EUR (3249.75 with co-financing) and amounted to 24.84 per cent of the EAFRD (23.78 with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.055 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (<0.01 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.1 million EUR of public expenditure (<0.01 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in France for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided.NOTE: Corse, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyane, La Réunion missing Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)446.2845815.8085Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State, a national strategy has been developed and adopted that specifically addresses the conservation of genetic resources. The aim of the strategy, which is not yet defined as a national action plan, is to list all national collections of genetic resources which are presently under the responsibility of various actors, so called “networks”. After this first step, the “network of the networks” will be coordinated by one single operator, possibly linked with the FRB (Foundation for Biodiversity Research) and all stakeholders. A national enquiry will also investigate the possibility of developing a national database on genetic resources. The Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries has undertaken a second enquiry to better describe the strengths and weaknesses of the variety conservation networks, describe the needs of the networks, and define a global policy.In addition an action pan has been established relating to genetic conservation in forests.Projects have been undertaken on the in-situ conservation of 12 crop varieties, livestock breeds and the conservation of 10 key or endangered forest tree species, and an inventory of forest tree species in French Guyana and in other French tropical territories (nearly 1600 according to the latest results in 2009).  ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.* for forestry (since 2006)**Network of genetic resources conservation     Implementation of a national database on vegetal, animal and microbial genetic resources     *** Commission for conservation of forest genetic resources (since 1991) ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in France in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.Note: Corse, Guadeloupe, Martinique, La Réunion are not covered ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_12','','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2010 in France’ outermost regions total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 651.1 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 1002.7 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 116.1 million EUR, and 146.6 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 17.8 and 14.5 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in France’s outermost regions was 45.8 million EUR (56.2 with co-financing) and amounted to 7 per cent of the EAFRD (5.6 with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 18.6 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (2.9 per cent of EAFRD) and 24.7 million EUR of public expenditure (2.5 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in France’s outermost regions for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','Figures above refer to the four French overseas departments Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. As regards afforestation, the national policy for forest genetic resources and the guidelines related to forest reproductive material aim at the proper adaptation of forest tree species to local ecological conditions and organise the harvesting of forest seeds as per a control chain in order to guarantee the origin of reproductive materials. Different guidelines are set up for the thorough list of tree species (including non native ones) which can be used for afforestation at the regional level: - National guidelines for the development and management of national forests (Directives Nationales d\'Aménagement et de Gestion pour les forêts domaniales (DNAG)) and their regional equivalent, the regional guidelines for the development of forests in the public domain (directives régionales d\'aménagement (DRA/SRA), - Regional schemes for private forest management (SRGS).No specific guidelines are available for planting non-native species at the national level.As regards deforestation, the following guidelines apply:- For areas larger than 25 ha, an impact study and a public enquiry are compulsory.- For areas smaller than 25 ha, only notice is given, except if the area covers more than 10 ha and the rate of afforestation is less than 10 %, in which case a public enquiry is requested;- For areas smaller than 4 ha, an authorisation regime (\"régime d\'autorisation\") is required.As regards Natura 2000 sites, ‘incident’ studies are required:- For areas to be deforested larger than 25 ha or larger than 10 ha if rate of afforestation is less than 10%- For DRA (directives régionales d\'aménagement) and SRGS (Schéma régionaux de Gestion Sylvicole) management documents.Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to deforestation operations (see above), but not for afforestation. Forest management documents regarding forests within Natura 2000 sites are subject to impact assessment; exemptions are provided for in Article L. 11 of the Forestry Code.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 France had a total certified forest area of 5.13 million hectares out of a total forest area of 15.55 million hectares. 16,851 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification scheme (PEFC) under which 5.11 million hectares were certified. In total, 32.99 per cent of the forest area in France was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in France amounted to 7.80 million ha, representing a share of 22.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.The GAEC standards include a current requirement to maintain environmental areas, such as buffer strips, hedges, woodland edges, fallow land or other habitats of biodiversity value, that are at least 1% of agricultural land. In the calculation of environmental areas, the area of each type of feature is weighted to reflect their biodiversity value. The GAEC rules are being amended and the minimum environmental area will increase to 3% in 2011 and 5% in 2012. The requirement does not relate to farms of less than 15 ha.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfhttp://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/magazine/dossiers/mise-en-oeuvre-du-bilan5127/conditionnalite/  ','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010',NULL),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training measures have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2. Training measures can be used to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures that benefit biodiversity. The themes of Axis 2 (including biodiversity) are some of the primary objectives of training measures (in Axis 1 and 3). However, advisory services are not completely implemented in France, only in Réunion.  ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member State, no monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 992 million € has been added to the French national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, France attributed € 468 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 17 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.As regards France’s ‘outermost regions’, out of a total of € 16.6 million € 9.9 million were allocated to biodiversity, representing roughly 60 per cent of total additional programmed funding of the regional RDPs.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.Table below provides an overview of resources generated for France’s ‘outermost regions’: Total million €Biodiversity million €PercentageGuadeloupe 3.61.437.9Guyane 20.314.9Martinique 2.61.764Ile de la Réunion8.46.577.6 16.69.959.64%Final sums and percentage for all regions have been calculated based on information provided by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, monitoring exercises on soil biodiversity are running on pilot sites and in the framework of the French National Soil Monitoring Network, in order to design the national monitoring strategy for soil biodiversity (e.g. indicators, sampling periods, frequency, reporting and costs). Already tested indicators are:- soil microflora diversity (based on DNA methods) and activity (based on respiration and other enzymatic activities)- soil fauna (based on the abundance and diversity of Earthworms, Collembola, Nematodes and total Macrofauna).ADEME (French Agency for Environment and Energy Management) financially supported the following research and monitoring programmes in order to set up the monitoring of soil biodiversity.- “ECOMIC-RMQS” assessed the amount and diversity of soil micro organisms in 2200 soil samples collected within the National Soil Monitoring Network (RMQS) (this work is currently being published)- “RMQS-Biodiv” measured the diversity of soil microflora (diversity, respiration and activity) and of fauna (earthworms, collembola, nematodes, total macrofauna) at 118 locations based in the Brittany region (this work is currently being published) - “Development and validation of soil bioindicators” refers to 20 laboratories currently testing soil bioindicators based on soil flora, microflora and fauna at 12 sites (4 contaminated lands, 4 agricultural sites and 4 forest sites) in order to define more suitable indicators to be selected to monitor soil degradations and changes in land uses.  Complementary to the measurement of biological parameters, more ‘classical’ information is also recorded, such as soil type, climate, land use, physical and chemical parameters. Those research and monitoring exercises will provide data to implement the existing Soil Monitoring Network with biological indicators informing about the status of soil biodiversity in France.Furthermore, some research is underway regarding the distribution and functions of soil organisms through the GESSOL programme, funded by the Ministry in charge of Ecology.All these national programmes include the selected biological indicators recommended by the recent EU study called \"ENVASSO\" (see Gardi et al., 2009 and Bispo et al., 2009).Background information on the French Soil Quality Monitoring NetworkThe French Soil Quality Monitoring Network (RMQS) is already implemented since 2000 and a specific programme named Ecomic RMQS has for aim to assess the soil microflora.More information:Scope of the programme:It is a multi land use network of 2200 sites sampled each 10 years on a 16 km square cell covering the whole French territory. This network aims to monitor the quality of soil (first of all heavy metal contamination) in order to early detect unsuspected evolutions. The other objectives are to: detect gradients by mappings, explore the relation between soil quality and possible controlling factors, constitute a bank of soil samples. Type of indicators: For the Ecomic RMQS programme, the main indicators are based on the DNA extraction, in order to establish the density and the diversity of the genetic structures of the bacterial communities.Parameters related to faunistic or microbiological activity mandatory: None. The heavy metal data collection of the RMQS is financed by the French Ministries of agriculture and Ecology and the French Environment and Energy Management Agency. All the other indicators, and among them the DNA assessment with the Ecomic RMQS programme are financed by specific programmes and therefore not automatically renewed every ten years in order to be monitored.Projects undertaken to identify potential indicators of soil biodiversity:In Brittany (north-western French region) there’s a specific programme (RMQS Biodiv) implemented on 108 out of the 2200 RMQS sites. This programme aims to assess the soil fauna and flora amounts. The first results have already been published in Cluzeau D., Pérès G., Guernion M. et al., 2009. « Intégration de la biodiversité des sols dans les réseaux de surveillance de la qualité des sols : exemple du programme-pilote à l’échelle régionale, le RMQS BioDiv », Étude et Gestion des sols, vol. 16, n 3/4, pp. 187-201.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire    references: Bispo A. et al. 2009. Indicators for monitoring soil biodiversity. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5. pp 717-719.Bispo A. et al. 2009. Le programme ADEME “Bioindicateurs de qualité des sols” : Vers le développement et la validation d’indicateurs biologiques pour la protection des sols. Étude et Gestion des Sols, Volume 16, 3/4, 2009 – pp. 145 - 158Cluzeau et al. 2009. Intégration de la biodiversité des sols dans les réseaux de surveillance de la qualité des sols : exemple du programme-pilote à l’échelle régionale, le RMQS BioDiv. Etude et Gestion des Sols, vol. 16/3-4, 2009. pp. 187-201Dequiedt S. et al. 2009. ECOMIC-RMQS : biogéographie microbienne à l’échelle de la France. Etat d’avancement et premiers résultats. Etude et Gestion des Sols, vol. 16/3-4, pp. 219-231Gardi C. et al., 2009. Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe: ongoing activities and challenges. European Journal of Soil Science. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01177. Weblinks:http://www.gissol.fr/programme/rmqs/rmqs.php  (French Monitoring Network for soil quality)http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/Themes/Biodiversity/Meeting062008/RMQS_BioDivConsortium.pdf  (RMQS-Biodiv)http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=3096 Ranjard L., Dequiedt S., Lelievre M. et al., 2009. « Platform GenoSol: a new tool for conserving and exploring soil microbial diversity », Environmental Microbiology Report. Vol. 1, n 2, avril 2009. pp. 97-99.http://www2.dijon.inra.fr/plateforme_genosol/projets/index.php?cat=anr','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the alpine and continental fresh water habitats in France have an unfavourable conservation status. 89 per cent of the Atlantic and 92 per cent of the Mediterranean freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 8 per cent of the Mediterranean freshwater habitats have a favourable status while the status of the remaining 11 per cent of Atlantic fresh water habitats is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.According to reporting by the Member State, the conservation quality of freshwater habitats and bogs, mires and fens is often low and their area is in decline.','','A breakdown of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage413910195%2%0%2%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9800189%0%0%11%U12  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U12   U28       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U14  U26       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121110092%8%0%0%U16  U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data in France, oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 2.88 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.84 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a slight decrease from 0.36 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.33 mg N/l in 2005. Values were lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 2.60 mg N/l in 2002 to 2.57 mg N/l in 2005, but with a peak of 2.81 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were below weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear trend from 2003 to 2005, amounting to 18.1 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 19.9 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 21.0 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.106 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.111 mg P/l in 2005, but with a lowermost value of 0.099 mg P/l in 2004. 2005 values were slightly below the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005.No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 France had a total number of 1278 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 95.1 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, France progressed on the development of biological assessment methods for lakes, focusing on phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. The latter was also a method applied for the assessment of rivers, all other assessments for the same water category either development or not developed yet, like phytoplankton. Depending on the districts, methods are either partially developed or underdeveloped for transitional or coastal waters.According to reporting by the Member States, in 2010 the following applies for biological assessment methods in France:RiversPhytoplankton: The data-gathering is in progress in river basin district to develop an assessment method.Macrophytes and Phytobenthos: Two parameters are used for the MP assessment. One method is already available for phytobentos and under development for macrophytes. LakesFish Fauna:  Work is in progress for this element. France coordinates the cross GIG fish for lakes.Benthic Invertebrate: An assessment method more relevant than the current is under development. Generally, work is in progress to improve all biological assessment methods, in particular within the second round of Intercalibration.Considering particularities of French overseas departments   (eg, specific ecosystems functioning, specific flora and fauna, knowledge gathering started relatively recently), specific initiatives are under development to put into place biological assessment methods adapted to the characteristics of overseas departments. Water bodies of overseas departments cover a limited number of national types of water bodies.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 581 in France.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 France had a total number of 6088 IPPC installations and issued 6336 permits. No permits were still outstanding. 4583 was the number of permits that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. According to updated figures provided by the Member State, the following applies for 2009:Number of existing installations : 5758Number of permits : 5758Number of pending permits  (re-examination under way) : 784','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 France’s emissions of nitrogen oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds were well above relevant NECD ceilings. Sulphur oxides and ammonia emissions were already below ceilings set out in the Directive. France’s 2010 emission ceiling targets for sulphur oxides and ammonia are likely to be attained with existing air pollution control measures. However, according to projections, nitrogen oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds targets are unlikely to be met.','','','','','','','',''),
	('France','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in France the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 12 and 98 per cent respectively, considering an area of 177,359 km2 and 180,099 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 8 and 6 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 1 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 95 per cent in 2010 and 91 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 41 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, France’s gross nitrogen balance was 54 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 16 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, France’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. By 2006 the indicator was at 76.3 per cent, a 23.7 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 21 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. ','','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in France generally have an unfavourable conservation status.The habitats with the greatest percentage of favourable conservation status are the alpine grassland habitats, where 42 per cent are considered favourable (the remaining 58 per cent are unfavourable). All of the 11 occurrences of continental grassland habitat have an unfavourable conservation status. Furthermore, 90 per cent of the Atlantic grassland habitats have an unfavourable status, the status of the remaining 10 per cent is unknown. Of the Mediterranean grassland habitats in France, the majority (69 per cent) have an unfavourable status, 8 per cent have a favourable conservation status and the status of the remaining 23 per cent is unknown. All of the Atlantic and continental heath and scrub habitat in France has an unfavourable conservation status while 67 per cent of both the alpine and Mediterranean heath and scrub habitat have a status that is unfavourable (the remaining 33 per cent in both cases have a favourable status). All of the 27 occurrences of peat land habitats in France (Atlantic, continental, alpine and Mediterranean) have an unfavourable conservation status. With regards to the forest habitats in France, 93 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats in France have an unfavourable conservation status (the status of the remaining Atlantic forest habitats are unknown). 57 per cent of alpine forest habitats have an unfavourable status, 14 per cent have a favourable status (of the remaining 28 per cent, the status of 21 per cent is unknown while 7 per cent were unreported). 63 per cent of the continental foret habitats in France have an unfavourable status, 19 per cent have a favourable status while the status of the remaining 19 per cent is unknown. Finally, of the Mediterranean forest habitats in France, 72 per cent have an unfavourable status, 17 per cent have a favourable status and the conservation status of the remaining 11 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.According to reporting by the Member State, heath and scrub habitats are rather in a good conservation status because their repartition is not declining and pressures are low. However grasslands are most of the time in unfavourable conservation status (especially in Continental and Atlantic biogeographical zones) because their area is declining. In Mediterranean and Alpine biogeographical zones the status is more favourable.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage463664078%13%9%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10901090%0%10%0%U11  U28       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1111000100%0%0%0%U13   U28       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12750058%42%0%0%U16  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13913069%8%23%0%U16  U23       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage624489171%13%15%2%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage141301093%0%7%0%U17  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage161033063%19%19%0%U16   U24       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage14823157%14%21%7%U15  U23       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage181332072%17%11%0%U16  U27       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage191630084%16%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U11  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U13   U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6420067%33%0%0%U13  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3210067%33%0%0%U12  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2727000100%0%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage88000100%0%0%0%U12  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U12   U25       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage88000100%0%0%0%U13  U25       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%U12  U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','24/02/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for France showed that of the four marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%). Five marine habitats were assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region—three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (60%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (40%). One coastal habitat was assessed in the Alpine biogeographic region—it had a ‘Bad’ status. Twelve coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—eight had a ‘Favourable’ status (67%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (25%), and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (8%). Two coastal habitats were assessed in the Continental biogeographic region—both had a ‘Bad’ status. Finallly, ten coastal habitats were assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region—five had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and five had a ‘Bad’ status (50%).A total of 25 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, including reptiles, fish, mammals and plants. Of these 25, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (4%), one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (4%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (12%) and 20 had an ‘Unknown’ status (80%). A total of 24 marine species were assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region—thrree had an ‘Inadequate’ status (13%), six had a ‘Bad’ status (25%), 14 had an ‘Unknown’ status (58%) and one was Not Reported (4%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%250%250%00%00%4Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats00%360%240%00%00%5AlpineCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1AtlanticCoastal habitats866.7%00%325%18.3%00%12ContinentalCoastal habitats00%00%2100%00%00%2MediterraneanCoastal habitats00%550%550%00%00%10Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%133%00%267%00%3Marine AtlanticFish00%00%125%375%00%4Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals16%00%00%1594%00%16Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%2100%00%00%2Marine AtlanticTOTAL14%14%312%2080%00%25Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%133%267%00%00%3Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%233%233%233%00%6Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%222%667%111%9Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%313%625%1458%14%24The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_1_4','','France reported that, in 2009, it had 93 surveillance stations and 61 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. The UK has 164 coastal water bodies. Approximately 55% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed in most coastal bodies of water for monitoring phytoplankton and some methods available or being developed for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm. No information was available on methods for monitoring benthic invertebrates.France reported that a programme of measures has been adopted for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_1_5','','France reported that a national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is being developed. The report submitted by France in 2006 on the implementation of the recommendation of the European Union for ICZM mentioned a number of concrete actions which were current or to be implemented after the recommendation. These actions are still relevant, including the law regulating urbanisation in coastal areas (Law No. 86-2 referred to as the “Coastal Law\").France launched a major debate on the environment, involving government officials, elected representatives, NGOs and professionals, the outcomes of which are currently being translated into legislation. This debate, called \"Grenelle de l\'environnement”, helped to establish the principle of a national strategy for the sea and coastline, through an integrated approach.Following the Grenelle Environment Forum, a \"Grenelle” of the sea was launched to drive a more specific and concerted national debate over the sea and coastline, resulting in 138 commitments, leading to the publication of a blue book, which should feed into the national strategy and guide the various actors involved in planning and sectoral policies. As anticipated by the recommendation, these actions have helped to:-	identify and provide long term solutions to challenging coastal issues, focusing on the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources (chapter II of the recommendation),-	involve stakeholders in the discussions and conduct a public consultation (chapter III of the recommendation),-	adopt the principle of a national strategy for an integrated approach for the sea and the coastline based on existing coastal instruments (chapter IV of the recommendation).','','','Reference or title :Livre bleu - Stratégie nationale pour la mer et les océans, décembre 2009Weblink:http://www.legrenelle-mer.gouv.fr/spip.phphttp://www.sgmer.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2009-12-08_-_Livre_bleu.pdf','24/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('France','Objective3','A3_2','','France currently has 1,968 coastal bathing areas and a high proportion of these have reached mandatory standards on water quality: 96.4% in 2006; 95.7% in 2007 and 97.2% in 2008. The proportion reaching the stricter guideline standards on water quality was lower in 2006 and 2007 (79.0% and 77.7% respectively) but reached 97.2% in 2008. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as France has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years. ','','-','','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_4','','France’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €142,492,268 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity as well as improving gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€120,502,559) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€157,174,746) supports the protection of aquatic flora and fauna, and Axis 4 (€11,235,580) allows for the diversification of activities outside of the fishing sector thereby supporting capacity reduction. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_05_fr.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','24/02/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 France had 7,698 vessels and 18% were involved in a serious infringement (1,360 vessels). A total of 454 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €5,105 and maximum fine of €75,000.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_5_2','','France has national management plans for Eel and plans for Salmon and Trout that are implemented at the river basin level. For sturgeon, a plan to apply the international action plan of the Bern convention is currently being written by the French authorities. However, sturgeon fishing is currently forbidden and some stock enhancement is foreseen within the plan. For the other species, mainly Alosa alosa, Alosa fallax, Petromyzon marinus and Lampetra fluviatilis as well as the sea trout, management plans exist, that are implemented in the different basins. For instance, fishing measures are implemented at the regional level through closed seasons and gear restrictions.A national eel management plan was sent to the Commission for approval in December 2008. The measures of this plan aim at reducing the mortality rate by 30% through changes to fishing practices and the implementation of nearly 1,600 separate activities considered to be urgent for eel populations. This plan also provides for monitoring. Management plans at the level of district basins take measures to restore habitats and remove migratory barriers. A national management strategy is also in progress to provide guidelines on the management of fisheries, habitats and research. This is being set up in consultation with professional and amateur fisheries as well as hydro-electricians and associations involved in the protection of the environment (e.g. NGOs).     ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','',''),
	('France','Objective3','A3_5_3','','France’s fishing capacity decreased from 1999 to 2006 but then increased slightly from 2007 to 2008. Current capacity is 7,918 vessels; 197,183 tons and 1,070,815kW which are down 5%; 8% and 4% respectively from 1999. This was mainly a consequence of measure to reduce fishing effort for cod, hake and sole. The trawler fleet in the Mediterranean has also been reduced. Within France’s 2007-2013 operational programme there is a specific measure for decommissioning vessels in order to reduce over-capacity of the fleet. There is an objective to reduce capacity by 30% by 2012 of the main fleet and a 20% reduction of vessels under 12m which will focus on vessels over 10 years old. ','','2008 data: 7918 vessels: 197183 tons; 1070815 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 France had 7,698 active vessels. There were 688 type D breaches in this year and 249 penalties imposed with an average fine of €1,986. France has no specific measures (beyond implementing CFP measures) related to reducing unwanted by-catch or damage to the benthos. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_6_2','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('France','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('France','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','France has 201 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). No measure regarding fisheries management has been taken or modified for the management of Natura sites within or beyond 12 nm in France. In fact, marine Natura 2000 sites have just been designated and steering committees are being put into place to set up specific objectives for the sites. At the national level, a process was initiated to establish frame of reference for national fisheries management measures which could then be adapted to each marine Natura2000 site. However, it is the preference of fishermen to start at the local level and therefore work is in progress to set specific objectives for each marine natura 2000 site. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 140Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 2 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites','24/02/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective3','A3_7_1','','France has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, France has proposed collecting data for ecosystem indicators 1-9 from Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. For indicators 1-3, data will be collected and stored in the IFREMER database ‘Harmonie’. Data collected during surveys will also be used for indicator 4 on the size at maturation of exploited fish species. VMS data will be used by Ifremer to create an algorithm to check vessel position , assess if a vessel is fishing, and characterise the distribution of fishing effort—which will be used for indicators 5-7. Data for Indicator 8 on discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be collected using sampling of effort at sea and the protocol for data collection on board fishing vessels to estimate the discard rate. Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency will be calculated using the cost of fuel and the value of landings.France also collect data on incidental catches of cetaceans (EC 812/2004) (data of 2008) & fishing for deep seas stocks (EC 2347/2002) (data of 2002 to 2009).','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','24/02/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for French EEZ waters (not including overseas territories) was 3.38 in 2004. This is a slight decrease since 1999 (-0.05) and an overall increase since 1984 (+0.05). ','','From Pauly (2005): Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective4','A4_3','','In France, a law voted in August 2009, obliges to consider ecological networks in spatial planning (loi n 2009-967 du 3 août 2009 relative à la programmation de la mise en œuvre du Grenelle de l’environnement). This law will be completed by a second one in 2010 (loi portant engagement national pour l’environnement – second “Grenelle” law). In France, there is no need for interministerial coordination to include ecological network considerations into spatial planning, since spatial planning and biodiversity are dealt wihin the same ministry.','','In France, the process to establish the ecological network at a large scale is “only beginning”. The law aims the achievement of regional master plans of the ecological network by the end of 2012. These regional master plans of the ecological network will have to be taken into account in urban planning documents. Meanwhile, the same law establishes a new objective for urban planning which is “to preserve biodiversity, in particular by conserving, restauring and creating ecological connections”.However, some French region and local authorities have already worked on ecological networks and their inclusion in spatial planning. Works have been done at different scales and with different regulatory aftermaths. Besides, for decades national parks and regional natural parks mostly include ecological networks in their master plans, with which all spatial planning documents must be compatible. As monitoring is concerned, environmental impact assessment of plans and programs has taken ecological continuity into account for severals years. For the moment environmental evaluation is the only mean to monitor the effectiveness of measures for ecological networks in spatial planning; however it seems quite difficult to define the good indicators to do so. In 2010, a national ressources center on Green and Blue Infrastructure should be created. It will be a platform that will help local authorities to elaborate green and blue infratructure on their territory, providing scientific backgrounds and methodology. This platform will also enable experience sharing.','Guidelines on “Trame verte et bleue” (Green and bleue infrastructure) are being written and might be published when the second “Grenelle” law will be adoptedhttp://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020949548&fastPos=1&fastReqId=507045715&categorieLien=cid&oldAction=rechTexte (loi du 3 août 2009)','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The biodiversity action plan for tourism was adopted in April 2009 and is now under implementation in France. Tourism development is planned as per national laws and regulations as well, including the Tourism code (Code du tourisme), the Environment code (Code de l’environnement), the Urban planning code (Code de l’urbanisme), Law on coastal areas (Loi Littoral) and the law on Mountains (Loi Montagne).','','','Reference or title:Stratégie nationale pour la biodiversité - Plan d’action tourisme 2009 - 2010Weblink:http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=12786http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective4','A4_5_1','','Specific Biodiversity Action Plans have been written and are currently being implemented in each French Outermost Region (\"départements\" and \"collectivités\"). These Action plans are local applications of the National Strategy for Biodiversity, and include actions towards reducing negative impacts on biodiversity (for instance “stop the impact of gravel-pits on aquatic ecosystems” in Martinique or “destruction of sources of introduction of invasives species (targeting farming greenhouses used for local food production)” in Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises).Moreover, a project for a biodiversity network (which could be compared to Natura 2000 network) is currently implemented in Outermost Regions. Lists of determining species are being elaborated and sites will be selected for this network. France also participates to the “Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European Overseas” to promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in European overseas entities inspired by the experience with EU nature conservation.The coherence of actions is reinforced by the IFRECOR (French initiative for coral reefs) at a regional scale. In 2010 a new initiative will be launched, aiming at reinforcing the coherence of all actions about biodiversity in overseas and outermost regions (IFREBIOM).','','','http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-plans-d-actions-de-la.html','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, French direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 327.5 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','24/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','France has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS), however, specific legislation addresses the issues of import, trade, introduction and control of IAS. Various Articles under the Code de l’environment address IAS. Articles L.424-10, L.424-11, Annex Ic prohibit the import of all game bird species (with the exception of six species) without prior authorisation. Likewise, Article L.432-10 Annex Ie prohibits the introduction of new aquatic species without Ministerial authorisation. The introduction, trade, transport and/or use of listed IAS may be prohibited under Article L.411-3. Two species (Ludwigia grandiflora and Ludwigia peploides) have already (since 2007) been listed under article L.411-3. Furthermore, lists of vertebrates, plants and invertebrates to be regulated under Article L.411-3 are currently being developed. Plant protection legislation focuses on the control of IAS; secondary legislation concentrates on the control of harmful organisms (Arrêté du 31 juillet 2000 établissant la liste des organismes nuisibles aux végétaux… soumis à des mesures de lutte obligatoire). Trade in species of the genders Chrysemys spp., Pseudemys spp., Trachemys spp., Graptemys spp. and Rana spp. is prohibited under specific measures. These provisions will soon be extended to other invasive vertebrates kept in captivity. In addition, there is also a national list of pest species, both plant and animal of which control is obligatory.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species (IAS) identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 40 are present in France. This equates to < 0.10 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective5','A5_1_2','','France has not developed a national strategy or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS). However, IAS are addressed in the French Biodiversity Strategy and proposals for IAS prevention and control actions have been endorsed as part of the Grenelle de l\'environnement. Most plans for Overseas Territories address IAS. According to the Member State authorities, a national strategy for IAS is under way, addressing IAS with negative impacts on wild biodiversity. Furthermore, a specific strategy for IAS is implemented for overseas territories. In this context, a number of specific actions are being / will be undertaken including: developing national legislation for IAS (e.g. in the  overseas territories), building a national network of IAS experts, elaborating national framework for IAS surveillance (i.e. for the purposes of early detection and rapid response), improving communication and research on IAS, developing a mechanisms to identify high priority IAS, and developing and implementing species-specific action plans for these species, Finally, already existing action plans will be updated (e.g. the existing action plan for ruddy duck will be updated according to the European strategy on buddy duck).','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective5','A5_1_3','','France has ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.   Adhesion to the convention by Act n 2008-476 was signed 22/05/2008. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that Data source ','','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, France is drafting a national strategy for invasive alien species (IAS) with negative impacts on biodiversity (e.g. the outermost regions). This strategy also includes the development of a national framework for early warning and surveillance (for national territory). Furthermore, a national network of IAS focal points is already under construction. The foreseen actions to develop national early warning include: A review of lessons learned / situation of IAS in other countries and regions, especially those sharing similar environmental characteristics. Based on this, identification of priority species (i.e. species not yet present / established in France) to be monitored (e.g. the grey squirrel);Implementation of an early detection and rapid response system including, for example: development of a national database on species currently introduced in natural environment; identification of relevant actors to be involved and establishing coordination between possible new / already existing surveillance initiatives; and further improving cooperation on control measures across national boundaries. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('France','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective5','A5_2_2','','France has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (Law 2008-595 published in the French Official Journal on 26.08.2008).   With regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in France, natural parks can exclude their cultivation should there be unanimous agreement of concerned farmers and if this possibility is included in their charter. According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are currently 21 Regions formally or informally declared GMO free:Aquitaine, Auvergne, Basse-Normandie, Bourgogne, Bretagne, Centre, Champagne-Ardenne, Corse, Franche-Comté, Haute Normandie, Ile de France,  Languedoc-Roussillon, Lorraine, Limousin, Midi-Pyrennées, Nord-pas-de-Calais, Pays-de-la-Loire, Picardie, Poitou-Charentes, Provence Alpes-Cote D\'Azur, Rhône-Alpes.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in July 2009. The 2nd version of the “Strategie Nationale pour la Biodiversite” was published in April 2009.France has paid her annual contribution to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid spending for France for 2006 or 2007.','','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, France spent EUR17.7m in 2006 and EUR57.3m in 2007 on bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which is 0.002 and 0.009%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009, 12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective7','A7_1_4','','France contributed EUR166.07 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 6.81% of the total replenishment. France contributed EUR150.33 million to the 4th replenishment which is 7.04 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective7','A7_1_6','','The annual spending on biodiversity-related bilateral aid for French overseas territories amounted, for the years 2006-2008, to between EUR0.358 and 0.571 million per year.','','It should be noticed that financing OCTs is not considered as being bilateral aid in France and is not identified as such in financial documents. It is therefore difficult to have accurate figures. Figures given in the tables are a minimum.  ','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective7','A7_2_5','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective8','A8_1','','France has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. National legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing as well as the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development, as are public awareness activities regarding the Bonn Guidelines. While no information on the quantity of sustainable wood imported to France is available, the percentage of certified round wood in the French harvest is as follows: 2006: 29%, 2007: 40%, 2008: 45%, 2009: 42%.A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2005 and 2006, with no information on the number of applications denied, and many items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. No support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided but Andorra was supported. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','National legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing is under development in France as are national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','24/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development in France. France has not implemented national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The following figures reflect the part of certified round wood in the French harvest, as stated in the national harvest inquiry: 2006: 29%, 2007: 40%, 2008: 45%, 2009: 42%. It is NOT the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources, which is higher. In low risk countries like France, wood without any proof of legality or sustainability is not necessarily illegal or unsustainable, because the forest administration controls the harvesting. The forest owners and the wood based industries must be able to demonstrate the sustainability of their sourcing to the consumer. That is why France strongly promotes the certification of the forest and the chain of custody through the wood processing branches.Regarding the imported wood from third countries, the implementation of the 2005 FLEGT regulation (VPA), of the FLEGT due diligence regulation and of the Directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources will considerably minimize the risk of illegal and unsustainable wood. France is strongly involved in all those processes. France also conducted such a study, but only to assess the French state public procurement policy. The results are not yet public but the draft report shows that in 2009 nearly 60% of the public purchasers refer at least partially to sustainable forest management for the operation involving wood and wood products. A revision of the public procurement policy is due for 2010. No information on the quantity of sustainable wood  imported to France.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2005 and 2006 was 37,855, 1944 and 64,007, respectively. No information is available about the number of denied import, export or re-export applications. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 51,605 for 2005 and 10,820 for 2006, a net decrease of 40,785 specimens. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance to Management Authority, Scientific Authority and enforcement authorities; technical assistance to Management Authority and enforcement authorities; training of Management Authority, Scientific Authority, enforcement authorities and traders. France provided CITES –related technical assistance to Andorra. France paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','','','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('France','Objective9','','','The French Climate change adaptation strategy (November 2006) includes a section dedicated to biodiversity. The National biodiversity strategy (2004) also takes into account climate change (notably through the set-up of a national ecological network or for issues pertaining to forests). The revision of this strategy in 2010-2011 will however allow for more thorough consideration of this issue.The law related to the implementation of the Grenelle de l’Environnement, voted on the 3rd of August 2009, includes the adoption of a national climate change adaptation action plan by 2011. To this effect, an inter-ministerial group has been set up on “Climate change: costs of impacts and lines of adaptation”, which included a sub-group dedicated to biodiversity. The report has been published in October 2009 and includes a section on biodiversity, which states the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, their consequences and some recommendations for adaptation. This report will serve as an input for the national multi-parties consultation process which has been launched in December 2009 and will run throughout 2010 in order to plan out the adaptation measures to be implemented in the national adaptation plan. Three groups have been formed for this process, one of them being dedicated to cross-cutting issues – biodiversity, water, health, natural hazards. Some projects for biodiversity adaptation have however already been undertaken: - the development of the national ecological network (“trame verte et bleue”) is underway and will facilitate the migration of species in response to climate change by insuring ecological continuity nationwide. Some local authorities have already or are in the process of setting up such a network on their jurisdiction; - the analysis of the impacts of climate has been added in the elaboration of national species action plans;- a strategy for the creation of protected area is being developed and will allow for more consistent and appropriate coverage of the territory; it will be based on a list of species/habitats in need of protection, which includes species to be affected by climate change in the future- some Life+ projects have focused on adaptative management and protected areas in the context of climate change, notably as regards forests.','','','CBD national reports. Fourth national.1. Observatoire National des Effets du Réchauffement Climatique (ONERC), 2007, Stratégie nationale d’adaptation au changement climatique, La Documentation française2. Direction Générale de l’Energie et du Climat (DGEC)/ONERC, 2009, Evaluation du coût des impacts du changement climatique et de l’adaptation en France – Rapport de la deuxième phase – Partie II Rapport des groupes transversaux – Rapport du groupe Biodiversité, pp.93-173. 3. ONERC, 2009, Climate change : costs of impacts and lines of adaptation – Report to the Prime Minister and Parliament 4. 5th National report in the framework of UNFCCC to be published http://www.cbd.int/countries1. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=131812. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/094000463/index.shtml3. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=123504. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=12575.http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective9','A9_3_2','','A national action plan about energy produced from biomass, covering the 2007-2010 period, is currently implemented in France. Moreover, a NREAP consisting in 50 measures, has been adopted in December 2008.Generally, any financial or supporting tool encouraging energy recovery from biomass (heat, electricity) takes into account environmental impacts, including biodiversity. For instance, the call for proposals under the heat fund (fonds chaleur), launched in October 2009 and dedicated to the development of boilers fueled with biomass, recommends the use of timber from sustainably managed forests (PEFC, FSC). Furthermore, operators are requested to follow guidelines about \"rational management of residual forest\" in some forest areas where soils are fragile and susceptible to be degraded by forest exploitation. Finally, under the third call for proposals launched to develop biomass electricity power plants, candidates have to produce analyses dealing with environmental impacts, and showing that forest exploitation is sustainable.','','A life cycle analysis for biofuels has been achieved by the French agency for environment (ADEME), in which indirect land uses changes (ILUC) have been taken into account.A study, called “biomass and biodiversity” has been realised by researchers, in order to make proposals to reduce impacts of bio-energy on biodiversity. An expertise has been carried out to assess the ways to implement the RED sustainability biofuels scheme in France.','“Grenelle 1” law, article 18 http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000020949548','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('France','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('France','Objective9','A9_4_1','','The French Climate change adaptation strategy (November 2006) includes a section dedicated to biodiversity. The National biodiversity strategy (2004) also takes into account climate change (notably through the set-up of a national ecological network or for issues pertaining to forests). The revision of this strategy in 2010-2011 will however allow for more thorough consideration of this issue.The law related to the implementation of the Grenelle de l’Environnement, voted on the 3rd of August 2009, includes the adoption of a national climate change adaptation action plan by 2011. To this effect, an inter-ministerial group has been set up on “Climate change: costs of impacts and lines of adaptation”, which included a sub-group dedicated to biodiversity. The report has been published in October 2009 and includes a section on biodiversity, which states the direct and indirect impacts of climate change, their consequences and some recommendations for adaptation. This report will serve as an input for the national multi-parties consultation process which has been launched in December 2009 and will run throughout 2010 in order to plan out the adaptation measures to be implemented in the national adaptation plan. Three groups have been formed for this process, one of them being dedicated to cross-cutting issues – biodiversity, water, health, natural hazards. Some projects for biodiversity adaptation have however already been undertaken: - the development of the national ecological network (“trame verte et bleue”) is underway and will facilitate the migration of species in response to climate change by insuring ecological continuity nationwide. Some local authorities have already or are in the process of setting up such a network on their jurisdiction; - the analysis of the impacts of climate has been added in the elaboration of national species action plans;- a strategy for the creation of protected area is being developed and will allow for more consistent and appropriate coverage of the territory; it will be based on a list of species/habitats in need of protection, which includes species to be affected by climate change in the future- some Life+ projects have focused on adaptative management and protected areas in the context of climate change, notably as regards forests.',NULL,NULL,'CBD national reports. Fourth national.1. Observatoire National des Effets du Réchauffement Climatique (ONERC), 2007, Stratégie nationale d’adaptation au changement climatique, La Documentation française2. Direction Générale de l’Energie et du Climat (DGEC)/ONERC, 2009, Evaluation du coût des impacts du changement climatique et de l’adaptation en France – Rapport de la deuxième phase – Partie II Rapport des groupes transversaux – Rapport du groupe Biodiversité, pp.93-173. 3. ONERC, 2009, Climate change : costs of impacts and lines of adaptation – Report to the Prime Minister and Parliament 4. 5th National report in the framework of UNFCCC to be published http://www.cbd.int/countries1. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=131812. http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/094000463/index.shtml3. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=123504. http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=12575.http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('France','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No complete work has been undertaken to identify the species and habitats the most at risk in response to climate change in France. However, different initiatives have been taken:- some work has been undertaken to determine the impacts of climate change on forests habitats, in particular on beech groves, within and outside Natura 2000 sites;- work has also been undertaken on the phenology of migration of several trans-saharian sparrows;- in the framework of the Strategy for protected areas creation, a list of species has been set up, which includes some species likely to be impacted by climate change.A synthesis study has just been launched by the Ministry in charge of Ecology in order to gather, summarise and analyse available knowledge on the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in France, as well as recommend further studies/research to be launched to fill the gaps. It will also attempt to list vulnerable species as regards climate change. More research on climate change and wetlands is also planned.','','',' ','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','MandE','C1_2','','Germany has established a system of national biodiversity indicators, which reflects 14 of the 26 SEBI indicators and includes several additional indicators. Several of these indicators are new, and the collection of data has only just started, while other indicators make use of long-established systems of monitoring.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the German National Strategy for Biological Diversity. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; German National Strategy for Biological DiversityWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/de/de-nbsap-01-en.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','MandE','C1_2_1','','For 14 of the 26 indicators, Germany has developed national indicators, which closely resemble, or are identical to the SEBI indicators. The following additional indicators are used: Conservation status of floodplains - Land use: increase in the amount of land used for human settlements and the transport infrastructure - Sustainable forestry (proportion of certified forest land) - Genetic engineering in agriculture - Flowering season of indicator plants. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the German National Strategy for Biological Diversity.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; German National Strategy for Biological DiversityWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/de/de-nbsap-01-en.pdf ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','MandE','C1_3_1','','The German national monitoring schemes under the Habitats Directive refer to: Sachteleben, J & M. Behrens (2009): Konzept zum Monitoring des Erhaltungszustandes von Lebensraumtypen und Arten der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland; draft, unpublished; 200 p. According to the obligations under article 11 of the Habitats Directives member states of the European Union shall establish monitoring programmes to assess the conservation status of the species listed in the annexes II, IV and V (as well as habitat types of annex I). These data shall provide a sound basis for the national reports given by the member states every 6 years. The last national report provided by Germany in 2007 covers the timeframe from 2001 until 2006. It was based on heterogeneous data provided by the German federal states nature conservation agencies and additional expert opinion since a nation wide monitoring plan with standardized methods was lacking. For the ongoing reporting period (2007–2012) the German Länder (federal states) and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation developed a harmonized monitoring plan that started in 2008. Taking into account some statistical settings and agreements, in Germany annex species and habitat types with more than 63 occurrences within a given biogeographical region are sampled at 63 randomly chosen localities. For species or habitat types with a lower number of occurrences all known localities are included into the monitoring. For each species or habitat type, always the same localities were covered by the monitoring (constant plots), as long as the species resp. habitat type is present there. Species and habitat type specific assessment schemes define the relevant parameters to be recorded and assessed (using threshold values) during the field work at the sampled localities. Species population monitoring is mainly based on semi-quantitative field methods e. g. egg mass counts, calling surveys, line transect counts rather than more time-consuming capture mark recapture techniques. The Monitoring under the Habitats Directive in Germany is an overview surveillance mainly to provide data for the national report. For more detailed information e. g. for species management or action plans at the level of single federal states or single protected areas additional monitoring activities are required and done by the German Länder.A short overview on population trends and monitoring of Birds in Germany is given in http://www.dda-web.de/downloads/texts/publications/birds_biodiversity_and_the_2010_target_in_germany_ebook.pdf More detailed information are given by Christoph Sudfeldt, Johannes Wahl, Alexander Mitschke, Martin Flade, Johannes Schwarz, Christoph Grüneberg, Martin Boschert und Karsten Berlin (2010): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland – Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 83, S. 96 ff.','','Only nationwide schemes regarding Natura 2000 (Birds and Habitats Directive) were mentioned in this section; So far, species of annex V (Habitats Directive) are not included in the nation wide monitoring programme; there are a lot more ongoing monitoring programmes at local and regional level in the Länder, for details see EUMON-Database: http://eumon.ckff.si/news.php ','Reference or title: 1) Sachteleben, J & M. Behrens (2009): Konzept zum Monitoring des Erhaltungszustandes von Lebensraumtypen und Arten der FFH-Richtlinie in Deutschland; draft, unpublished; 200 p. 2) Christoph Sudfeldt, Johannes Wahl, Alexander Mitschke, Martin Flade, Johannes Schwarz, Christoph Grüneberg, Martin Boschert und Karsten Berlin (2010): Vogelmonitoring in Deutschland – Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 83, S. 96 ff. Weblink: http://www.dda-web.de/downloads/texts/publications/birds_biodiversity_and_the_2010_target_in_germany_ebook.pdf; http://eumon.ckff.si/news.php','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Measure1','B1_1_1','','As a federal state, the task of conserving biological diversity in Germany is performed by the federal authorities and by the states (Länder) and local authorities. In addition, financial resources for the conservation of biodiversity are provided not only by the nature conservation sector, but also by other sectors (e.g. agriculture and forestry, transport, urban development, education and research). Among other things, these resources are used to support direct measures in the field of area and species conservation, nature -friendly use, research projects and associations. In addition to resources from the domestic budget, money for nature conservation measures is also provided by a number of foundations (public and private) and by the EU. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Germany spent up to EUR10,165,331 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Germany spent up to EUR2,723,233 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. Germany commented that the figures provided represent only a small fraction of Germany’s spending for Natura 2000 management and restoration, since these tasks are mainly financed through other instruments than LIFE. However, according to Germany it is currently not possible to provide a total for Natura 2000 management and restoration expenditure in Germany.','','The information on national programmes is taken from Germany’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Germany’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Measure1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Germany’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR50.6m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR56.6m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR86m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Measure1','B1_1_8','','From 2006-2009, Germany has spent EUR90,000,000 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure.','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure2','B2_4','','The German Federal Government adopted a National Strategy for Biodiversity on 7 November 2007 to implement the UN Convention on Biological Diversity at the national level. It contains about 330 targets and 430 initiatives, comprehensively dealing with all biodiversity-related issues. The EU Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’ is incorporated with relevant sections of this national strategy.','','','http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/nationale_strategie/doc/40332.php ','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure3','','','At COP 9, the international Biodiversity and Business Initiative was launched. The aim is the integration of the private sector in the implementation of the CBD. The key instrument is a leadership declaration which has to be signed which results in membership. So far 42 companies from Japan, Brazil, Germany, South Africa are members of the initiative. There are regular meetings with member companies including the development of a handbook for the integration of biodiversity issues into company management systems. The overall goal is to have a global B & B strategy with national focal points and an international coordination mechanism. ','','','www.business-and-biodiversity.de','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Measure3','B3_1_2','','In the context of agri-environment schemes, thousands of agreements have been concluded with land users (agricultural-environmental contractual nature). In addition to the agricultural environment there are a variety of local and regional projects that contribute to preserving biodiversity. These have been partially implemented but not directly with farmers and foresters (eg landscape projects, the mire, or for Natura 2000, for example with landscape associations). A number of regional projects include federal, state and local funds from the districts / municipalities (eg nature conservation project of the Federation \"Nordvorpommersche forest landscape\"), in which individual contracts with farmers and foresters. As part of the national coordination processes e.g. in connection with the design of the CAP and Forestry are held at the federal level consultative processes. Partnerships are at the local and regional level.','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:Im Rahmen der Agrarumweltförderung wurden mehrere Tausend Vereinbarungen/Verträge mit Landnutzern abgeschlossen (Agrarumweltmaßnahmen, Vertragsnaturschutz). Neben den Agrarumweltmaßnahmen gibt es eine Vielzahl von lokalen und regionalen Projekten, die dem Erhalt der Artenvielfalt dienen. Diese wurden teilweise jedoch nicht direkt mit Landwirten oder Forstwirten durchgeführt (z.B. Projekte der Landschaftspflege, des Moorschutzes oder für Natura 2000 sondern beispielsweise mit Landschaftspflegeverbänden). Eine Reihe von regionalen Projekten wird mit Bundes-, Landes und Eigenmitteln der Landkreise/Kommunen durchgfeführt (z.B. Naturschutzgroßprojekt des Bundes \"Nordvorpommersche Waldlandschaft\"), in denen Einzelverträge mit Land- und Forstwirten geschlossen werden.. Im Rahmen der nationalen Abstimmungsprozesse z.B. im Zusammenhang mit der Gestaltung der GAP und Forstpolitik finden auf Bundesebene Konsultativprozesse statt. Partnerschaften finden naturgemäß auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene statt..','','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure3','B3_1_5','','In Germany, the implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy is not only the role of the federal government, but must involve all actors in society. With this in mind, the BMU started a multi-year, dialogue-orientated process in December 2007. Large national and regional forums on biological diversity and different actor-related dialogues are part of this process. Government and non-state actors are invited to participate in the implementation process.At the regional level (in some states) and at local level, there are forums for stakeholder participation in various processes. These include in the preparation of management plans for Natura 2000 sites (also called \"round tables\") and the development of national development plans or the implementation of regional strategies for biodiversity','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:Die Umsetzung dieser Nationalen Strategie ist keine Aufgabe für den Bund allein, sondern muss alle gesellschaftliche Akteure einbeziehen. Deshalb hat das BMU im Dezember 2007 einen mehrjährigen, dialogorientierten Umsetzungsprozess gestartet. Bausteine dieses Prozesses sind große Nationale und Regionale Foren zur biologischen Vielfalt sowie verschiedene akteursbezogene Dialogforen. Es sind alle staatlichen und nicht-staatlichen Akteure eingeladen, sich am Umsetzungsprozess zu beteiligen. http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/nationale_strategie/doc/40332.phpAuf regionaler Ebene (in einigen Bundesländern) und auf lokaler Ebene gibt es Foren und Beteiligungen, z.B. bei der Erstellung von Managementplänen für Natura 2000-Gebiete (auch \"Runde Tische\"), bei der Erarbeitung von Landesentwicklungsplänen oder zur Umsetzung von regionalen Strategien zur biologischen Vielfalt.  ','Reference or title: Weblink: http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/nationale_strategie/doc/40332.php','','','','na','05/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Measure3','B3_1_6','','At COP 9, the international Biodiversity and Business Initiative was launched. The aim is the integration of the private sector in the implementation of the CBD. The key instrument is a leadership declaration which has to be signed which results in membership. So far 42 companies from Japan, Brazil, Germany, South Africa are members of the initiative. There are regular meetings with member companies including the development of a handbook for the integration of biodiversity issues into company management systems. The overall goal is to have a global B & B strategy with national focal points and an international coordination mechanism. ','','','www.business-and-biodiversity.de','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure3','B3_1_7','','There are no specifically designed platforms for partnerships in the financial sector on biodiversity. However, Germany reported that the following initiatives can be considered to encourage these partnerships:- \"B & B\" initiative (see answer to question B.3.1.6), in which banks and insurance companies are active;- A project started in December 2009 by the Ministry, linking the implementation of the National Strategy on Biodiversity to economic questions.- Initiative within the financial sector, the \'Association for Environmental Management in Banks, savings banks and insurance companies \";- \"Business and Biodiversity Conference\" in April 2008 in Germany, where the importance of the financial sector was discussed.','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:Es gibt keine eigens für den Finanzsektor aufgebaute Plattform zum Thema Biodiversität. Allerdings wird auf folgende Maßnahmen in diesem Themenspektrum hingewiesen:- \"B&B-Initiative\" (s. Antwort zu Frage B.3.1.6), in der auch Banken und Versicherungen aktiv sind;- ein im Dezember 2009 gestartetes Projekt des BMU, mit dem die Umsetzung der Nationalen Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt durch die Wirtschaft  befördert werden soll- Initiative innerhalb des Finanzsektors beim \"Verein für Umweltmanagement in Banken, Sparkassen und Versicherungen\";- \"Business and Biodiversity Conference\" im April 2008 in Deutschland, auf der auch die Bedeutung im Finanzsektor erörtert wurde. ','Reference or title:Weblink:www.vfu.dehttp://www.business-and-biodiversity.de/startseite.htmlhttp://www.globalnature.org/27880/Events/Archive-Events/Conferences/Conference-Business-and-Biodiversity/02_vorlage.asp','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The Akwe Kwon guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds. However, the German Development Cooperation has broadly included the Akwe Kwon guidelines to their own criteria and objectives in the concept note \"Development with indigenous people in Latin America and the Caribbean”.  The German government aims to ensure that collaborations in Latin America and the Caribbean are more relevant to the rights, needs and organizational processes of indigenous people. Indigenous people are involved in a cross-sectional approach in all appropriate projects and their concerns are taken into account. In addition, indigenous organizations are promoted directly, both at the national level and across countries (for example, promotion of indigenous federations). There are also plans to create an overarching approach to address the needs of indigenous in development policy.','','Above text was translated using an online tool and the translation has not been checked.Original German text is below:In der deutschen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit finden die Akwe Kon Leitlinien bisher keine Anwendung. Die deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit hat den Akwe Kon Leitlinien weitgehend entsprechende eigene Kriterien und Zielvorstellungen im Konzept „Entwicklungszusammenarbeit mit indigenen Völkern in Lateinamerika und der Karibik“ festgeschrieben (http://www.bmz.de/de/service/infothek/fach/konzepte/Konzept139.pdf). Die deutsche staatliche Entwicklungspolitik richtet damit ihre Zusammenarbeit in Lateinamerika und der Karibik stärker auf die Rechte, Bedürfnisse und Organisationsprozesse indigener Völker aus. Einerseits werden in einem Querschnittsansatz indigene Völker in allen Vorhaben angemessen einbezogen und ihre Belange berücksichtigt. Andererseits werden indigene Organisationen direkt gefördert, sowohl auf nationaler Ebene als auch länderübergreifend (zum Beispiel Förderung indigener Dachorganisationen). Es wird darüber hinaus beabsichtigt, ein übergreifendes Konzept zur Berücksichtigung der Belange  Indigener in der Entwicklungspolitik zu erstellen.','http://www.bmz.de/de/service/infothek/fach/konzepte/Konzept139.pdf.','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Measure4','B4_1_1','','There is no specific campaign for the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. However, several national campaigns in Germany have/are aimed at increasing public awareness on the issue of biodiversity and its importance in general:A  Communication Campaign for the National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) has included several activities:Since December 2007, the Federal Environment Ministry has organized - and will continue to do so in the future - several national and regional workshops as well as dialogues with different stakeholders (NGOs, agriculture/forest, research, education) in order to push the implementation of the strategy which is considered as a task for of all relevant groups in the society. In addition, a professional advertising campaign is being developed.The National Campaign for the CBD COP 9 (in Germany, Bonn, May 2008) included a variety of awareness raising measures, e.g. -	“Info-bus” tour through Germany,-	support from VIPs (“Naturallianz”)-	publications, material for schools-	competitions, exhibitions-	film clips, cinema days-	COP 9 music concerts','','','Reference or title:Weblink: NBS: http://www.biologischevielfalt.deCOP 9: http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/un_konferenz_2008/kampagne_naturallianz/doc/42541.php','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The BMU - Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (15/12/2006), Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (10/01/2005), GTZ – Biodiversity (22/05/2007), Land Berlin, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (22/05/2008) and Niederäechsische Landesforsten (19/04/2008) have all made  declarations supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative.  In total, a sum of 150,000 euros has been contributed between 2006 and 2008 to fund Countdown projects.','','In 2007, Germany funded the European Expert Workshop for Marine Ecosystems with 150.000 euros.   ','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 6 of the 7 (86%) rocky habitats and 100% (9 of the 9) of forests are reported to be in favourable condition. 5 of the 8 (63%) and 1 of the 2 (50%) of bog, mire and fen habitats and heath and scrub habitats are also in favourable condition respectively. The remaining heath and scrub habitats (1 of the 2 or 50%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. Over half (5 of the 8 or 63%) of alpine grasslands are also reported to be in unfavourable-inadequate condition.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) coastal habitats is unknown. The remaining 1 of the 3 (33%) coastal habitats is reported to be in unfavourable-inadequate condition.All sclerophyllous scrub and rocky habitats in the Atlantic biogeographical region are in favourable condition. Half of Atlantic heath and scrub and dunes habitats, and 6 of the 10 (60%) coastal habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. The majority of freshwater habitats (6 of the 8 or 75%) and bogs, mires and fens (5 of the 7 or 71%) in the Atlantic biogeographical region are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 50% of both heath and scrub (1 of the 2) and grassland habitats (5 of the 10) are also reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The majority of coastal habitats (2 of the 3 or 67%) in the Marine Baltic biogeographical region are reported as in an unknown condition. The condition of the remaining coastal habitats (1 of 3 or 33%) is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate.In the Continental biogeographical region, 7 of 7 (100%) rocky habitats and 1 of the 2 (50%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in favourable condition. Half or more of dune (6 of 12 or 50%), forest (8 of 16 or 50%), coastal (6 of the 9 or 67%), grassland (8 of the 12 or 67%) and bog, mire and fen (5 of the 7 or 71%) habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 6 of the 12 (50%) of freshwater habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad.Additional clarifications:An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats444%333%111%111%00%9Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands113%563%113%113%00%8Bogs, mires & fens563%225%00%113%00%8Rocky habitats686%00%114%00%00%7Forests9100%00%00%00%00%9Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats00%133%00%267%00%3AtlanticCoastal habitats660%110%330%00%00%10Dunes habitats650%325%325%00%00%12Freshwater habitats113%113%675%00%00%8Heath & scrub150%00%150%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands110%440%550%00%00%10Bogs, mires & fens114%114%571%00%00%7Rocky habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1Forests00%545%545%19%00%11Marine Baltic Coastal habitats00%133%00%267%00%3ContinentalCoastal habitats111%667%222%00%00%9Dunes habitats217%650%325%18%00%12Freshwater habitats18%542%650%00%00%12Heath & scrub240%240%120%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Grasslands217%867%217%00%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%571%114%114%00%7Rocky habitats7100%00%00%00%00%7Forests531%850%319%00%00%16Data sourceReference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title andhttp://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here (Member State) : When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here, steps 1 and 2 (Commission) : When verified and signed off enter date ‘dd/mm/yyyy’ here, steps 1 and 2 (Contractor) : 12/01/201009/05/2010','','','','','','','',''),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Germany has designated 4622 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 54.343 km², totalling 9.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 53 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 19.134 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 738, with a total area of 59,784 km², totalling 12.2% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 15, with a marine area of 16.061 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (November 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','As of January 2010, management plans are completed for 20.9 % of Natura 2000 sites in Germany. For 30.4 % of Natura 2000 sites management plans are currently  in preparation. The percentage of Natura 2000 sites without a management plan completed or in preparation is 48.7.','','Summation of data provided by the Länder (Federal States)','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_2_3','','The planning and implementation of Ecological networks in Germany occurs at regional level (i.e. at the level of Länder – Federal States). All Länder (Federal States) are obliged under the Federal Nature Conservation Act to establish a network of interlinked biotopes (Biotopverbund) covering at least 10 per cent of the total area of each Land. However, there is no deadline for implementation. There is no overall implementation nationally, beyond the provision of guidance to the Länder.The degree of implementation of ecological networks varies between the Länder. By the end of 2009 most but not all Länder possess plannings for ecological networks. Their integration and degree of consideration in other spatial plannings also varies. Implementation on the ground in some Länder has been running for some years, in others it is only at the beginning.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Hänel, K. (2007): Methodische Grundlagen zur Bewahrung und Wiederherstellung großräumig funktionsfähiger ökologischer Beziehungen in der räumlichen Umweltplanung – Lebensraumnetzwerke für Deutschland. Dissertation. S. 52 – 128. (http://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2007121319883/1/Dissertation_Kersten_Haenel.pdf)Kettunen, M, Terry, A., Tucker, G. & Jones A. 2007. Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna - Guidance on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, 114 pp. & Annexes. (This document partly describes the German situation, but does not cover details).','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 312 regularly occurring bird species in Germany, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 5 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Germany, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 15 of the 29 (52%) mammals and 37 of the 53 (70%) plants was reported to be favourable. 5 of the 14 (36%) amphibians and reptiles, and 8 of the 23 (35%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 6 (17%) fish are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 6 (50%) fish and 12 of the 29 (41%) of mammals is unknown.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) mammals are in a favourable and in an unfavourable-adequate condition respectively.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 3 of the 17 (18%) amphibians and reptiles and 9 of the 26 (35%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 11 of the 17 (65%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of the 13 (62%) fish and 8 of 26 (31%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of the 13 (23%) fish, 16 of the 26 (62%) invertebrates and 20 of the 55 (36%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 5 of the 34 (15%) mammals and 23 of the 55 (42%) of plants is unknown.In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, all mammals (3 of 3 or 100%) of Community Interest are in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Continental biogeographical region, 6 of the 48 (35%) invertebrates and 12 of the 34 (20%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 9 of the 23 (39%) amphibians and reptiles, 16 of the 48 (33%) invertebrates, 11 of the 34 (32%) mammals and 18 of the 80 (30%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 9 of the 23 (39%) amphibians and reptiles, 20 of the 48 (42%) invertebrates and 18 of the 80 (23%) of plants was reported to be unfavourable-bad. In addition, the conservation status of 11 of the 31 (35%) of fish and 5 of the 34 (15%) of mammals is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below. Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported Alpine Amphibians and reptiles 429%536%214%321%00%14Fish 233%00%117%350%00%6Invertebrates835%835%313%417%00%23Mammals1552%00%27%1241%00%29Plants 3770%611%12%917%00%53Marine AtlanticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals133%267%00%00%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 318%1165%212%16%00%17Fish 215%862%323%00%00%13Invertebrates415%312%1662%312%00%26Mammals935%831%519%415%00%26Plants 713%59%2036%2342%00%55Marine BalticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%3100%00%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Continental Amphibians and reptiles 313%939%939%29%00%23Fish 516%826%723%1135%00%31Invertebrates613%1633%2042%613%00%48Mammals1235%1132%618%515%00%34Plants 1215%1823%1823%3240%00%80','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html ','','','','12/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','The following number of species action plans are completed (with many more in preparation): 235 for birds, 57 for mammals, 43 for amphibians and reptiles, 24 for fish, 380 for invertebrates and 475 for plants. Data from common bird monitoring are used to report the national state indicator ‘Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity’ (SISD). National Red Lists for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, and freshwater fish exist, while those for marine fish, invertebrates and plants are in preparation and will be published during the next years as the next volumes of reference 1 (6 volumes, altogether). For summaries in English see: (BfN)(Ed) (2002): Nature Data 2002.- Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster: 284 p. or (BfN)(Ed) (2008): Nature Data 2008.- Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster: 356 p.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:1. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)(Ed) (2009): Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands, Band 1: Wirbeltiere. – Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, 70 (1): 386 p.; 2 (²) Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)(Ed) (1998): Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere Deutschlands. – Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, 55: 434 p.; 3. (³) Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)(Ed) (1996): Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Deutschlands. – Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde, 28: 744 p.Weblink: http://www.bfn.de/0321_rote_liste.html (in German only)','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective10','A10_1','','Germany has both a dedicated national biodiversity research programme in the form of the ‘Biodiversity and Global Change (BIOLOG) programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. This programme is sub-divided into a German branch (BIOLOG-Europa) and an African branch (BIOTA). In addition, the research programme “Sustainable Land Management” (to commence in 2010) is a framework programme with three modules at present. Biodiversity related research is a component in all modules and is particularly focused in the module “Interaction between Land Management and Ecosystem functions and services”. Under the roof of a European funded ERA-Net, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research together with further European funding institutions will begin biodiversity research projects, to which Germany will contribute approximately € 2 million. Several sectoral research programmes run by different Federal Ministries also include biodiversity research. For example, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety funds each year a range of biodiversity research and development (R&D) projects under the “Umweltforschungsplan”. ','','Research of the Federal Ministry for Agriculture is not covered.','Reference or title:Weblink: www.biolog-online.infohttp://www.biolog-europe.orghttp://www.biota-africa.orghttp://www.fona.de/en/index.phphttp://www.bfn.de/0201_ufoplan_fue.html http://www.bmu.de/naturschutz_biologische_vielfalt/downloads/doc/43155.php','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Germany does not currently have a plan to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.  The German Government has analysed the MA in terms of its relevance for Germany. The targets and measures resulting from this analysis may be found primarily in the chapters of the National Strategy on Biological Diversity on “concrete vision” and “action areas”. Germany has also presented a comprehensive concept for the national implementation of the MA’s recommendations in the National Strategy on Biological Diversity.  ','','see chapter “Implementation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in Germany” in the National Strategy on Biological Diversity .','Reference or title: Weblink: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/x-download/national_strategy_biodiv.pdf','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective10','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The German Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) is the ‘central information, communication and cooperation system of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’. The German CHM also serves as the National Bioplatform, linked from the overall European Platform for Biodiversity. In addition, Germany has a ‘Network-Forum’ (netzwerk-forum) for biodiversity. This platform was created to help scientists to initiate collaborations between representatives of various disciplines and help decision makers to learn about scientific answers to current problems in order to make informed decisions. The mission of the ‘Network-Forum’ is to support biodiversity research in Germany in these functions, and thus ultimately contribute to sustainable development worldwide and in Germany.','','In 2009, the structure \"Network and Forum\" was created through the Federal Ministry of Education and Research start-up funding, which can be referred to as a complementary supplement to CHM. Concepts on sustainable structural safeguarding  of \"Network-Forum\" following conclusion of the project are in process (http://www.biodiversity.de/).','Reference or title: Bioplatform website (European Platform for Biodiversity)Weblink: http://www.bioplatform.info/EPBRS, http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info Network-Forum on Biodiversity: http://www.biodiversity.de/ ','','','','10/12/2009','29/03/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Germany has been a voting participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since February 2001. Germany’s ‘Participant node’ is GBIF Germany (http://www.gbif.de). As one of the founders of the GBIF, Germany makes a substantial annual contribution to support the running of the international GBIF Secretariat and the GBIF work programme. Eight Nodes from different regions form GBIF-Germany, each responsible for a range of taxonomic groups. With a total of 50 different institutions in more than 65 individual projects, nearly all substantial natural history institutes with biological collections and research facilities are involved in the build up of this structure. Germany has already contributed more than 7 million specimen and observation records to the GBIF network, promotion and expansion of national structures (currently GBIF soil zoologie  for three years with approximately €2.9 million ), financing and data mobilization in ongoing research projects, delegation of participants to annual GB conferences. The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A total of 11 German organisations contribute to ENBI.The Institut für Meereskunde (merged in 2004 with the Research Centre for Marine Sciences to form the Leibniz-Institute of Marine Sciences) at the University of Kiel in Germany the leader on the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) Work Package 11: Multilingual access, working to provide multi-lingual access to European biodiversity sites through a website interface. The German publishing of interactive media organisation Verlag fuer interactive Medien (VIM) is the lead contractor on ENBI Work Package 23: Information services on European data. This Workpackage has two objectives: to provide information about the needs of European users of Biodiversity data and to exchange knowledge and ideas that lead to the establishment of an organisational and technological infrastructure to elaborate a first prototype of a Euroepan Dictionary of Domesticated and Utilised Animals. VIM also contributes to WP2: ENBI forum; WP4: IPR, Copyrights and financial issues; and WP 10: Generic analysis tools and data mining. The German Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem at the Freie University Berlin contributes to WP9: Interoperability and Common Access. This workpackage aims to make an inventory of existing interoperability tools in the various domains of biodiversity databases and data collections, to enhance common protocols and approaches; Build a library of functions to support an overarching architecture for interoperability and common access based on elements and efforts existing in the biodiversity informatics community; and  Develop a design for a prototype to demonstrate the feasibility of an interoperable system with common access to selected databases and the Species 2000 europa project in collaboration with work package 8. The Botanic Garden also is a Member of WP6: Cooperation of pan-European databases on biological collections and specimens. Several other German organisations are involved in the ENBI project as well. These include: the Botanische Staatssammlung Muenchen, Department of Mycology (member WP2: ENBI Forums); Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (member WP6: Cooperation of pan-European databases on biological collections and specimens); Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung (member WP5: Check lists and species bank); Humboldt- Universitaet Berlin,  Institut fuer Systematische Zoologie (member WP2: ENBI forums); Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart (SMNS),  Dept. of Entomology (member WP6: Cooperation of pan-European databases on biological collections and specimens); Zentralstelle für Agrardokumentation und information, Information Centre for Genetic Res (member WP12: Info services on European data); Zoologische Staatssammlung Muenchen (member WP2: ENBI forums); and Kolleg fuer Management und Gestaltung nachhaltiger Entwicklung gGmbH (member WP12: Info services on European data). ','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter.More detailed information, in German only, is provided below.Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes:Anstelle von Mindestviehbestandsquoten ist in Deutschland festgelegt, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommenen Ackerflächen der Selbstbegrünung zu überlassen oder durch eine gezielte Ansaat zu begrünen sind. Auf Acker- oder Dauergrünlandflächen, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommen sind, ist der Aufwuchs mindestens einmal jährlich zu zerkleinern und ganzflächig zu verteilen bzw. mindestens alle 2 Jahre zu mähen und das Mähgut abzufahren.Protection of permanent pasture:Die Länder tragen dafür Sorge, dass der Anteil des Dauergrünlandes an der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche bezogen auf das Referenzjahr 2003 nicht erheblich abnimmt.Dabei gelten folgende Bestimmungen:Bis zu einer Verringerung von 5 % des jährlich ermittelten Dauergrünlandanteils gegenüber dem Basiswert, ergibt sich keine Verpflichtung für den einzelnen Landwirt. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 5 % verringert, erlässt das jeweilige Land eine Verordnung, nach der der Umbruch von Dauergrünland einer vorherigen Genehmigung bedarf. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 8 % verringert, kann, um mehr als 10 % verringert, muss das Bundesland Zahlungsempfänger, die umgebrochenes Dauergrünland bewirtschaften, verpflichten, dieses wieder einzusäen oder auf anderen Flächen Dauergrünland neu anzulegen.Im Jahr 2010 unterliegt der Umbruch von Dauergrünland nach aktuellem Stand in Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen und Bremen der Genehmigungspflicht. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins Es handelt sich hierbei um folgende Landschaftselemente:1. Hecken oder Knicks: lineare Strukturelemente, die überwiegend mit Gehölzen bewachsen sind und eine Mindestlänge von 20 Metern aufweisen, 2. Baumreihen: mindestens fünf linear angeordnete, nicht landwirtschaftlich genutzte Bäume entlang einer Strecke von mindestens 50 Metern Länge,3. Feldgehölze: überwiegend mit gehölzartigen Pflanzen bewachsene Flächen, die nicht der land-wirtschaftlichen Erzeugung dienen, mit einer Größe von mindestens 100 Quadratmetern bis höchstens 2.000 Quadratmetern; Flächen, für die eine Beihilfe zur Aufforstung oder eine Auffors-tungsprämie gewährt worden ist, gelten nicht als Feldgehölze, 4. Feuchtgebiete: Biotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, 5. Einzelbäume: freistehende Bäume, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften als Naturdenkmale im Sinne des § 28 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt sind. Wenn naturschutzfachliche Gründe nicht entgegenstehen, können die zuständigen Landesbehör-den die Beseitigung eines o.a. Landschaftselementes genehmigen. Das Beseitigungsverbot für die Landschaftselemente beinhaltet keine Pflegeverpflichtung.Establishment and/or retention of habitatsBiotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, dürfen nicht beseitigt werden. Im Übrigen erfolgte keine Umsetzung des seit dem Health Check fakultativen Standards „Festlegung und/oder Aufrechterhaltung von natürlichen Lebensräumen“.OTHER GAEC measures -Schutz des Bodens vor Erosion durch geeignete Maßnahmen:Bislang müssen mindestens 40% der Ackerflächen eines Betriebes in der Zeit vom 1. Dezember bis 15. Februar entweder mit Pflanzen bewachsen sein oder die auf der Oberfläche verbleibenden Pflanzenreste dürfen nicht untergepflügt werden. Ab dem 01.07.2010 richten sich die Erosionsschutzmaßnahmen nach dem Grad der Erosionsgefährung der einzelnen Ackerflächen die je nach Grad der Wasser- oder Winderosionsgefährdung von den Ländern bestimmten Klassen zugeteilt werden. Ackerflächen, die der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser1 zugewiesen und nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen sind, dürfen – soweit die Bewirtschaftung nicht quer zum Hang erfolgt - vom 1. Dezember bis zum Ablauf des 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen nach der Ernte der Vorfrucht ist nur bei einer Aussaaat vor dem 1. Dezember zulässig. Ist eine Ackerfläche der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser2 zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche vom 1. De-zember bis zum 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen zwischen dem 16. Februar und dem Ablauf des 30. November ist nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Vor der Aussaat von Reihenkulturen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr ist das Pflügen verboten.Ist eine Ackerfläche der Windgefährdungsklasse CC Wind zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche nur bei Aussaat vor dem 1. März gepflügt werden. Abweichend hiervon ist das Pflügen – außer bei Reihenkultuen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr – ab dem 1. März nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Das Verbot des Pflügens bei Reihenkulturen gilt nicht, soweit vor dem 1. Dezember Grünstreifen in einer Breite von mindestens 2,5 Metern und in einem Abstand von max. 100 Metern quer zur Hauptwindrichtung eingesät werden oder im Falle des Anbaus von Kartoffeln, soweit die Kartoffeldämme quer zur Hauptwindrichtung angelegt werden.- Erhalt der organischen Substanz im Boden und Schutz der BodenstrukturDie bisherigen Bestimmungen zum Erhalt der organischen Substanz und dem Schutz der Bodenstruktur wurden vereinfacht und übersichtlicher gestaltet. Die geänderten Bestimmungen werden voraussichtlich Ende Januar/Anfang Februar 2010 in Kraft treten. Sie beinhalten im Wesentlichen folgendes:Der Nachweis kann durch Aufstellen einer Humusbilanz oder durch eine den Bodenhumusgehalt bestimmende Untersuchung geführt werden, wobei bestimmte Grenzwerte nicht unterschritten werden dürfen. Durch ein Anbauverhältnis mit mindestens drei Kulturen gilt der Nachweis ebenfalls als erbracht. Bei einer Bewirtschaftung von weniger als drei Kulturen ist der Nachweis unter bestimmten Vorraussetzungen (Flächentausch mit anderen Betrieben) ebenso möglich.Werden in einem Betrieb ausschließlich Kulturen angebaut, die neutrale oder positive Auswirkungen auf den Bodenhumusgehalt haben („Humusmehrer“), gilt die Verpflichtung des Erhalts der organischen Substanz als erfüllt.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','',''),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Germany total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 8751.06 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 14181.87 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 3659.45 million EUR, and 6070.33 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 41.82 and 39.42 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Germany was 2176.64 million EUR (3553.49 with co-financing) and amounted to 24.87 per cent of the EAFRD (25.06 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 98.45 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.13 per cent of EAFRD) and 154.42 million EUR of public expenditure (1.09 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 14 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.16 per cent of EAFRD) and 27.29 million EUR of public expenditure (0.19 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 28.61 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.33 per cent of EAFRD) and 51.34 million EUR of public expenditure (0.36 per cent of public expenditure).According to the Member State, total public expenditure does not include additional national financing (eg, state aid).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided.Note: Sachsen-Anhalt missing Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)11.3551034219.99745824Agri-environment payments (214)575.89847841171.133.252Forest environment payments (225)2.0716854.25865405','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','The conservation of genetic diversity is addressed in a national strategy, action plan and a “Sektorstrategie Agrobiodiversität”. A number of in-situ conservation projects are underway including 15 on crop varieties (totalling €3545855), 12 on livestock breeds (totalling €1615246) and 12 on commercial tree species (totalling €671777). The figures on number and value of projects refer to model and demonstration initiatives in the framework of the conservation and innovative use of biological diversity.According to the Member State it is not possible to estimate the amount spent under the EAFRD on genetic conservation measures, because payments that cover these measures also cover other issues.Maßnahmen speziell zur Förderung der Biologischen Vielfalt in Land-, Forst-, Fischerei- und Ernährungswirtschaft (einschließlich Gartenbau):- Bestandsaufnahmen, Erhebungen und nichtwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen im Bereich Biologische Vielfalt (BV-Erhebungen),- Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben (MuD) im Bereich der Erhaltung und innovativen Nutzung der Biologischen Vielfalt (MuD-Vorhaben).In Deutschland gibt eine Reihe von nationalen Fachprogrammen zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen. Diese nationalen Fachprogramme zu genetischen Ressourcen für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft sehen umfangreiche Maßnahmen für eine effiziente Erhaltung und nachhaltige Nutzung der landwirtschaftlichen biologischen Vielfalt vor:Pflanzengenetische RessourcenNationales Fachprogramm zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung pflanzengenetischer Ressourcen (2002)http://www.genres.de/downloads/publikationen/nationales_fachprogramm_pgr_deu.pdf Tiergenetische RessourcenNationales Fachprogramm zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung tiergenetischer Ressourcen (2003)http://www.genres.de/downloads/publikationen/nationales_fachprogramm_tgr_deu.pdf Forstgenetischer RessourcenKonzept zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung forstgenetischer Ressourcen (2000)http://blag.fgr.genres.de/konzeption/index.htm Konzept zum Genetischen Monitoring bei Forstbaumarten (2006)http://www.genres.de/blag.fgr/genetisches-monitoring/index.htm  Fortschrittsbericht der Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe „Forstliche Genressourcen und Forstsaatgutrecht“, Berichtszeitraum 2005 – 2008http://blag.fgr.genres.de/ber-0508/bericht_0508.pdf Aquatische genetische RessourcenNationales Fachprogramm zur Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung aquatischer genetischer Ressourcen (2005)http://www.genres.de/downloads/publikationen/nationales_fachprogramm_agr_deu.pdf In Deutschland findet auf Ebene der Bundesländer eine Förderung des landwirtschaftlichen Anbaus gefährdeter heimischer Nutzpflanzen, die an regionale Bedingungen angepasst und vom Aussterben bedroht sind und der Zucht oder Haltung seltener oder gefährdeter heimischer Nutztierrassen im Rahmen von Erhaltungszuchtprogrammen statt. Diese können durch Mittel des Europäischen Landwirtschaftsfonds zur Entwicklung des Ländlichen Raumes (ELER) bzw. der Gemeinschatsaufgabe zur Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes (GAK) kofinanziert werden.  In diesem Rahmen bieten zwei Bundesländer im Bereich der pflanzengenetischen Ressourcen die On-Farm-Bewirtschaftung als Fördermaßnahme an, neun Bundesländer fördern Maßnahmen zur Erhaltung tiergenetischer Ressourcen.Projekte zur Bestandsaufnahme, Erhebung und nichtwissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen im Bereich Biologische Vielfalt (BV-Erhebungen) werden aus Mitteln des BMELV von der BLE als Aufträge nach VOL vergeben. Ziel ist die Erfassung, Inventarisierung und Dokumentation genetischer Ressourcen, das Monitoring der Bestandsentwicklung genetischer Ressourcen und die Erstellung sonstiger Informationsgrundlagen in diesem Bereich. Ebenfalls aus Mitteln des BMELV werden im Rahmen einer Förderrichtlinie Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben im Wege der Zuwendung gefördert, deren Ziel es ist, Defizite und Probleme bei der Erhaltung und nachhaltigen Nutzung genetischer Ressourcen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland abzubauen und innovative Konzepte mit Vorbildcharakter zu entwickeln und umzusetzen. Die durchgeführten Vorhaben sollen dabei einen Vorbildcharakter für potenzielle Nachahmer entfalten. Das bedeutet, dass die durch das MuD gewonnen Erkenntnisse auf ähnlich gelagerte Fälle übertragbar sein sollen.Insgesamt wurden im Berichtszeitraum 2006 – 2009 43 Projekte (Erhebungen und Modellvorhaben) aus Mitteln des BMELV mit einem Gesamtvolumen in Höhe von 9.210.371 € bewilligt bzw. vergeben, durchgeführt und/oder abgeschlossen . Die Maßnahmen und Projekte haben dabei pflanzen-, tier-, forst- und aquatische genetische Ressourcen betroffen. Bzgl. der pflanzengenetischen Ressourcen wurden 15 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 3.545.855 €, bzgl. der tiergenetischen Ressourcen wurden 12 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 1.615.246 €, bzgl. der fortgenetischen Ressourcen wurden 12 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 3.377.493 € und bzgl. der aquatischen genetischen Ressourcen wurden 4 Projekte mit BMELV Mitteln in Höhe von 671.777 € im Berichtszeitraum betreut.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Projects: http://www.ble.de/cln_099/nn_680386/DE/04__Forschungsfoerderung/05__BV-Vorhaben/BV-Vorhaben__node.html?__nnn=true ','','','','',''),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Germany in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','For Germany information on Rheinland Pfalz is missing.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed on the level of the federal states (Länder), which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Permissions are needed for afforestation and deforestation operayions, but details are regulated by the Länder. In addition, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. No details on limits for application were available.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.*for Länder only.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Germany had a total certified forest area of 7.72 million hectares out of a total forest area of 11.08 million hectares. 431,989 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 7.28 million hectares were certified. In total, 69.67 per cent of the forest area in Germany was certified.According to reporting by the Member State, in April 2010 449,310 ha were FSC certified, representing 4.1 per cent of total forest area. An area of 7,345,729 ha was certified according to the PEFC scheme, amounting to 67.1 per cent of total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Germany amounted to 3.16 million ha, representing a share of 14.6 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to reporting by the Member State, Germany has developed a methodology to directly identify HNV farmland by taking samples and feeding into the development of the HNV farmland basis indicator. First maps were produced in 2009 and further results are expected for 2010.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_4','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter.More detailed information, in German only, is provided below.Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes:Anstelle von Mindestviehbestandsquoten ist in Deutschland festgelegt, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommenen Ackerflächen der Selbstbegrünung zu überlassen oder durch eine gezielte Ansaat zu begrünen sind. Auf Acker- oder Dauergrünlandflächen, die aus der landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugung genommen sind, ist der Aufwuchs mindestens einmal jährlich zu zerkleinern und ganzflächig zu verteilen bzw. mindestens alle 2 Jahre zu mähen und das Mähgut abzufahren.Protection of permanent pasture:Die Länder tragen dafür Sorge, dass der Anteil des Dauergrünlandes an der gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Fläche bezogen auf das Referenzjahr 2003 nicht erheblich abnimmt.Dabei gelten folgende Bestimmungen:Bis zu einer Verringerung von 5 % des jährlich ermittelten Dauergrünlandanteils gegenüber dem Basiswert, ergibt sich keine Verpflichtung für den einzelnen Landwirt. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 5 % verringert, erlässt das jeweilige Land eine Verordnung, nach der der Umbruch von Dauergrünland einer vorherigen Genehmigung bedarf. Bei einer Verringerung um mehr als 8 % verringert, kann, um mehr als 10 % verringert, muss das Bundesland Zahlungsempfänger, die umgebrochenes Dauergrünland bewirtschaften, verpflichten, dieses wieder einzusäen oder auf anderen Flächen Dauergrünland neu anzulegen.Im Jahr 2010 unterliegt der Umbruch von Dauergrünland nach aktuellem Stand in Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen und Bremen der Genehmigungspflicht. Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins Es handelt sich hierbei um folgende Landschaftselemente:1. Hecken oder Knicks: lineare Strukturelemente, die überwiegend mit Gehölzen bewachsen sind und eine Mindestlänge von 20 Metern aufweisen, 2. Baumreihen: mindestens fünf linear angeordnete, nicht landwirtschaftlich genutzte Bäume entlang einer Strecke von mindestens 50 Metern Länge,3. Feldgehölze: überwiegend mit gehölzartigen Pflanzen bewachsene Flächen, die nicht der land-wirtschaftlichen Erzeugung dienen, mit einer Größe von mindestens 100 Quadratmetern bis höchstens 2.000 Quadratmetern; Flächen, für die eine Beihilfe zur Aufforstung oder eine Auffors-tungsprämie gewährt worden ist, gelten nicht als Feldgehölze, 4. Feuchtgebiete: Biotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, 5. Einzelbäume: freistehende Bäume, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften als Naturdenkmale im Sinne des § 28 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt sind. Wenn naturschutzfachliche Gründe nicht entgegenstehen, können die zuständigen Landesbehör-den die Beseitigung eines o.a. Landschaftselementes genehmigen. Das Beseitigungsverbot für die Landschaftselemente beinhaltet keine Pflegeverpflichtung.Establishment and/or retention of habitatsBiotope, die nach landesrechtlichen Vorschriften im Sinne des § 30 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes geschützt und über die Biotopkartierung erfasst sind, mit einer Größe von höchstens 2 000 Quadratmetern, dürfen nicht beseitigt werden. Im Übrigen erfolgte keine Umsetzung des seit dem Health Check fakultativen Standards „Festlegung und/oder Aufrechterhaltung von natürlichen Lebensräumen“.OTHER GAEC measures -Schutz des Bodens vor Erosion durch geeignete Maßnahmen:Bislang müssen mindestens 40% der Ackerflächen eines Betriebes in der Zeit vom 1. Dezember bis 15. Februar entweder mit Pflanzen bewachsen sein oder die auf der Oberfläche verbleibenden Pflanzenreste dürfen nicht untergepflügt werden. Ab dem 01.07.2010 richten sich die Erosionsschutzmaßnahmen nach dem Grad der Erosionsgefährung der einzelnen Ackerflächen die je nach Grad der Wasser- oder Winderosionsgefährdung von den Ländern bestimmten Klassen zugeteilt werden. Ackerflächen, die der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser1 zugewiesen und nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen sind, dürfen – soweit die Bewirtschaftung nicht quer zum Hang erfolgt - vom 1. Dezember bis zum Ablauf des 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen nach der Ernte der Vorfrucht ist nur bei einer Aussaaat vor dem 1. Dezember zulässig. Ist eine Ackerfläche der Wassererosionsstufe CC Wasser2 zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche vom 1. De-zember bis zum 15. Februar nicht gepflügt werden. Das Pflügen zwischen dem 16. Februar und dem Ablauf des 30. November ist nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Vor der Aussaat von Reihenkulturen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr ist das Pflügen verboten.Ist eine Ackerfläche der Windgefährdungsklasse CC Wind zugewiesen und ist diese nicht in eine besondere Fördermaßnahme zum Erosionsschutz einbezogen, darf die Ackerfläche nur bei Aussaat vor dem 1. März gepflügt werden. Abweichend hiervon ist das Pflügen – außer bei Reihenkultuen mit einem Reihenabstand von 45 Zentimetern und mehr – ab dem 1. März nur bei einer unmittelbar folgenden Aussaat zulässig. Das Verbot des Pflügens bei Reihenkulturen gilt nicht, soweit vor dem 1. Dezember Grünstreifen in einer Breite von mindestens 2,5 Metern und in einem Abstand von max. 100 Metern quer zur Hauptwindrichtung eingesät werden oder im Falle des Anbaus von Kartoffeln, soweit die Kartoffeldämme quer zur Hauptwindrichtung angelegt werden.- Erhalt der organischen Substanz im Boden und Schutz der BodenstrukturDie bisherigen Bestimmungen zum Erhalt der organischen Substanz und dem Schutz der Bodenstruktur wurden vereinfacht und übersichtlicher gestaltet. Die geänderten Bestimmungen werden voraussichtlich Ende Januar/Anfang Februar 2010 in Kraft treten. Sie beinhalten im Wesentlichen folgendes:Der Nachweis kann durch Aufstellen einer Humusbilanz oder durch eine den Bodenhumusgehalt bestimmende Untersuchung geführt werden, wobei bestimmte Grenzwerte nicht unterschritten werden dürfen. Durch ein Anbauverhältnis mit mindestens drei Kulturen gilt der Nachweis ebenfalls als erbracht. Bei einer Bewirtschaftung von weniger als drei Kulturen ist der Nachweis unter bestimmten Vorraussetzungen (Flächentausch mit anderen Betrieben) ebenso möglich.Werden in einem Betrieb ausschließlich Kulturen angebaut, die neutrale oder positive Auswirkungen auf den Bodenhumusgehalt haben („Humusmehrer“), gilt die Verpflichtung des Erhalts der organischen Substanz als erfüllt.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Federal Ministry for Agriculture there is no biodiversity specific training but biodiversity issues are often part of comprehensive training measures. Responsibility lies with the federal states (Länder). ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds (regional and national level).•	HNV farming (regional and national level).•	HNV forestry (regional level).Additionally, programme-specific biodiversity indicators have been implemented are being put in place, such as the Länder initiative on bird monitoring (LIKI,  Länder Initiative Kern Indikator des bundesweiten Vogelmonitorings) and monitoring of the conservation status of habitats and species under the Habitats and Birds Directives. According to reporting by the Member State, the German Common Breeding Bird Survey (GCBBS) is the main scheme for monitoring German common and widespread breeding bird species. It covers the main habitat and landscape types all over Germany including farmland and forests. The species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly values and standard errors using Poisson regression. The data from GCBS and other bird monitoring programmes feed into the German Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity (SISD), which reflects the conservation status of the landscape as well as the sustainability of land use. SISD summarizes the trends in abundance of 59 selected, representative breeding bird species. 10 bird species were chosen to represent farmland, 11 bird species to represent forests. The issue of the conservation status of the habitat types and the issue of sustainability become part of the indicator construction by defining target values: an expert panel has determined a target value for every single bird species, which should be attained by 2015, provided that the guidelines for sustainable development and nature conservation are completely implemented. After standardisation of the population sizes at 100% for the 2015 goal for all selected species, the deviation in percentage from those values can be computed for any individual year. Sub-indicators of the habitat types of farmland and forests are calculated. The SISD starts in 1990 and is updated annually. For 1970 and 1975, historical reference values were reconstructed. SISD is used in Germany on a national scale for assessment of sustainability and biodiversity issues in the context of the German National Sustainability Strategy, the German National Strategy on Biological Diversity and the programme of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).Between the years 1990 and 2007, Germany’s national farmland bird indicator and Germany’s national forest bird indicator have shown no clearly positive or negative trend. In 2007, the farmland bird indicator was at 68 per cent and the forest bird indicator at 76 per cent of the target value determined for the year 2015. For the two indicators, 10 farmland bird species and 11 forest bird species were monitored.A new monitoring program has been set up nationwide to implement the HNV Farmland Indicator in Germany.  The HNV Farmland area will be calculated by mapping stratified random sample areas of low intensity agricultural land and landscape features. Using the 2009 mapping sample an initial estimate of the HNV Farmland 2009 area will be available early in 2010. Following this a quarter of the intended total sample will be mapped each year by the Federal States. A running mean of the indicator value will then be available every 2 years at the national level and for each Federal State.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN 2009)Weblink: http://www.bfn.de/0315_nachhaltigkeit.html References concerning population of farmland birds:1) Achtziger, R., Stickroth, H. & Zieschank, R. (2004) Nachhaltigkeitsindikator für die Artenvielfalt – ein Indikator für den Zustand von Natur und Landschaft in Deutschland. – Angew. Landschaftsökol. 63: 1-137.2) Droeschmeister, R. & Sukopp, U. (in prep.): Indicators and Conservation Policy: the German Sustainability Indicator for Species Diversity as an Example. – Avocetta Suppl. (manuscript accepted).Weblink: http://www.bfn.de/0315_nachhaltigkeit.html Reference for HNV farming: Benzler 2009: The implementation of the HNV farmland indicator in Germany. Rural Evaluation News Number 2.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/network/newsletter/02_en.pdf ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 942 million € has been added to the German national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Germany attributed € 264 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 28 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, there are long-term soil monitoring programmes in several Federal States with regard to the status and trends of soil including soil faunistic and microbiological aspects. Soil biological parameters have not been mandatory yet on the national level, but some parameters are mandatory in the Federal States. These programmes are based on an agreement of a respective working group of the Federal States in Germany. Projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity, but not details were available.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.The German federal government rejects the obligatory identification of geographical risk areas for e.g. soil sealing, loss of organic matter and soil erosion. For example, the implementation of the obligatory cross compliance rules of the Common Agricultural Policy on soil erosion, loss of organic matter and compaction has proven that the identification of such areas is not a suitable approach in Germany.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/boden-und-altlasten/boden/bodenschutz/dauerbeobachtung.htmhttp://www.umweltbundesamt.de/boden-und-altlasten/boden/downloads/der_boden_lebt.pdf http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/boden-und-altlasten/boden/gefaehrdungen/index.htm','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the majority of the Atlantic and continental fresh water habitats in Germany have an unfavourable conservation status (88 and 92 per cent respectively); the remainder in both cases has a favourable status. 44 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats have a favourable conservation status, a further 44 per cent have an unfavourable status and the remaining 11 per cent have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences2261076%21%3%0%29            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U11  U26       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1110092%8%0%0%U15   U26       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9441044%44%11%0%U13  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) was available for Germany. Ammonium data did not demonstrate a clear downward trend, falling from 0.13 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.12 mg N/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 3.59 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.25 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were below the weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 17.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 26.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 27.7 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a slight upward trend from 2002 to 2005, with values amounting to 0.070 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.072 mg P/l in 2005. The latter was clearly below weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a clear upward trend between 2002 and 2004, increasing from 0.022 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.028 mg P/l in 2004, but  in 2005 values fell to 2002 values again. Figures in 2005 were below the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.','.','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Germany had a total number of 1547 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 81.9 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to 2007, the percentage had increased, whereas in previous years it had been decreasing.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Germany, all biological assessment methods for rivers, lakes and coastal waters were either completely developed or undeveloped depending on the districts. For transitional waters methods on macro-algae and angiosperms, and benthic invertebrate methods have been partially developed, depending again on the districts.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 2184 in Germany.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives.','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress and reporting by the Member State, in 2008 Germany had a total number of 7460 existing IPPC installations (plus 986 new installations) and issued 10135 permits. 78 permits were still outstanding. 4487 was the number of permits that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. According to the German IPPC implementation report according to article 17 (1) and (3) of the IPPC Directive for the reporting period 2006 -2008 (state of play end of summer 2009) the following applies:* Total number of all installation: 8516* Total number of new installations: 1095 with 1092 granted permits* Total number of existing installations: 7421 with 10303 granted permits issued for thess existing installations. At that time, all 9468 permits were in compliance the IPPC Directive considering also environmental conditions. Only 16 permits were outstanding at that time. According to the Member State, on 31 December 2009 only 2 permits were outstanding in Germany.','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Germany’s emissions of sulphur oxides were already lower than the relevant ceilings. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds were still well above the targets set. According to the newest projections for 2010, Germany does not envisage being able to meet the ceilings set out in Annex I of the Directive for nitrogen oxides and ammonia, taking into accounts all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures. However, a slight decrease of nitrogen oxides emissions was achieved compared to previous years. According to the Member State, reported data up until 2008 include emissions from sectors that were not taken into account when the NEC Directive became effective. As documented in the National NEC Report 2007, they should not be taken into account when comparing with the national emission ceilings. This applies to NOx and NMVOC emissions from agriculture (84 kt/a NOx and 245 kt/a NMVOC in 2010) and NMVOC emissions from some food industry subsectors (amounting to 10 kt/a in 2010). The NEC Directive Report 2007 and an update (communication to the Commission in January 2009) defined additional emission reduction measures to ensure attainment of emission ceilings for NOx und NH3 in 2010 and thereafter. These include•	technical and non-technical measures in traffic•	control options for measures on stationary sources•	additional implementation of the ammonia emission abatement programme.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive Reporting, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Germany the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 58 and 84 per cent respectively, considering an area of 102,891 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 32 and 24 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 5 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 67 per cent in 2010 and 58 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 36 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Germany’s gross nitrogen balance was 113 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 22 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','According to data provided by the European Bird Census Council, between 1991 and 2006, farmland birds indicator has shown a general decrease for Germany. In 2006 the indicator was at 74.5 per cent, a 25.5 per cent decrease from the 1991 baseline. 18 species were assessed. No data were provided for the year 1990.For information on Germany’s national Farmland Birds indicator, please consult A2.1.8','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, a large percentage of Germany’s terrestrial habitats of Community interest have an unfavourable conservation status. Of the grassland habitats in Germany, 90 per cent of the Atlantic, 83 per cent of the continental and 75 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats have an unfavourable conservation status; the remainder in each case has a favourable conservation status. 100 per cent of the alpine forest habitats in Germany have a favourable conservation status while 31 per cent of the continental forest habitats have a favourable status (the remaining 69 per cent is unfavourable). 91 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining nine per cent has an unknown status. Half of both the Atlantic and alpine heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 50 per cent in both cases have a favourable status. 60 per cent of the continental heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable status; the remaining 40 per cent have a favourable status. Of the peat land habitats in Germany, 86 per cent of both the Atlantic and continental habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 14 per cent of the Atlantic peat land habitats have a favourable status, while the remaining 14 per cent of continental peat land habitats have an unknown status. 63 per cent of the alpine peat land habitats have a favourable status, 25 per cent have an unfavourable status and the remaining 13 per cent have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage302541083%13%3%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10910090%10%0%0%U14  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121020083%17%0%0%U18   U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8611075%13%13%0%U15  U21       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage21141058%39%3%0%36            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage111001091%0%9%0%U15  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage161150069%31%0%0%U18   U23       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage909000%100%0%0%U10  U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9540056%44%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U10  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%U12   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences1462064%27%9%0%22            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U11  U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7601086%0%14%0%U15   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8251025%63%13%0%U12  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','09/12/2009','na'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_1','','Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Germany demonstrated the status of marine and coastal habitats in different biogeographic regions in Germany. There were three marine habitats in the Marine Atlantic region—of which one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%) and two had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%). There were also three marine habitats in the Marine Baltic region—of which one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%) and two had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%).There were ten coastal habitats in the ‘Atlantic’ biogeographic region—of which six had a ‘Favourable’ status, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (10%), and three had a ‘Bad’ status (30%). There were nine coastal habitats in the ‘Continental’ biogeographic region—of which one had a ‘Favourable’ status (11%), six had an ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (22%).A total of three marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, all mammals. Two of these had an ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%). Three marine species were also assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all mammals, and all three had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%133.3%00%266.7%00%3Marine BalticMarine habitats00%133.3%00%266.7%00%3AtlanticCoastal habitats660%110%330%00%00%10ContinentalCoastal habitats111.1%666.7%222.2%00%00%9Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals133%267%00%00%00%3Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL133%267%00%00%00%3Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%00%3100%00%00%3Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%00%3100%00%00%3The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusGermany provided some comments on the figures listed above:The figures suggest that category “coastal habitats” comprises habitat type 1340 (inland salt meadows). Since habitat type 1340 is a non-coastal type by definition, it should not be considered as coastal.In this regard figures for coastal habitats have to be corrected as follows:Atlantic biographic region:FV = 6U1 = 1U2 = 2XX = 0NA = 0Total =9Continental biogeographic region:FV = 1U1 = 5U2 = 2XX= 0NA = 0Total = 8Moreover, the marine habitat types and species should be attributed to the Atlantic biogeographic region and the Continental biogeographic region respectively, since there are no specific “marine” biogeographic regions under the provisions of the Habitats Directive (as confirmed by the Commission at the last Habitats Committee meeting). Accordingly, the narrative summary has to be corrected as well.The Contractor has not amended the tables as suggested by the Member State in order to retain consistency between all MS profiles so that an cross-EU analysis can be made.','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Germany reported that, in 2009, it had 34 surveillance stations and 70 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Germany has 74 coastal water bodies. Approximately 45% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has some assessment methods developed for 3 out of 7 river basin districts for monitoring coastal waters for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and macroalgae and angiosperm. Germany reported that a programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD has been adopted. ','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','05/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_1_5','','Institutionalised regular meetings have improved the coordination of efforts and knowledge exchange. These meetings include different federal ministries, state governments and municipal summit organisations in an advisory council and occur every 3 months. In the future, coordination and communication among stakeholders and with local constituencies will be supported by a new central point of contact, the “Küsten-Kontor”. ICZM based planning and development processes have been tested in four case studies and will provide guidelines. In the run-up to formal planning and approval processes for development proposals, potential conflicts and possible solutions should be expressed in order to achieve sustainable use of resources (on land) and sustainable economic growth. In light of predicted climate change impacts, a vision for the development of the Wadden Sea Region was developed in the context of a research project and is due to be discussed with the involved parties. A competition for the best ICZM projects in the Schleswig Holstein region started in 2010 and will contribute to awareness raising and the exchange of experiences. Furthermore, state governments and the local authorities have worked on goals and good practice for ICZM through regional cooperation, participation in international forums and projects as well as activities within the framework of local Agenda 21 projects.','','','','20.1.2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_2','','Germany currently has 373 coastal bathing waters. The majority of these have consistently reached the mandatory guidelines for water quality: 98.7% in 2008; 93.7% in 2007 and 97.7% in 2006. The percentage of coastal bathing waters reaching the stricter guidelines standards is good but has slightly decreased over the past three years: 88.6% in 2006; 80.3% in 2007 and 75.6% in 2008. Slightly lower conformance in 2007 was due to the parameter ‘total coliform bacteria’ and in 2008 due to the new parameter ‘Intestinal enterococci’. Four bathing areas were closed in 2006 and one in 2007, but none in 2008.There has been no increase in nitrogen or phosphate concentrations in German coastal waters either in the Baltic or the North Sea, and a few sampling stations have shown decreases. In particular, almost half of the sampling stations in the Baltic have recorded a decrease in orthophosphate concentrations.  ','','','','','','','09/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_4','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'09/12/2009','na'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Germany had 2017 vessels and 5% were involved in a serious infringement (101 vessels). A total of 100 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €436 and maximum fine of €6,400.','','2007 data is not currently available','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Germany has restoration plans for Salmon, Trout, Sturgeon, Eel and Alosa sp., and the responsibility for implementing these plans is at the regional level (i.e. the Länder). Germany’s Eel management plan (which forms part of the implementation of the COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 on measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel) has been approved by the Commission. No further information on the details of the Eel or Salmon, Trout and Sturgeon plans was provided by Germany. ','','','http://www.portal-fischerei.de/index.php?id=1240 ','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_5_3','','The number of fishing vessels in Germany has consistently reduced from 1999 to 2008 falling from 2313 to 1825 vessels (21% reduction). Tonnage and power also decreased from 1999 to 2006, although there was a slight increase in 2007 due to the entry of a big trawler into the long-distant fleet before both dropped slightly to 68,593 tons and 159,971 kW in 2008 respectively (0.5% reduction in power from 2007). However, small capacity reductions took place during 2007 in passive gear segments, North Sea trawlers and beam trawlers without public aid. The 2007-2013 fisheries operational programme reports that there is no further capacity reductions planned since Germany is currently one of the ten smallest fleets in the EU.','','2008 data: 1825 vessels; 68593 tons; 159971 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','09/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Germany had 2017 active vessels. There were 23 type D breaches in this year, with 22 penalties imposed with an average fine of €1428. No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch or damage to the benthos was provided by Germany. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Seabird monitoring In Germany seabird monitoring has been ongoing since 1964. The implementation of the seabird monitoring program is the responsibility of the Länder. A coordinated marine monitoring programme is currently under revision (BLMP - Bund-Länder Messprogramm). No further details on seabird monitoring were provided by Germany. Shark monitoring In Germany, monitoring of sharks is conducted in the framework of comprehensive monitoring programmes in the Northeast Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea as part of CFP implementation under the umbrella of the Institutes for Sea Fisheries and the Baltic Sea Fisheries Federal of the Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (vTI). The focus of these monitoring programmes is on fish stock assessment and Chondrichthyans are covered as well. Particularly relevant are the international bottom trawl surveys: IBTS and BITS (since 1966 and 1986 resp); surveys of Greenland (since 1982); and surveys of Spitzbergen (from 2010). Germany will also be implementing the new Commission Decision adopting the multiannual Community programme for the collection of data for the period 2011-2013 covering - among others - all shark species included in the EU Action Plan for sharks.','','There is no clear definition in the EU on the criteria for a systematic shark monitoring. Therefore the answer is Y/N  taking into account that a comprehensive monitoring programme for sharks in Germany is not yet in place but data on sharks are available in the framework of fish stock monitoring programmes.','Reference or title:Weblink:(1) Monotoring North Sea, i.a. IBT Survey; http://www.ices.dk(2) Monitoring Baltic Sea, i.a. BIT Survey; http://www.ices.dk(3) Monitoring Greenland, i.a. NWWG through ICES and vTI/Institute of Sea Fisheries; http://www.vti.bund.de(4) Monitoring Spitzbergen, cooperation MRI and vTI; http://www.sf.npolar.no/pages/database.htm','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.bfn.de/habitatmarehttp://www.wattenmeer-nationalpark.de','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Germany has 183 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitat and species (see clarifications below).  However there are different ways of identifying marine sites, and Germany points out that the method used below if flawed as it uses the presence of migratory species as part of the criteria (and therefore identifies rivers as well as marine areas).Germany has not made any requests to the EU for fisheries measures within marine Natura2000 sites that fall outside territorial waters, but has made changes to fisheries measures for 3 sites within territorial waters. The responsibility for making these changes lies with the five federal states that lie on the coast. In Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein fisheries management measures for marine Natura 2000 sites have been defined. Examples from Schleswig-Holstein are provided below: In Schleswig-Holstein: FFH area situated DE-0916-391 ‘National Park Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent coastal areas and bird sanctuary DE-0916-491 Ramsar site Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent coastal areas’In a use-area of 12,500ha any use of fishing resources is prohibited (national law).The conch fishery is regulated (National Law, State Law on Fisheries, Program for management of shellfish resources). Mussel fishing may be operated with a maximum of 8 boats. Mussels may only be taken from outside a protection zone and just outside the water transition zone. They may be used only for the culture of mussel patches. The cultivated areas are limited to 2,000 hectares. It may only be an oyster aquaculture on 150ha. Surf clams may be fished with a maximum of 6 boats just seaward of the three nautical-mile line. Fishing for other molluscs (clams, cockles) is inadmissible.In the Whale Sanctuary (part of the area DE-0916-391 ‘National Park Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea and adjacent coastal areas’, located west of Sylt) It is not permissible to set nets that exceed 1.3m in stretched mesh and no mesh size greater than 150mm can be used (coastal fishing regulations, National Park Act).With fishermen it was agreed not to fish at low tide within an area during July and August where almost the entire European stock of the Shelduck moult can be found at the time (Voluntary Agreement).','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 51Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 8 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Germany has implemented the provisions of the Data Collection Framework (DCF; Council Reg. 199/2008, Commission Reg. 665/2008 and Commission Decision 2008/949/EC) with regard to the Module on the \'Evaluation of the effects of the fisheries sector on the marine ecosystem\'. In terms of temporal coverage, the data for the estimation of ecosystem indicators  in Appendix XIII will be collected yearly, apart from those surveys at sea that are carried out every two or three years (for indicators 1, 2, 3 and 4). On most surveys, indicators 1-4 will be collected, apart from those where no or few fish greater than 40cm in length are expected (leading to exclusion of indicator 2). Access to the raw VMS data is given in the temporal and spatial resolution given by the currently employed recording system and legal requirements. Validation and aggregation methods have been developed for scientific analyses of VMS data. With regard to indicator 9 (fuel efficiency), information will be collected of the value of landings and fuel consumption. ','','Details on sampling/monitoring programmes related to this module are given in the respective multi-annual National Programmes, see http://www.dcr-germany.de. Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of (2008/949EC) 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Framework (DCF; Council Reg. 199/2008, Commission Reg. 665/2008 and Commission Decisions 2008/949/EC and 2010/93/EU)For German National Programmes, see http://www.dcr-germany.de Commission Decision 2008/949/EC adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','','','','29/03/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The trophic index for German EEZ waters in 2004, using the average of the mean trophic index of the Baltic Sea (MTI=2.92) and the North Sea (=3.27), is 3.10. This represents an average decrease of 0.11 since 1999 and an average decrease of 0.22 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','Within the EEZ of the North Sea and of the Baltic Sea in 2004 the German Government nominated ten protected areas in line with the Habitat and Birds Directives and for which Germany will have to establish management plans until 2013. Since 2007, these ten protected areas are part of the European Natura 2000 network and provide for one third of the German EEZ. The MTI includes all the German EEZ and thus includes these N2000 protected areas. Germany marine trophic level index split between two seas:North Sea: MTI 2004=2.92. Change 1999-2004=-0.11, Change 1984-2004=-0.12Baltic Sea: MTI=3.27. Change 1999-2004=-0.11, Change 1984-2004=-0.32The numbers in the table above are the averages from the marine trophic index of the two seas. The situation is similar for both seas separately, showing a decreasing trend in marine trophic index. From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot be guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.In the case of Germany, it would have to be further investigated whether the Index also allows for conclusions regarding the origin of landings so as to provide for the possibility to specifically assess the German EEZ.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective4','A4_3','','The most important steering instruments in spatial planning in Germany are \"spatial plans\" which include a range of technical provisions. Some of these are binding for further project approval procedures, some must be considered when balancing interests. Provisions included in these spatial plans may refer to all uses and protective functions of a given space, including environmental protection. Environmental issues must also be taken into account when taking decisions on other aspects, e.g. economic uses. This results from the general logic of spatial planning law and is laid down in particular in section 2(2) no. 6 of the Federal Regional Planning Act. The fourth sentence expressly calls for decisions to be made in such a way as to pay attention to the requirements of the ecological network.Moreover, with regard to the establishment and protection of the European Natura 2000 network pursuant to section 7 (6) of the Regional Planning Act, impact assessments in accordance with the European Habitats and Birds Directives (92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC) must be carried out when making spatial plans.Pursuant to section 9 (1), first sentence, no. 1 of the Regional Planning Act, a strategic environmental assessment must be carried out when developing spatial plans, identifying expected significant effects of the spatial plan on biological diversity (among other aspects) and describing and evaluating them in a detailed environmental report. This provision transposes Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (Official Journal EC No. L 197 p.30).The environmental effects of the implementation of the plan must be monitored in accordance with section 9 (4) of the Regional Planning Act. Monitoring measures must be promulgated at the same time as the spatial plan. This provision also serves the transposition of the above-mentioned Directive 2001/42/EC.The Regional Planning Act entered into force on 30 December 2008 at federal level and on 30 June 2009 for the Länder. However, the previous Regional Planning Act which had been in force since summer 2004 contained comparable provisions.With regard to the question on \"interministerial coordination which addresses inclusion of ecological network considerations in spatial planning\" it should be noted that, although there is no such special coordination, there is a \"ministerial conference for spatial planning\". The conference has various subcommittees and working groups in which the competent ministries for regional planning at Federal and Land level discuss general spatial planning issues, see section 26 (1) of the Regional Planning Act. These bodies can also deal with ecological network considerations in spatial planning, if appropriate. Since spatial plans at Länder and regional level - and thus also any decisions relating to the ecological network - are the responsibility of the Länder, interministerial coordination on this issue must also be dealt with by the Länder.The current status of implementation of the ecological network is described under Action 1.2.3.','','','','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective4','A4_4_1','','As the CBD Guidelines are a voluntary instrument and do not foresee any mandatory implementation into legal national frameworks, no legal provisions for considering CBD Guidelines in tourism development have been established in Germany.However, legal provisions in the Federal Nature Conservation Act as well as provisions related to the implementation of Art. 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive (impact assessment) also relate to any tourism development project and have to be acknowledged as implementation tools. As the CBD-Guidelines are focusing on the most vulnerable ecosystems, protected areas play an important role for implementation of the guidelines. In this regard, the European Charta for Sustainable Tourism in Protected areas is an adequate instrument to implement the CBD Guidelines in protected areas. Various German parks have established the European Charta already. The reports on these projects can be regarded as a valuable source of reporting on the implementation of the Guidelines (see brochure “Joining Forces”). The mentioned brochure has been widely used as a promotion tool for the CBD Guidelines. In addition, various meeting with tourism stakeholders (for example during main tourism fairs) have been used to promote the use of the CBD Guidelines.','','','http://www.bfn.de/0323_richtlinie.htmlwww.european-charter.orgBrochure “Joining Forces”: www.european-charter.org/about-the-charter/','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, German direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 193.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56). Furthermore its biodiversity-related spending under the Structural Funds is mainly targeted on the promotion of eco-tourism.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Germany has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). The Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz (BNatSchG)) applies to regions (Länder) who must implement measures within it for reducing the impacts of IAS on native fauna and flora. Under Article 41(2) of the BNatSchG, release of alien species is subject to approval. However, current exemptions under this regulation are species used in agriculture and forestry or for hunting and fishing purposes as well as species being used for biological plant protection and species already present. There is specific legislation that addresses the issues of possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Article 52 of the BNatSchG prohibited the possession and trade of four invasive species throughout Germany. On the 1 March 2010, with the commencement of the amended Federal Nature Conservation Act, the Article 41(2) was replaced by Article 40(4) and Article 52 is replaced by Article 54. Hereby the bans under Article 54 are only count in conjunction with Article 3.  With Article 40 (2) and (3) legal obligations to monitor and combat newly established IAS have been introduced to the Act.The Plant Protection Act (Articles 3 and 4) is currently primarily concerned with the unintentional introduction of alien species but the inclusion of deliberate introduction is under discussion. However, Germany’s specific legislation does not address the import and export of IAS. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 44 are present in Germany. This equates to between 0.10 – 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Germany’s National Biodiversity Strategy (2007) contains specific targets for invasive alien species (IAS), included in which is the preparation of a National Strategy for IAS. The National Strategy for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Seas’, currently under development is also likely to address IAS introductions. There is currently no action plan specifically developed for IAS and they are not addressed in the biodiversity action plan.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Germany has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation but has been involved in the development of the Convention and the preparation of the guidelines.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Germany is in the process of developing a national information and early warning system for IAS. Furthermore, the development of a national expert panel is being considered to create a basis for the early warning system.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Germany has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The title and reference of the legislation is as follows: Verordnung über die gute fachliche Praxis bei der Erzeugung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen (Gentechnik-Pflanzenerzeugungsverordnung (Gentechnik- Pflanzenerzeugungsverordnung vom 7. April 2008 (BGBl. I S. 655)). There are no specific procedures in Germany for the different regions with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops.    According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, at the end of July 2009, 189 gmo-free-regions, 197 gmo-free-municipalities and 29.434 gmo-free-farms were declared in Germany, amounting to 1,052,813 ha. The commercial cultivation of Mon 810 has been stopped since April 14th 2009. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective6','A6_1_1','','Germany submitted their 4th national report to the CBD in April 2010. The “National Strategy on Biological Diversity” was adopted by the Cabinet on 7 Nov 2007.Germany has paid her contributions to the secretariats of CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention, with no contributions in arrears. In addition to the General Trust Fund of the CBD, Germany contributed 706.290 € to the Voluntary Trust Funds of the CBD in 2009.     ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/document/102009 ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Germany spent EUR3.3m in 2006 and EUR1.8m in 2007 for biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which is 0.02% and 0.01%, respectively, of the total multilateral biodiversity-related aid. However, according to information provided by Germany, since 2006 the volume of German commitments for the conservation of biodiversity and forest protection has risen continuously, reaching 223 million Euros in 2009. In the run-up to the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) succeeded in raising its commitments by 36 per cent within a single year. From 2008 to 2009 there was a further increase of around 30 per cent. At the Conference of the Parties Federal Chancellor Merkel indicated that the German government would make an additional 500 million Euros available to protect forests and other ecosystems over the period from 2009 to 2012. From 2013 onwards an annual 500 million Euros will be made available. This is why further significant increases of Financial Cooperation for biodiversity and forests are planned for the coming years.These are the commitments for biodiversity and forests in the previous years: 2006 - 115 million Euros; 2007 - 125 million Euros; 2008 - 170 million Euros; 2009 - 223 million Euros. Out of these commitments there are an average of 10 million Euro yearly committed as a contribution to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has been spending an additional 40 million Euro annually since 2008 for biodiversity and forests in international cooperation.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD marker, Germany spent EUR19.6m in 2006 and EUR82.8m in 2007 for biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which is 0.003% and 0.012%, respectively, of the total bilateral biodiversity-related aid. However, according to information provided by Germany, since 2006 the volume of German commitments for the conservation of biodiversity and forest protection has risen continuously, reaching 223 million Euros in 2009. In the run-up to the 9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn, the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) succeeded in raising its commitments by 36 per cent within a single year. From 2008 to 2009 there was a further increase of around 30 per cent. At the Conference of the Parties Federal Chancellor Merkel indicated that the German government would make an additional 500 million Euros available to protect forests and other ecosystems over the period from 2009 to 2012. From 2013 onwards an annual 500 million Euros will be made available. This is why further significant increases of Financial Cooperation for biodiversity and forests are planned for the coming years. These are the commitments for biodiversity and forests in the previous years: 2006 - 115 million Euros; 2007 - 125 million Euros; 2008 - 170 million Euros; 2009 - 223 million Euros. Out of these commitments there are an average of 10 million Euro yearly committed as a contribution to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has been spending an additional 40 million Euro annually since 2008 for biodiversity and forests in international cooperation.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009, 09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Germany contributed EUR293.67 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 11.00% of the total replenishment. Germany contributed EUR277.46 million to the 4th replenishment which is 12.89% of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF website and information provided by GermanyWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory. Nach der „Verfahrensregelung zur Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVP) in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit“ wird die UVP bei allen Projekten angewandt. Sie versteht sich als integraler Bestandteil der üblichen Verfahren bei Planung, Entscheidung und Steuerung von entwicklungspolitischen Vorhaben und damit als projektbegleitender Prozess. In einer Vorprüfung werden die Vorhaben daraufhin geprüft, ob Handlungsbedarf aufgrund möglicher Umweltrisiken besteht. Wird dies bestätigt, sind während der Durchführung weitergehende Untersuchungen zur Umweltverträglichkeit zu erstellen. Das Umweltprüfungsverfahren in der deutschen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit wird derzeit überarbeitet und um eine strategische Umweltprüfung (SUP) erweitert. Diese Reform zielt darauf, das Potenzial für die Verbesserung der Umweltqualität und für die ökologische Nachhaltigkeit zu erschließen und damit den Anforderungen der Strategischen Umweltprüfung und der Klimaschutzpolitik besser gerecht zu werden. Außerdem soll das neue Verfahren bereits bei der Strategieentwicklung mit dem Partnerland angewandt werden.','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective8','A8_1','','Germany has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. While there is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, Germany has raised awareness of the guidelines, through a national ABS Internet portal, an information brochure on ABS in Germany, periodic round table meetings with user sectors on access and benefit-sharing, and guidelines for researchers and research institutions on compliance with domestic ABS regulations of provider countries when applying for national public research funding. While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, awareness has been raised through discussions, Internet pages and German translation of the ITPGR and the SMTA. Wood produced in Germany comes from sustainable forestry. According to the last available estimate, in 2006 of 112.5 mio m³ imported wood, some 1.9 mio m³ came from illegal sources. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008 and a high number of items were seized. There is no information on import, export and re-export applications denied. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','While there is no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, the following activities raising awareness of the Guidelines have taken place:- National ABS Internet portal- Information brochure on ABS in Germany- Periodic round table meetings with user sectors on access and benefit-sharing- Guidelines for researchers and research institutions on compliance with domestic ABS regulations of provider countries when applying for national public research funding','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Germany has provided the following amounts for the ABS Working Group: EUR28,000 in 2007, EUR51,100 in 2008 and EUR150,000 in 2009. ','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (note that national legislation is not manadatory), awareness has been raised through discussions, Internet pages and German translation of the ITPGR and the SMTA:Staatliche Rechtsvorschriften sind nicht erforderlich; Nutzung des SMTA wurde aber in den betroffenen Institutionen eingeführt (Genbanksatzungen). Raising awareness of the SMTA: Mehrere Gespräche; Internetangebote (FAQs) des BMELV und der BLE; deutsche Übersetzung des ITPGR und SMTA.','','','','','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective8','A8_1_4','','Wood produced in Germany comes from sustainable forestry. According to the last available estimate, in 2006 of 112.5 mio m³ imported wood, some 1.9 mio m³ came from illegal sources. 2007: Nationaler Holzverbrauch von 108,5 Mio. m³2008: Nationaler Holzverbrauch von 94,5 Mio m³','','Um eine Aussage über die nachhaltige Produktion des verbrauchten Holzes zu treffen, ist zunächst darauf hinzuweisen, dass in Deutschland produziertes Holz aus nachhaltiger Forstwirtschaft stammt.Bei einer  Betrachtung des nationalen  Holzverbrauchs aus nachhaltiger Produktionsweise sind indirekte Importe von Holz aus potentiell illegalen Holzeinschlägen zu berücksichtigen, die über andere EU-Mitgliedstaaten,- oft als verarbeitete Produkte - ihren Weg nach D finden. Nach Berechnungen des vTI stammten im jüngsten vorliegenden Untersuchungszeitraum, im Jahr 2006, ca. 1,9 Mio. m³  ( in Rohholzäquivalenten = r)  der direkten Einfuhren von Produkten auf der Basis Holz (nicht nur Tropenholz) sowie ca. 4,1 Mio m³ ( r ) der indirekten Einfuhren geschätzt aus illegalen Quellen.  Die Einfuhr belief sich 2006 auf 112,5 Mio m³, 2007 auf 131,6 Mio. m³ und 2008 auf 118.,1 Mio. m³.','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 13,653, 2328 and 19.796, respectively. No information is available about the number of denied import, export or re-export applications. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 132,188 for 2007 and 115,772 for 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral/written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to staff and stakeholders involved with CITES implementation. Support has been provided to Tajikistan and Kazakhstan for sustainable natural resources utilisation and biodiversity conservation (GTZ project), which is aimed specifically at CITES-protected ungulates. Germany paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres); they also exclude the (much lower figures) from the Laender. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. Only the number of seized specimens is reported. The number of confiscated specimens cannot be added on top of the seized specimens as the former ones are those where the legal procedure has been settled whereas the latter ones are those where the legal procedure has still been open during the reporting period.','','','','','06/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Germany','Objective9','','','Biodiversity forms one of 13 fields of action in the German Adaptation Strategy which was adopted by the federal government in December 2008. An Adaptation action plan is currently developed and will be set up by spring 2011.','','','','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_3_2','','In Germany, the legislative implementation of sustainability criteria in Biomass electricity sustainability ordinance and Biofuels sustainability ordinance is in force. The Action Plan on Biomass was adopted in April 2009, whereas the NREAP is still in development since June 2009.The Federal Agency for Food and Agriculture recognizes certification systems and certification bodies, and the recognition has begun with 1 certification system that has been awarded preliminary recognition (ISCC).','','','www.ble.de, www.bmu.de, http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/44655/4593/http://www.ble.de/nn_465996/DE/02__Kontrolle__Zulassung/05__NachhaltigeBiomasseherstellung/NachhaltigeBiomasseherstellung__node.html?__nnn=truehttp://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Standardartikel/Landwirtschaft/Bioenergie-NachwachsendeRohstoffe/NachwachsendeRohstoffe/Biomasseaktionsplan.html?nn=453788','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_4_1','','Biodiversity forms one of 13 fields of action in the German Adaptation Strategy which was adopted by the federal government in December 2008. An Adaptation action plan is currently developed and will be set up by spring 2011.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Germany','Objective9','A9_4_3','','In Germany, assessments of habitats and species most at risk from climate change has been undertaken through various studies:Habitats: A first index-based analysis of the sensitivity to climate change of habitat types of annex I Habitats Directive was made by Petermann et al. (2007). Preliminary 23 of 91 habitat types, which occur in Germany, were classified as “highly sensitive”. Impacts of climate change on habitats were also analysed in the project “Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009) Habitats like lakes, running waters or forests were analysed by Holsten, A., Vetter, T., Vohland, K., Krysanova, V. (2009) in consideration of changing abiotic or biotic conditions like water level, flood dynamics or temperature or other climatic variables. Further research for habitat types will be made also in the project Project “impacts of climate change on fauna, flora and habitat types” (2008-2011).Species: The BfN is funding several research and developing projects with a focus on species at risk:Terminated projects:1. Modeling the impact of climate change on plant distribution in Germany Ongoing projects:2. Project “Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009) 3. Project “impacts of climate change on fauna, flora and habitat types” (2008-2011)4. Project „Changes in the distribution of avian species and analysis of the influence of climate change“ (2008-2010)5. Project \"Impacts of recent climate change on the fauna in Germany“ (2008-2009)The projects include modelling of climatic envelopes of species distribution (higher plants - project 1; birds - project 2; several species of the annexes of the Habitats Directive - project 3), index-based approaches to assess species’ vulnerability to climate change (birds and Ground Beetles - project 2; species of the annexes of the Habitats Directive - project 3; species of special concern of the protection of species - project 5), but also an analysis of the influence of climate change on the densities of common bird species. Habitats and species most at risk from climate change have been partly identified, but are also subject of ongoing scientific studies. It is not possible to make an analysis for all of the species occurring in Germany. Therefore the studies were focused on the habitat types and species of the Habitats Directive and species of special species protection concern. In the next year(s) a summarized assessment of species and habitats at risk with the results of all the projects mentioned above should be made. ','','','Petermann, J., Balzer, S., Ellwanger, G., Schröder, E. & Ssymank, A. (2007): Klimawandel - Herausforderung für das europaweite Schutzgebietssystem Natura 2000. - Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 46: 127-148“Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009) http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/earth-system-analysis/backups/biodiversity_old/copy_of_schutzgebieteHolsten, A., Vetter, T., Vohland, K., Krysanova, V. (2009) Impact of climate change on soil moisture dynamics in Brandenburg and consequences for nature conservation areas. Ecological Modelling 220: 2076-2087Modeling the impact of climate change on plant distribution in Germany http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=6370 Project “Protected Areas in Germany under Global Change - Risks and Policy Options” (2006-2009)http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-domains/earth-system-analysis/backups/biodiversity_old/copy_of_schutzgebietev National reports in the framework of UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Greece','MandE','C1_2','','Greece has adopted 15 of the SEBI indicators, with three of them being adapted to the national circumstances. It should be noted that the process of systematic data collection for the indicators has not started yet and some of the indicators are yet to be finalised.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','MandE','C1_2_1','','Greece has adopted 15 of the SEBI indicators, with three of them being adapted to the national circumstances. It should be noted that the process of systematic data collection for the indicators has not started yet and some of the indicators are yet to be finalised. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','09/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Measure1','B1_1_1','','A variety of funding sources for biodiversity exists in Greece. Regional channels include EU co funding and mainly LIFE, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, the European Fund for Fisheries, the European Development Cooperation funding instruments, and the 6th Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development. The petrol tax that is generated by charges to petrol; is collected by the Ministry of Environment and used for activities, among others, dedicated to biodiversity. Within the Operational Program for the Environment, measure 8.1. is dedicated to ensuring the establishment and operation of Management Bodies for protected areas in Greece.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Greece spent up to EUR1,253,173 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites and up to EUR850,385 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Greece’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Greece’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Greece’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR179.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR21.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR31.8m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Measure1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure2','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Greece created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Greece','Measure3','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No information was available on whether any biodiversity and planning partnerships have been facilitated by the Member State at local, regional and national levels.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Greece has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Greece between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 3 of the 4 (75%) coastal habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of the remaining coastal habitats is unknown.In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the condition of all heath and scrub and rocky habitats is favourable. 6 of the 7 (86%), 21 of the 27 (78%) and 6 of the 9 (67%) sclerophyllous scrub, forests, and freshwater habitats are reported to be in favourable condition respectively. Half of all bog, mire and fens habitats are also in favourable condition. 7 of the 10 (70%) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 2 of the 4 (50%) bog, mire and fen habitats is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','10/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of May 2010, Greece has designated 241 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 28076 km², totalling 16.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 134 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 6604 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 202 with a total area of 29534 km², totalling 20.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 120, with a marine area of 1947 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Five Natura 2000 sites have a management plan completed (0.2 %), 40.4% of Natura 2000 sites have a management plan in preparation and 59.4% of Natura 2000 sites have no management plan completed or in preparation. 85% of sites have a management body or other territorial planning instruments.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','07/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','06/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 346 regularly occurring bird species in Greece, 17 are globally Near-threatened and 11 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Greece, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, the conservation status of 1 of the 6 (17%) invertebrates and 3 of the 12 (25%) mammals were reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 12 (33%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 4 of the 6 (67%) invertebrates and 2 of the 12 (17%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, the conservation status of 12 of the 56 (21%) amphibians and reptiles and 13 of the 35 (37% ) fish13 of the 56 ( 23%) amphibians and reptiles and 19 of the 60 (32%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. 28 of the 56 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 32 of the 60 (53%) plants, 41 of the 48 (85%) mammals and 41 of the 41 (100%) invertebrates were reported unknown. The conservation status of 14 of the 35 (40%) fish was not reported.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. Note that all species listed below as ‘not reported” are species that are occasional, vagrant or with marginal distribution.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','07/05/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective10','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Greece.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective10','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Greece has plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective10','A10_1_8','','No information was provided on whether Greece has created a national biodiversity platform to ensure that biodiversity research and outcomes are reflected in policy development and implementation. ','','No link to a Greek national biodiversity platform was available on the EPBRS website.','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info European Platform for Biodiversityhttp://www.bioplatform.info/index.htm ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Greece is not currently a Participant or Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Department of Natural Products is the lead contractor on the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) Work Package 3: Dissemination. This Work Package promotes the transfer for expertise concerning all aspects of biodiversity information. Products include: ENBI brochures, training workshops and accompanying literature.Other Greek organisations that participate in ENBI as ‘members’ include: the Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (WP11-Multilingual Access); National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Biology(WP2-ENBI Forums); The Goulandris Natural History Museum - Greek Biotope / Wetland Centre (WP12-Info services on European data); and the University of Patras, Dept. of Biology - Laboratory of Zoology (WP12- Info services on European data).','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Greece total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 3707.3 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 4420.45 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1296.52 million EUR, and 1484.47 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 87.34 and to 100 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Greece was 674.34 million EUR (772.1 with co-financing) and amounted to 18.19 per cent of the EAFRD (17.47 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 6.05 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.16 per cent of EAFRD) and 6.92 million EUR of public expenditure (0.16 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 7.56 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.2 per cent of EAFRD) and 8.66 million EUR of public expenditure (0.2 per cent of public expenditure). There are no forest-environment payments (measure 225) for Greece.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)183.296239.206Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Greece in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Greece had a total certified forest area of 36,626 hectares out of a total forest area of 3.75 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Greece was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 0.98 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Greece amounted to 5.35 million ha, representing a share of 58.6 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 176 million € has been added to Greece’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Greece attributed no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 67 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats in Greece have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 33 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Greece.Status of fresh water habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9360033%67%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9360033%67%0%0%U13  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate in rivers and phosphorus concentrations was available for Greece. Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater amounted to 15.6 mg NO3 /l in 2004.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Greece had a total number of 6 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 100 per cent of all inland bathing waters. There is no clear trend compared to previous years. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','Greece provided no reporting on the development of biological assessments methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','In 2009, no reporting of the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was provided by Greece under the Water Framework Directive.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Greece had a total number of 293 IPPC installations and issued 104 permits. 189 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Greece’s emissions of nitrogen oxides were above the ceiling set by the NEC Directive. As regards ammonia, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), 2008 data already complied with the ceilings. However, a further increase of NMVOCs is expected by 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of 2007 emissions, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Greece the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 3 and 98 per cent respectively, considering an area of 53,671 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 1 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 97 per cent in 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 60 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Greece’s gross nitrogen balance was 15 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 52 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council  Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the occurrences (two) of Mediterranean heath and scrub habitats in Greece have a favourable conservation status. 78 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats have a favourable status; the remaining 22 per cent have an unfavourable status. 63 per cent of the Mediterranean grassland habitats in Greece have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining 38 per cent have a favourable status. Half of the Mediterranean peat land habitats in Greece have a favourable conservation status; the status of the remaining 50 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Mediterranean is the only bio geographical region in Greece.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U15  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage276210022%78%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage276210022%78%0%0%U16  U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage402200%50%50%0%            MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage402200%50%50%0%U10  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Greece showed that of the five marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region, four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (80%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (20%). There were ten coastal habitats assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (20%), one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (10%) and seven had a ‘Bad’ status (70%).There were 21 marine species assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region, including reptiles, invertebrates and mammals. Of the 21, four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (19%), seven had a ‘Bad’ status (33%), six had an ‘Unknown’ status (29%) and the remaining four were ‘Not reported’ (19%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_1_4','','No evidence was found showing that any monitoring programmes have been established in coastal areas.No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/','','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_2','','Greece currently has 2,088 coastal bathing waters and over 99% of these have reached mandatory standards for water quality between 1996 and 1998. A high proportion has also reached the stricter guidelines standards for water quality: 97.7% in 2008 which is an improvement from 96.9% in 2006. In terms of nutrient concentrations none of the sampling stations in Mediterranean coastal waters have seen an increase in nitrogen or phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005.   ','','-','','','','','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_4','','Greece’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €97,767,605 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity. Axis 2 (€80,661,538) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€43,676,000) does not include any specifically environmentally friendly measures but has a general objective for sustainable development and Axis 4 (€45,000,000) promotes the sustainable development of fisheries areas and improved quality of the coastal environment.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/18&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Greece had 17878 vessels and 2% were involved in a serious infringement (351 vessels). A total of 351 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €750 and maximum fine of €20,000.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_5_2','','No information has been provided by Green on restoration plans for diadromous species. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Greece’s fishing capacity has consistently reduced from 1999 to 2008. During this period the total number of vessels was reduced from 19,853 to 17,347 (13% reduction), tonnage from 107,450 to 88,750 (17% reduction) and power from 692,436 to 510,636 (19% reduction). Most of the Greek fishing fleet is made up of small-scale coastal fishing boats using a variety of passive fishing gear. Capacity reduction has been achieved by removing small and out of date vessels and modernising some of these to fit with health and safety standards.','','2008 data: 17347 vessels; 88750 tons; 510636 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','10/12/2009','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Greece had 17,878 active vessels. There were 243 type D breaches in this year, with 243 penalties imposed with an average fine of €815. No information was provided by Green on enforcement actions to reduce by-catch and damage to benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_6_2','','No information has been provided by Green on shark or seabird monitoring plans. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','No information has been provided by Greece on specific fisheries measures for any of these marine Natura 2000 sites.','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Greece has 118 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarifications below). No information has been provided by Greece on specific fisheries measures for any of these marine Natura 2000 sites. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusAnother way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Greece has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Greece indicates that it will use MEDITs data to calculate ecosystem indicators 1-4 from Appendix XIII. Indicator 4 on the size at maturation of exploited species will also be calculated based on fisheries-dependent sources (concurrent on-board sampling for biological variables of landings and discards).  VMS data will be used to calculate indicators 5-7. Indicator 8 on discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated based on the analysis of marketable and discarded fractions of the catch on-board commercial vessels in the main metiers. Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency of fish captures will be based on two sources of data—the total value of landings derived from the product between amount of landings and average prices per metier and total value of fuel costs by metier.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' ','','na','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean trophic index for Greek EEZ waters in 2004 was 3.38. This represents an increase of 0.22 since 1999, but a decrease of 0.04 since 1984.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Greek direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 233.3 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','10/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Greece has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade and control and eradication of IAS. There is no specific legislation addressing the introduction of IAS into the wild in Greece. Article 20 of Law 1650/1986 on the Protection of the Environment contains provisions for the protection of indigenous flora and fauna. Under Decision n  I 1B/2000/19 on quarantine, the Sanitary Committee can decide to implement control of introduced animal species. Greece is a party to CITES and the trade of some alien pet species is controlled by CITES requirements that are enforced by customs offices. Although no national legislation is in place that deals specifically with the introduction of alien species, Greece is involved in the work of the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean of the Barcelona Convention. The Protocol contains an Action Plan for addressing the introduction of IAS in the Mediterranean Sea.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 30 are present in Greece. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10, EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Greece has not provided a national plan or strategy for invasive alien species (IAS) in any detail, nor is any information available whether a national biodiversity strategy or biodiversity action plan addresses the issue.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Greece has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, the whole of Greece is now covered by regional, formal or informal, GMO-free zones. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report nor a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan had been submitted to the CBD.Greece has paid her contributions to CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. The country has signed AEWA, but the Agreement is not yet in force so no contribution was paid to AEWA. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid for Greece for 2006 and 2007.','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Greece spent EUR0.47m in 2006 and EUR0.15m in 2007 for bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.003% and nearly 0.00%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','','','','09/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Greece contributed EUR5.80 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.24% of the total replenishment. Greece contributed EUR5.73 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.27 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective8','A8_1','','Greece has issued many import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and a low number of items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed, while no support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. Greece is in arrears for the contributions to the CITES Trust Fund.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Greece did not provide funds to the CBD ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective8','A8_1_4','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 11123, 4 and 32, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications denied is not available. An aggregate number for seizures and confiscation of specimens is 23 for 2007 and 2008. The disaggregated number for seizures is not available in the 2007-2008 biennial report. As to capacity-building at the national level, capacity was built through hiring of more staff, purchase of technical equipment for monitoring/enforcement and computerisation. In addition, microchip reading devices were purchased and disseminated to all the regional management authorities for facilitating controls. Advice/guidance and training was provided to the Management Authority, training was provided to the public as well as oral and written advice/guidance to the enforcement authorities and traders. Greece has not provided technical and financial support to another country in relation to CITES. Greece had not paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008 as of 31 December 2008. There are also unpaid contributions for 1992-2007.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). ','','','','','06/01/2010','23/05/2010'),
	('Greece','Objective9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/05/2010',NULL),
	('Greece','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','MandE','C1_2','','Hungary applies 18 of the SEBI indicators, while of the 23 indicators applicable to Hungary, 5 are not applied.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','MandE','C1_2_1','','Hungary applies 18 of the SEBI indicators, while 5 are not applied and a further 3 are not applicable to Hungary).','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','MandE','C1_3_1','','The Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System (HBMS) is a national programme governed by the State Secretariat for Nature and Environment Protection, Ministry of Environment and Water, and its mission is the long-term surveillance of the status and trends of biological diversity in Hungary. HBMS has been operated for 12 years. In addition to the ten projects defined in the first stage, an eleventh project has also been elaborated in order to implement the monitoring requirements of Habitats Directive. The habitats of community interest occuring in Hungary were categorized into three groups, for each (water or water-related habitats, grassland and forest) a monitoring protocol was elaborated. The monitoring scheme for grassland habitats was started last year. Habitat mapping of 124 5x5 km quadrats, has been operating since 1998, serving adequate data about the distribution and range of habitats of community interest and its changes.','','','www.termeszetvedelem.hu; www.nbmr.hu','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Measure1','B1_1_1','','After Hungary’s accession to the European Union, compared to domestic funds, financial resources from the European Union became dominant. In the period 2007-2013, a larger amount of project-based funds is available for activities aiming at biodiversity conservation. Financial sources for biodiversity related activities include the Life+ financial instrument and the Environment and Energy Operative Programme of the ‘New Hungary’ Development Plan. The following activities can be financed from these financial instruments: best practice or demonstration projects that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s nature conservation directives (Birds and Habitats Directives), projects that contribute to the implementation of the EU’s Biodiversity Action Plan, habitat reconstruction; ecotourism activities; conservation of threatened species; investments for nature conservation etc. The domestic budget for nature conservation is a very small percentage of the national budget.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Hungary spent up to EUR3,084,645 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Hungary spent up to EUR401,744 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. Note that the tables and comments above do not take into account the financial sources of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development Fund (EAFRD) allocated to managing Natura 2000 sites. Based on the EARDF regulation Natura 2000 payment has been launched in 2007 in order to maintain the favourable conservational status of Natura 2000 grasslands. Regarding to the obligatory management prescriptions of the Natura 2000 network this payment (38 euro/hectare) compensates the income foregone and the extra costs of the farmers managing Natura 2000 grassland areas. In 2008 the Payment Agency received 2634 applications with the territory of 73,000 ha in this measure that increased to106,000 ha in 2009.See A2.1.1 under Objective 2 for more information on the EAFRD. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Hungary’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the Hungarian contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: Regarding LIFE and LIFE+: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Hungary’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR125.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR163.2m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR113.9m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. There is no data available on the actual amount contracted.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Measure1','B1_1_8','','Hungary allocated EUR13.6m in 2008 and 14.7m in 2009 for biodiversity research activities and programmes. There is no information for 2006 and 2007 about the amount of national funding for biodiversity research.','','','','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Measure2','B2_4','','Hungary has updated its National Environment Programme, a framework for all national environmental goals and tasks renewed every six years, in light of the EC Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The Third National Environmental Programme defines the main lines of the environmental policy in Hungary until 2014. The document was finalised and approved by Parliament in 2009 and aims to ameliorate the quality of environment, the sustainable use of the natural resources, the protection of the natural heritage and the enhancement of environmental security, as the most important elements for the improvement of the quality of life and the enforcement of the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Programme uses a complex approach to realise these objectives by the horizontal integration of environmental aspects, and by the implementation of the goals and measures of the thematic action plans, considering the priorities of the EU 6th Environmental Action Programme and the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. The thematic action plans include the description of the actual situation, the targets and the measures to reach these goals, as well as the indicators helping the monitoring of the implementation. These nine thematic action plans are as follows: 1.enforcement of the environmental thinking and approach; 2.climate change; 3.health and environment; 4.environmental quality of settlements; 5.biodiversity preservation, nature and landscape protection; 6.	sustainable field and land use; 7.protection and sustainable use of our waters; 8.waste management; 9.environmental security. In an appendix it includes the Strategy of the implementation of the international convention on biodiversity; as well as the new National Nature Conservation Master Plan.','','Hungary has provided the following additional details: The Second National Environmental Programme for 2003-2008 was prepared in the frame of a wide-scale dialogue, in which NGOs, local governments and representatives of science and business were participating. Priorities of the Second National Environmental Programme are in harmony with those of EU’s 6th Environmental Action Programme (environmental consciousness, climate change, human health and food safety, improvement of the state of urban areas, biodiversity, and sustainable use of waters, waste management and environmental safety). The Third National Environmental Programme was elaborated through a large consultation process taking place in 2009: it defines the main lines of the environmental policy in Hungary until 2014. The document has been finalised and approved by the Parliament in 2009 (Parliament Resolution, No. 96/2009. (XII. 9.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2009-2014 ).  ','www.kvvm.hu; www.termeszetvedelem.hu ','15/02/2010','','','02/03/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Measure3','','','The Ministry of Environment and Water and the Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society signed an “Accessible sky” agreement with the major electricity companies in 2008 in order to protect birds against electrocution. The electricity companies committed to a ‘bird-friendly’ transformation of all dangerous power lines in Hungary by 2020, and agreed to only use ‘bird-friendly’ methods when constructing new power lines. Best available technologies have been elaborated and distributed in a joint effort and data on bird casualties have been collected in a common database. The bird-friendly conversion of the national network of power lines has been carried out and accepted by all participants. This work has been financed by European, Hungarian funds and co-financed by the electric companies.  In 2009, the Natura 2000 Advisory Committee, initially set up by the Ministry of Environment and Water with the role of supporting the Natura 2000 network, was reformed to include business sectors including representatives of the agricultural and forestry sectors, in addition to the original government representatives, civil conservation bodies and scientific institutions. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: ”Accessible Sky” agreement: http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2008/03/Hungary_powerlines.html ','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Measure3','B3_1_2','','On a national level, partnerships are facilitated through a Natura 2000 council, which provides a central conciliatory forum for members of representative organizations for forestry, agriculture and the scientific sphere with the coordination by the Ministry of Environment and Water. The planning procedure is carried out with the widespread involvement of local stakeholders and farmers.On regional and local levels, the interests of nature conservation are mainly represented by national park directorates. Management plans (Natura 2000 areas, protected areas) or feasibility studies of high nature-value farmland areas cannot be completed without consultation of forums for stakeholders of the agricultural sector. Consequently, several local forums have been held over the last few years. (The number of forums held in connection with management plans is 77). Further cooperation is achieved through national park councils in which local farmers can participate as members. There are 10 national park councils which facilitate partnerships at regional level.','','','','15/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Measure3','B3_1_5','','The principle nature conservation and planning legislation is the Act on Regional Development and Physical Planning.The Act on National Spatial Plan was revised in 2008 and has led to the greater integration of biodiversity considerations into spatial planning. The NSP defines land use restrictions of different zones and is implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Water (MoEW).Spatial plans at regional level are prepared in accordance with the official position of both the MoEW and national park directorates. Local level spatial plans are expected to be established in accordance with the position of national park directorates and following the regional plan which takes into consideration biodiversity interests on a higher level.  The National Spatial Plan and regional plans of certain regions (Balaton and Agglomeration of Budapest) are communicated and implemented throuh different ways, as an act, a regional plan, county regulations, and local plans with municipal regulations. However, Hungary does not have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report HungaryWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','15/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Hungary','Measure3','B3_1_6','','The Ministry of Environment and Water and the Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society signed an “Accessible sky” agreement with the major electricity companies in 2008 in order to protect birds against electrocution. The electricity companies committed to a ‘bird-friendly’ transformation of all dangerous power lines in Hungary by 2020, and agreed to only use ‘bird-friendly’ methods when constructing new power lines. Best available technologies have been elaborated and distributed in a joint effort and data on bird casualties have been collected in a common database. The bird-friendly conversion of the national network of power lines has been carried out and accepted by all participants. This work has been financed by European, Hungarian funds and co-financed by the electric companies.  In 2009, the Natura 2000 Advisory Committee, initially set up by the Ministry of Environment and Water with the role of supporting the Natura 2000 network, was reformed to include business sectors including representatives of the agricultural and forestry sectors, in addition to the original government representatives, civil conservation bodies and scientific institutions. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: ”Accessible Sky” agreement: http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2008/03/Hungary_powerlines.html ','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','Measure3','B3_1_7','','A pilot project was set up in 2005-2006 with the aim  of developing an instrument (preferential loan with favourable conditions)  for financing biodiversity related projects in the fields of extensive/organic agriculture; sustainable forestry; environmentally friendly fishpond management and aquaculture; processing of products in the above sectors and ecotourism. The project was initiated by the European Centre for Nature Conservation, the European Investment Bank, the Hungarian Development Bank and the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. A survey was conducted among SMEs operating in national parks or Natura 2000 sites outlining the basic conditions for the instrument and some eligibility criteria for potential applicants. Although the project ended without the establishment of the instrument, it formed the basis for the following the BTAU project in Hungary.  The BTAU project was carried out between 2007-2010 by RSPB in three pilot countries (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland). It was founded by DG Environment, and EBRD and EIB which were included in the steering committee. In Hungary, BirdLife-Hungary delivered the project. Several pilot SMEs were selected and based on these, an innovative financial instrument was elaborated. However, due to the recent economic crisis; financial institutions have withdrawn from this project. Nevertheless, agreement with the Savings Cooperative Bank provides the opportunity for this work to continue. The project found synergies with Natura 2000 maintenance planning project, where the latter provides the scientific framework evaluating pro-biodiversity businesses, while the BTAU project provides the methodology and the financial opportunities for businesses.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: Pilot project for biodiversity investments in Hungary (2006-2006) (In Hungarian): http://www.ceeweb.org/hun/bb/Kovacs_Eszter.pdf  BTAU project website: http://www.smeforbiodiversity.eu/ ; http://www.georgicon.hu/ ','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds. ','','','','15/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. However, many activities have been implemented for building awareness, education and participation for biodiversity. World Wetlands Day (2 February), Earth Day (22 April), Day of Birds and Trees (10 May), Day of National Parks (23 May) and the Wild Goose Festival (last weekend of November) are celebrated annually. Since 2004, on the International Biodiversity Day the Ministry of Environment and Water has been raising awareness on the importance of biodiversity through press conferences, exhibitions and celebrations. Linked to the official theme of IBD, nation-wide competitions have been launched each year. In 2009, in preparation for the International Year of Biodiversity, the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water launched a postcard designing competition titled “Send a message to the world to conserve biodiversity”. Primary and secondary school children designed postcards for the celebration of 2010 showing the importance of diversity of life on earth. The three best postcards were published and used as the official Hungarian International Year of Biodiversity postcards throughout 2010.For 2010 (International Year of Biodiversity), Hungary has joined the global initiative of organising a national Biodiversity Action Day on the 22nd of May. The Ministry of Environment and Water together with GEO Magazine Hungary will organize an event at the Danube-Ipoly National Park with the participation of local schools, non-governmental organisations and scientists. This year, World Wetlands Day was celebrated on 2 February and focused on the interconnection between wetlands, climate change and biodiversity.','','In 2007, the Ministry of Environment and Water launched a student competition called “Let’s Look Around In Our Neighbourhood!“ in collaboration with Hungary’s largest agricultural gene bank, where the task of students was to record all traditional crop, fruit and vegetable varieties still found locally. On International Biodiversity Day, the State Secretary for Nature and Environment Protection at the Ministry of Environment and Water, held a press conference. Student journalists, trained by professional journalists at previous IBD celebrations, were invited to participate. In 2008, an initiative which was part of on-going awareness-raising activities was dedicated to agro-biodiversity and included a nation-wide fairy-tale writing competition and a 3-day biodiversity weekend. This was the main event of the biodiversity weekend, entitled ‘Are there still any sky-high bean stalks in your village?’. Another successful event organised as part of the biodiversity weekend was a Parliamentary Open Day at the Parliament of the Republic of Hungary focusing on agro-biodiversity, and specifically on the conservation of local varieties and the diversity of national crop and livestock genetic resources. Around 500 participants – including representatives from the state administration as well as Members of Parliament, scientific and research institutions as well as NGOs – attended the event and had fruitful discussions and exchanges on this issue of particular importance. Another successful event  was the election of the “Seven Natural Wonders of Hungary”, whereby a series of television programmes featured 30 famous natural phenomena of the country, which the public could vote for by sending an SMS. The most popular “Seven Natural Wonders” were officially announced by the Minister of Environment on Earth Day (22 April) and diplomas were awarded to the representatives of the winning natural phenomena (mayors as well as NGOs).','','15/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Hungary','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Watermade a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown Initative 29th September 2006. The Hungarian Ministry for Environment and Water communicated that the focus would be on increasing the total area of protected sites and, within them, increasing the proportion of state-owned land managed by conservation bodies. It also stated that it would implement the relevant EU directives and the international conventions it had signed. The Ministry proposed the implementation of several action plans for the conservation of local species and establishment of a monitoring system for the analysing conservation status. It also proposed contributing financially by allocating resources for biodiversity protection measures and projects. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Hungary between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','15/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of 5 of 6 (83%) Pannonian rocky habitats is reported to be favourable. All sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of 5 (60%) of both freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The only coastal and halophytic habitat (pannonic salt steppes and salt marshes), the only dune habitat, and both heath and scrub habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. There is a slight uncertainty with 1 of 12 (8%) of Pannonian grasslands reported as of unknown condition.','15/02/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%360%240%00%00%5Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%18%1083%18%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%360%240%00%00%5Rocky habitats583%117%00%00%00%6Forests00%00%13100%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Hungary has designated 467 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 13,973 km², totalling 15.0% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 55, with a total area of 13,512 km², totalling 14.5% of the country’s area. The total area of the overall Natura 2000 network (excluding overlaps) is 19,682 km².','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Hungary.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_2_3','','The main legal background of the National Ecological Network is ensured by the Act on Nature Conservation No. LIII of 1996. Prescriptions for the areas of the network have been built into the Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003. The Act and the database of the National Ecological Network were amended in 2008, when – as a major improvement - most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured on planning level. By the Act, the areas of the network must be supervised every 5 years.National Ecological Network (following the guidelines of the Pan-European Ecological Network)Area: 3 350000 haCore area: 1 782 000 ha (53%)Ecological corridor: 845 000 ha (25%)Buffer area: 720 000 ha (22%)Legally protected: 835 000 ha (23%)     (The network includes protected and non protected areas)Natura 2000 area (overlapping): 1 883 000 ha (56%)More than 95% of the protected nature conservation areas, and about 95% of the Natura 2000 areas belong to the National Ecological Network.The protection and maintenance of the values of the ecological network take place in the framework of one of the main strategic documents of the Hungarian nature conservation, in the National Environmental Programme, and in the National Nature Conservation Master Plan (appendix of the Programme).The latest National Environmental Programme covers the period 2009-2014 (NKP III.) and emphasizes coherence and ensurance of harmonised protection between the elements of the Natura 2000 network and other parts of the National Ecological Network, in line with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive.  Using EU Funds, such as LIFE and LIFE+ programmes as well as the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (since 2006) special attention has been paid to the protection, maintenance and development of nationally protected areas as well as Natura 2000 sites (including ecological corridors, landscape features as well), : -	Habitat restoration projects: aiming to restore damaged habitats and to create new habitats and ecological corridors, -	Technical adjustment of linear infrastructure to remove ecological barriers for migrating birds. See short description of “Accessible Sky programme, partly funded from the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (see under additional clarifications). Other tools to strengthen coherence, connectivity and support of biodiversity in the wider environment: -	Programme for establishing the transboundary Fertő-Hanság/Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel Ramsar Site between Hungary and Austria (2009)-	Establishing of the Croatian-Hungarian Transboundary Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve (nomination with UNESCO MAB Programme, 2009)-	Transboundary eco-tourism development programmes, and establishment of study trails and promotional campaigns in the border region-	Joint transboundary monitoring (e.g. Natura 2000 monitoring) and habitat restauration programmes-	Common Geopark project (Nógrád Geopark)-	Programme to improve the co-operation activities along the River Drava in order to amend the protection of biodiversity-	Common water management development project (Hungary-Ukraine) -	Establishment of a common network for protected nature conservation areas in the West-Pannonian region (PANANAET program)','','Act on Nature Conservation no. LIII of 1996: The most important provisions for the ecological network (article 53, paragraph (2) sections a-b):„By the act the establishing, developing and supporting of the National Ecological Network must be an important task in the National Environmental Action Plan.” The Act  contains the definition of the ecological network and the ecological corridor.By the Act, the National Environmental Programme shall contain the long term and medium term aspects of the establishment and maintenance of the ecological network and ecological corridors.National Nature Conservation Master Plan II (2003-2008)  (Part of the National Environmental Programme, Parliament Resolution, No. 132/2003 (XII.11.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2003-2008):“The various natural and landscape assets of the country, outstanding in international comparison too, can be safeguarded by designating protected areas in all planning-statistical regions, as well as by way of ecological networks that include the protected areas, too”.The National Environmental Programme includes as an appendix the National Nature Conservation Master Plan, which is one of the most important tools for protecting biodiversity in Hungary.National Nature Conservation Master Plan III (2009-2014)(Part of the National Environmental Programme III, Parliament Resolution, No. 96/2009. (XII. 9.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2009-2014).Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003:By the Act the National Ecological Network must be one of the national spatial zones in the spatial plans, and the network must be a highlighted zone in regional spatial plans. Ecological networks included in 14 regional plans have been approved.The amended Act on the National Spatial Plan came into force in July 2008. The National Ecological Network (core area, ecological corridors, buffer zones) are determined by this plan. Most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured at planning level.Accessible Sky agreement for  bird-friendly transformation of high, medium and low voltage power lines on a national scale:Timescale: 2008-2020. Aerial power lines pose a serious threat to wild bird populations due to electrocution and collision. For several endangered species, power lines are among the most important causes of mortality. An agreement was prepared and signed in February 2008 on collaboration among all distribution companies as well as the Ministry of Environment and Water and BirdLife Hungary to minimise bird mortality along power lines. Funding is provided mainly through the Structural Funds (Environment and Energy Operational Programme), LIFE Nature and LIFE+, but thanks to the improving co-operation, distribution companies also co-finance the projects. Most prominent recent examples are the burial of 80 km of medium-voltage power lines in the Hortobágy National Park (Structural Funds), the burial of 11 km of medium voltage power lines in the Borsodi Mezőség Landscape Protection Area (LIFE Nature) and the fitting of bird diverters on 45 km of medium and high voltage power lines in some of the most important Great Bustard sites in Hungary to avoid collision (LIFE Nature). Presently running projects include two LIFE Nature projects (focussing on Saker Falcon and Red-footed Falcon) aiming at the insulation of a total of 910 km of medium voltage power lines. There is an important, self-financed initiative by the Hungarian high-voltage electricity distribution company to fit high-voltage power lines with markers where there are conflicts with the most important bird habitats. Under the agreement, BirdLife Hungary, commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Water, produced a conflict map in late 2008 to prioritise all power lines in Hungary as to the urgency of bird-friendly conversion. The total length of top priority power lines is 21,700 km. Based on this figure, the funding needed to convert all top priority power lines is in the order of 60 million euros. The plan is to eliminate most of this threat by 2020. Under the agreement, and based on regular consultations with all partners concerned, distribution companies have also prepared and constantly update BAT (best available technology) for the creation of bird-friendly power lines where new power lines are set up. The BAT documentation is available in Hungarian. BirdLife Hungary has set up a national database of all observed bird casualties and runs yearly surveys to monitor certain power lines. The Act on Nature Conservation No. 53 of 1996 was also amended in December 2008 to only allow bird-friendly technologies at new or fully renewed power lines. Locations of particular importance to birds are carefully considered in the planning phase, especially since Hungary’s accession to the European Union, as the requirement of an appropriate assessment is compulsory also in Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive. ',':www.kvvm.hu, www.termeszetvedelem.hu , www.tuzok.hu, http://www.falcoproject.hu/hu/content/show, http://www.sakerlife.mme.hu/en/content/show','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 284 regularly occurring bird species in Hungary, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 9 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Hungary, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 9 of 21 (43%) fish, 18 of the 74 (24%) invertebrates and 14 of the 43 (33%) mammals and 10 of the 44 (23%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 17 of the 26 (65%) amphibians and reptiles, 33 of 74 (45%) of invertebrates, 20 of the 43 (47%) mammals and 22 of the 44 (50%) plants was reported unfavourable-inadequate. 9 of the 74 (12%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 44 (25%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 6 of the 26 (23%) amphibians and reptiles, 6 of the 21 (29%) fish, 14 of the 74 (19%) invertebrates and 7 of the 43 (16%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported PannonianAmphibians and reptiles14%1765%28%623%00%26Fish943%629%00%629%00%21Invertebrates1824%3345%912%1419%00%74Mammals1433%2047%25%716%00%43Plants1023%2250%1125%12%00%44','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','15/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Hungary 2008.  ','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective10','A10_1','','Hungary does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research; however, biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. The Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA) was established in 1986 with the objective of supporting high-quality fundamental research in disciplines of life sciences—including botany, zoology, conservation biology, evolutionary biology, hydrobiology, ecology and anthropology. Additionally, the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System is a national programme aiming at the long-term surveillance of the status and trends of biological diversity. A Research and Technology Innovation fund supports Research and Development programmes related to national strategic aims, such as biodiversity, and enhances the international cooperation and facilitates Hungarian participation in EU Research and Development programmes. There are several further application/support possibilities that could include biodiversity research, but their proportion is not significant.','','',' http://www.otka.hu/?akt_menu=991&set_lang=991  http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/hbms; http://www.nkth.gov.hu/english','15/02/2010','','','02/03/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Biodiversity research has been undertaken for four decades in Hungary and is conducted at local and regional scales. By using the ecosystem services (ESs) concept of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a joint research programme conducted by economists, sociologists, and ecologists has been undertaken in order to understand what local people in the Kiskunság region consider the most important ESs for the well-being of their community. In four villages in central Kiskunság, 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2007, and two focus group and one stakeholder workshops were organised in 2008. Interviews resulted in a detailed inventory of local ESs, and a list of conflicts over land use was compiled. Crucial actors and driving forces affecting the flows of ESs were identified in the focus group discussions. The research program is linked to the International Long-Term Research Network (ILTER) through a joint project on ecosystem services and is now also considered as a national MA follow-up activity.','','','ILTER (International LTER) ecosystem service project: http://www.ilternet.edu/research/ecosystem-services-assessment ','15/02/2010','','','02/03/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The Hungarian Biodiversity Platform was established in 2004. It is a national forum of scientists and policy-makers to ensure that research contributes to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. As a national platform of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), the main objective of the Hungarian Biodiversity Platform (HBP) is to promote important research and decision-making that contribute to the conservation, restoration, sustainable use of components of biological diversity, and to reduce biodiversity loss. HBP is bridging the gap between science and policy. The website has not been updated in the past year.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ; http://www.biodiverzitas.hu/english/index.shtml ','15/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Hungary is not a Participant or Associate member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Department of Zoology at the Hungarian Natural History Museum is the main institute researching zoology in Hungary, and they participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. The ENBI Forums Work Package brings other Work Packages and the ENBI Community at large with a communication space and consolidates the outcomes of discussions as an open access information resource.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','15/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','02/03/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.In addition a GAEC standard for the “Retention of landscape features” is currently being developed. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The above Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Hungary total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 3805.84 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 4535 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1250.22 million EUR, and 1437.22 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 32.85 and 31.69 per cent total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Hungary was 873.9 million EUR (1004.62 with co-financing) and amounted to 22.96 per cent of the EAFRD (22.15 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 38.38 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.01 per cent of EAFRD) and 44.12 million EUR of public expenditure (0.97 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 68.64 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.8 per cent of EAFRD) and 78.9 million EUR of public expenditure (1.74 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Hungary for Axis 2 measure 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)91.6835117.5956Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to reporting by the Member State, a national strategy and action plan have not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the National Strategy on Biodiversity Conservation includes a chapter on the integration of biodiversity conservation into agriculture. This chapter refers in general to the importance of the conservation of genetic diversity and resources. The National Environmental Programme also includes a chapter on the conservation of genetic resources. An obligation of the state National Park directorates is to ensure the conservation of several native breeds of livestock breeds. Further activities are also undertaken to ensure the conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species. These are based mainly on RDP measures for preservation of native and endangered farm animals’ genetic resources through breeding, forest-environment payments, or agri-environmental schemes.No information is provided on the number and budget for projects on the in-situ conservation of, livestock breeds ','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. No information on payments for genetic conservation measures was available for Hungary.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) is used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are not applied. According to the Government Degree No 314/2005 (XII. 25.) the limits for the Environmental Impact Assessment are:EIA is obligatory in the following cases:		Deforestation: 	30 ha in case the area will not be used for agricultural activity				50 ha in case the area will be used for agricultural activity		Afforestation:	EIA is not requiredThe Environmental Authorities have the power to choose to apply EIA in the following cases:		Deforestation:	10 ha in case the area will not be used for agricultural activity				30 ha in case the area will be used for agricultural activity		Afforestation: 	30 ha Afforestation Implementation Plans must include an assessment of quality of seedling/plant used, refer to methods of site preparation, methods of nursing (including the. use of pesticides) and methods of cleaning.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Hungary had a total certified forest area of 251,906 hectares out of a total forest area of 1.98 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Hungary was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 12.75 per cent of the total forest area.According to the Member State, total area of the Natura 2000 forests amounts to 789,515 ha, consisting of on 163,944 sites. Of those, 420,376 ha are not protected and 308,495 ha are protected by national laws. 60,644 ha are highly protected.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC).  ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Hungary amounted to 1.91 million ha, representing a share of 27.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. For MS additional detail on HNV area in Hungary see A2.1.8. and A1.1.2','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.In addition a GAEC standard for the “Retention of landscape features” is currently being developed. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The above Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','15/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_6','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_8','','National monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.Additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators are also being developed.According to reporting by the Member State, during the preparation of the New Hungary Rural Development Programme the Ministry of Environment and Water, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development designated extensively cultivated area that helps to conserve the nature friendly cultivation methods and thereby to protect the natural habitats and to conserve biodiversity, landscape assets, cultural and historical assets. The designation of these so called High Nature Value Areas was based on the earlier designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Natura 2000 network, and monitoring data collected mainly by the experts of the National Park directorates. The total area of the 25 HNV sites amounts to 1.2 million ha, which contains 900,000 ha grassland and arable land.  In the framework of the agri-environmental measure of the New Hungary Rural Develpoment Programme farmers have the opportunity to apply for 7 different special agri-environmental schemes aimed at nature conservation in the above mentioned designated areas. Programmes developed for grasslands and arable lands are specified for the protection of some species or for improvement of habitats, but thanks to the complexity of the commitments the programme also improves natural conditions and biological diversity.Although the objectives are the same, this designation is reasonably not equal to the HNV area designation of the JRC (see A2.1.3), which was developed mainly in order to analyse the changes in extensive farming systems on EU level. The HNV areas in Hungary are first of all the target areas of the special agri-environmental programmess for nature conservation.According to the Member State, the national Farmland Bird Indicator was basically stable between 1999 and 2008, with a slight decrease since 2005. The information is based on a report on the monitoring of the country’s Common Birds Scheme by BirdLife Hungary','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 54.2 million € has been added to the Hungarian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Hungary provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.  ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are herby mandatory. Projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. A complex monitoring system for analytical detection and biological evaluation of soil micropollutants for a sustainable environment has been implemented, for the period January 2008 to December 2010. The objective of this research and development project is to develop a soil contamination monitoring system capable of complex survey of typical soil contaminants in Hungary using up-to-date sampling and measurement techniques, and therefore, eliminating environmental protection and environmental analytical limitations due to the agricultural focus of the presently functioning Soil Protection and Monitoring Information System (TIM). Besides the representativeness/optimisation of the sampling technique to reveal the contamination source, additional important objectives of the projects include: (1) the development of in situ sensoric methods to identify volatile contaminants (e.g. chlorinated and petroleum hydrocarbons), and validation of the reliability of these methods by instrumental analysis; (2) the expansion of the range of investigation beyond analytical deteminations to biological tests (soil biology, ecotoxicity and mutagenicity) in order to provide risk based soil and ground-water contaminant identification; and(3) to interpret results obtained in a selected sampling region in a Geographic Information System in order to obtain a measurement protocol flexibly adaptable to ecological indications.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ilzer.rissac.hu/montabio/index.html ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all five occurrences of the Pannonian freshwater habitats in Hungary have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Pannonian is the only biogeographical region in Hungary.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U13  U22       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ ','02/15/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Hungary oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.72 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.38 mg O3/l in 2005, with a peak of 3.80 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated no clear trend, falling only slightly from 0.42 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.41 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values corresponded to the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 2.25 mg N/l in 2002 to 2.44 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 2.54 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were well above the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear tendency from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 1.5 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 1.3 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 2.2 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.271 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.219 mg P/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.291 mg P/l in 2003.  2005 values were well above the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a clear a downward trend, decreasing from 0.087 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.058 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values above the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','05/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Hungary had a total number of 131 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 51.2 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to 2007, the percentage decreased, whereas in previous years it had been increasing.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Hungary developed two out of four biological assessment methods for lakes and rivers, phytoplankton, and macrophytes and phytobenthos assessment. All other methods were under development or the information was incomplete. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 115 in Hungary.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Hungary had a total number of 979 IPPC installations and issued 967 permits. 12 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, 2008 data on Hungary’s NECD emissions indicate that emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides were below NEC Directive ceilings, non-methane volatile organic compounds slightly above. According to the country’s projections, existing legislation and measures are sufficient in meeting national emission ceiling limits in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','02/15/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Hungary the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 5 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 20,805 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 3 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and a reduction to 99 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 81 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Hungary’s gross nitrogen balance was 37 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 74 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.According to reporting by the Member State, in the period of 1989 to 1990 a drastic decrease happened in agricultural nitrogen use. In consequence, the nitrogen balance at that time did not even reach the level necessary for efficient production. The increase in the balance has to be correlated to this low level.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1999 and 2006, Hungary’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general slight decrease, though including some periods of improvement.  By 2006 the indicator was at 98.6 per cent, a 1.4 per cent decrease from the 1999 baseline. 22 species were assessed. Data were not available for the years 1990 to 1998.For further information on a national farmland bird indicator please consult A2.1.8','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council, MS questionnaire http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','Pannonian is the only biogeographical region in Hungary.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121101092%0%8%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage121101092%0%8%0%U11  U210       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1313000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1313000100%0%0%0%U10  U213       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10  U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U13  U22       ','http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective3','A3_4','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective3','A3_5_2','','In Hungary Salmon and Trout species have no relevance as diadromous species.Hungary has no management plan for Sturgeon at the Member State level. The reason for this is, first of all, that the Iron Gate barrage in Romania is an obstacle to fish migration, and Sturgeons are unable to get through to the Hungarian river reaches (Danube and Tisa). The last registered Sturgeon was caught at Paks in 1987. On the other hand there is an NGO initiative (http://www.hallepcso-fishpass.eu/node/5 ) which has the objective to provide suitable living, reproduction and migration conditions for Sturgeons (and other Acipenseridae species as well).Although Eel is considered a native species in the Carpathian basin by competent ichthyologists, almost the entire stock originates from artificial stocking. The Hungarian stock does not influence the species reproduction in the Sargasso Sea, since the individuals are probably unable to get through to the Atlantic from Hungary. Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 on, ‘Establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel’ the EC referred a decision to the ScientificTechnical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) as to whether these waters constitute natural habitats for the European eel. ','','','http://www.hallepcso-fishpass.eu/node/5','15/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective4','A4_3','','In Hungary, the National Ecological Network has been integrated into the Act on National Spatial Plan (NSP) No. XXVI. of 2003. By this Act, the National Ecological Network must be one of the national spatial zones in the spatial plans, and the network must be a highlighted zone in regional spatial plans. Ecological networks included in 14 regional plans have been approved.The amended Act on the NSP came into force in July 2008. The National Ecological Network (core area, ecological corridors, buffer zones) are determined by this plan. Most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured on planning level.The revision of the Act on NSP in 2008 has led to the greater integration of biodiversity considerations into spatial planning. The revised NSP contains framework regulations regarding the land use of the zones of the updated and revised National Ecological Network. There are some mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of the efforts for the ecological network: The Ministry of Environment and Water contributes to the preparation of plans for the county planning (at county level) by providing data about the areas of the National Ecological Network. Beside this Ministry also takes part in supervising that legal regulations for the ecological network are duly incorporated in the County Land Development Plans. The National Park Directorates, as regional bodies of state nature conservation have the right to comment and to consult in the process of spatial planning at the local governments (at local level).There is an interministerial coordination in spatial planning (inclusion of the ecological network), mainly taking place at the amendment of the Act, at the 5-year review of the National Ecological Network’s areas, and in the preparation work of legal regulations.  ','','Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003. The restrictions of the National Spatial Plan (NSP) include the following:- Within the national ecological network, only special regional or county land use categories and zones may be established which do not damage the natural and seminatural habitats of the ecological network and their relationships;- Within the zone, mining activities may be pursued in line with the provisions applicable to mining areas;- In the Special Regional Land Development Plan and County Land Development Plan, the zones of the national ecological network should be classified as core area, ecological corridor and buffer zone.The NSP defines further land use restrictions regarding the zones of the core area, ecological corridor and buffer zone as classified in the Special Regional Land Development Plan and County Land Development Plan.','www.kvvm.huwww.termeszetvedelem.hu','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines on Tourism were implemented between 2005 and 2008 in the Aggtelek Biosphere Reserve of Hungary through an international project called \"Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe”. In the context of implementing the guidelines the project aimed among other things to:- Give support to the development and implementation of tourism management plans in relation to biodiversity objectives.- Create and strengthen an enabling environment for combining sustainable tourism development and biodiversity conservation.- Support international cooperation among the participating countries, especially with regard to trans-boundary cooperation, to enhance knowledge on tourism and biodiversity.- Facilitate a consultative process with key stakeholders (in the public and private sectors) to ensure their active participation and influence in the development of public policies for sustainable tourism development and management in vulnerable mountain and forest areas.The National Ecotourism Development Strategy (NEDS) sets out ecological, socio-cultural, economic and touristic objectives. The ecological objectives are to maintain ecological diversity and to maintain and improve the environmental status of the certain destinations. The NEDS promotes compliance with the CBD Guidelines.  ','','','Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity through Sound Tourism Development in Biosphere Reserves in Central and Eastern Europe : http://www.oete.de/en/41b_gef.htmlNational Ecotourism Development Strategy (in Hungarian):http://www.mth.gov.hu/download.php?ctag=download&docID=422National Tourism Development Strategy (2005-2013):http://www.mth.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=888&articleID=3956&ctag=articlelist&iid=2','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Hungarian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 402.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).  Furthermore, Hungary did submit many successful applications under Cohesion and Structural Funds contributing to conserve and restore biodiversity at large. Those projects include the following activities: implementation of investments serving the conservation of endangered and rare species and habitats, restoration of degraded habitats, supporting favourable succession processes, elimination of invasive species, restoration of forests with indigenous species, establishment of ecological corridors, transformation of roads and railways in a nature-friendly manner, substitution or transformation of electric power lines, reconstruction of aquatic and non-aquatic habitats, or conservation of genetic resources and ex situ conservation.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','15/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','30/04/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Hungary has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation containing provisions for IAS. The specific legislation addresses the issues of possession and trade, introduction to the wild and control and eradication of IAS. Import and export of IAS is not addressed. Act No. LIII of 1996 on Nature Conservation contains several Articles that cover the introduction, control and eradication of IAS (Articles 9(4), 13(2), 13(3), 13(4) and 14). Act No. LIV of 1996 on Forests and the Protection of Forests contains provisions for the control of IAS. In 2008 it was revised to contain lists and regulations pertaining to invasive trees and herbaceous plant species. Act No. LV of 1996 on the Protection of Game, Game Management and Hunting specifies in Article 33(2) that the introduction of non-indigenous game species for hunting purposes must be authorised by the Hunting authority. Act No. XLI of 1997 on Fisheries and Angling requires a permit to be obtained for all fish originating from abroad that are to be used for stocking natural waters and fishponds. Act No. XXXV of 2000 on Plant Protection contains provisions addressing the introduction of plant pests and the control of these pests. There are Acts that concern the protection of biodiversity (Act No. LIII of 1995 on the General Regulations Concerning environmental Protection) and public health (Act No. CLIV of 1997 on public Health) that also contain some provisions applicable to IAS. In 2007, a series of Government Decrees of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development were adopted specifically to address the impact of IAS on Hungarian biodiversity. The decrees mainly concern plantations and grasslands present on Natura 2000 sites. Finally, in 2008, the development of a new Government Decree on the keeping and ownership transfer of pet species will contain a list of 15 species that are a threat to the native wildlife and habitats of Hungary. It will be prohibited to keep, trade, breed or offer for sale specimens of these species.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species (IAS) identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 43 are present in Hungary. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10  EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_1_2','','A National Strategy for invasive alien species (IAS) is under development in Hungary. Currently no action plan has been developed on IAS. The control of IAS is incorporated into the National Nature Conservation Master Plan, the national biodiversity strategy and action plan, and into some sectoral programmes such as common health, plant protection and animal husbandry.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Hungary has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Hungary plans to start the development of an early warning system for invasive species in 2010. This systems is foreseen to include rapid response mechanisms, incident lists and establishment of national coordination mechanisms. The existing lists of invasive animal and plant species will be reviewed in 2010, from a nature conservation point of view. The European Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO) publications also include the most recent information on plan IAS in Hungary. In addition, an inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects is under development. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','15/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Hungary has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The co-existence legislation in force in Hungary is: Act Nr. CVII. of 2006 on the amendment of the Act Nr. XXVII. of 1998 on gene technological activity. Official Journal of Hungary Nr. 2006/150 (XII. 7.); and Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Nr. 86/2006. (XII. 23.) on the coexistence of GM, conventional and ecological crops. Official Journal of Hungary Nr. 2006/161(XII. 23.)   Applications to grow genetically modified crops in Hungary are assessed according to regional criteria. The authorisation process aims to enable competent authorities to define cultivation conditions taking into account local circumstances as well as special characteristics of the plant species. The nature conservation authority may suggest isolation distances from areas under environmental protection, environmentally sensitive areas or Natura 2000 areas. These isolation distances can be greater than the distances from non-genetically modified crop fields but can not exceed double of those. According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, since September 2006 Hungary has banned the cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.  As regards formal or informal regional bans, since 2005, there have been two GMO-free regions in Hungary: Southern Transdanubia and Western Transdanubia. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in June 2009. The “Conservation of Biodiversity National Strategy and Action Plan” was published in 2004.Hungary had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while as of 31 Dec 2008 the payment for 2008 for the World Heritage Convention had not been made.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD markers do not show any aid budget for Hungary.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD markers do not show any aid budget for Hungary.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','15/02/2010','','','07/01/201007/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Hungary has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective7','A7_2_2','','- Governmental Decree No. 20/2001. (II. 14) together with Act LIII. Of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection served as harmonisation tool to the EIA Directive (85/337/ECC) and its first amendment (97/11/EC Directive);- Governmental Decree No. 314/2005. (XII. 25) together with Act LIII. Of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection serves as harmonisation tool to the EIA Directive (85/337/ECC) and its first (97/11/EC Directive) and second (2003/35/EC Directive) amendments;- Governmental Decree No. 2/2005. (I. 11) together with Act LIII. of 1995 on the general rules of environmental protection serves as harmonisation tool to the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC)','','','','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective8','A8_1','','While Hungary has not provided funds for the CBD Working Group on Access & Benefit-sharing and does not have national legislation implementation the Bonn Guidelines, she has undertaken awareness-raising activities on access & benefit-sharing, including a widely distributed questionnaire. National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development and the Agreement has been translated into Hungarian and officially published. Data on national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not being collected. Hungary has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and many items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. Training in CITES enforcement was provided to Romania. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','There is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. In January 2009 the Ministry of Environment and Water distributed a questionnaire on ABS among research institutions, universities, botanic gardens, museums, companies and NGOs that may be somehow involved in access to and supply of genetic resources. They were also informed about the website on the national CBD Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM), which contains background information on ABS. The questionnaire was sent out to 56 institutions, 1/3 of which responded to it.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Hungarian questionnaire on ABS (In Hungarian): http://biodiv.kvvm.hu/convention/other_conv/fol638350/ABS_felmeres_2009.docInformation about ABS on the Hungarian CHM (In Hungarian): http://biodiv.kvvm.hu/convention/other_conv/fol638350','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Hungary did not provide funds to the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','15/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','National legislation implementing the SMTA is under development. The SMTA has been translated into Hungarian and published in the official Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Földművelésügyi és Vidékfejlesztési Értesítő).','','','','15/02/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The required data are not available, data relating to wood products deriving from sustainable sources are not collected.','','','','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 441, 40 and 22, respectively. No import, export or re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens was 9071 for 2007 and 9556 for 2008 representing a net decrease of 8155. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training have been provided to inspectorates, customs, police, veterinary and phytosanitary authorities, and universities. Hungary has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Hungary paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. ','','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Hungary','Objective9','','','The Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), adopted in 2008 for the period 2008-2025, has two main parts: on the mitigation of and also on the adaptation to climate change. The adaptation part of the NCCS describes and accepts the importance of ecosystem services. The main objective of the actions proposed in relation to natural flora and fauna and nature conservation in the adaptation part of the NCCS is to maintain or possibly enhance the inherent adaptation capacity of biodiversity.','','','','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_3_2','','','','','','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_4_1','','The Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), adopted in 2008 for the period 2008-2025, has two main parts: on the mitigation of and also on the adaptation to climate change. The adaptation part of the NCCS describes and accepts the importance of ecosystem services. The main objective of the actions proposed in relation to natural flora and fauna and nature conservation in the adaptation part of the NCCS is to maintain or possibly enhance the inherent adaptation capacity of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'15/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'30/04/2010',NULL),
	('Hungary','Objective9','A9_4_3','','In 2007 a national scale vulnerability assessment for ecosystems was performed as a background study for the Hungarian National Climate Change Strategy. This assessment used data from the MÉTA database (a detailed national vegetation map and database), and identified the level of climatic risk for all important habitat types in Hungary (which includes all Pannonian habitats). On the other hand, no detailed or systematic risk assessments have been made so far at the species level (nevertheless, there were a few sporadic efforts, e.g. for vascular plants). ','','','Czúcz B, Torda G, Molnár Zs, Horváth F, Botta-Dukát Z & Kröel-Dulay Gy (2009): A spatially explicit, indicator-based methodology for quantifying the vulnerability and adaptability of natural ecosystems. In: Filho WL, Mannke F (eds): Interdisciplinary Aspects of Climate Change. Peter Lang Scientific Publishers, Frankfurt, pp. 209-227No systematic assessments, but there are some ad hoc studies for a few taxonomic groups (e.g. Rédei T, Csecserits A & Czúcz B, (2007): Edényes növények. [Vascular plants]. In: Czúcz, B., Kröel-Dulay, G, Rédei, T, Botta-Dukát, Z, Molnár, Z (eds.), 2007: Climate change and biological diversity – explorative analysis for a more effective adaptation strategy in Hungary. Research report, manuscript (in Hungarian). Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Vácrátót, Hungary, pp. 10–29.','15/02/2010','','','30/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','MandE','C1_2','','Ireland applies the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality and has nationally adapted the SEBI indicators on Abundance and distribution of selected species, Red List Index for European species, Species of European interest, Ecosystem coverage, and Habitats of European interest. There is no information on additional nationally-applied biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','MandE','C1_2_1','','Ireland applies the SEBI indicator on freshwater quality and has nationally adapted the SEBI indicators on Abundance and distribution of selected species, Red List Index for European species, Species of European interest, Ecosystem coverage, and Habitats of European interest. There is no information on additional nationally-applied biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','23/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','MandE','C1_3_1','','Ireland has a wide range of habitat and species monitoring schemes, covering almost all major habitat types as well as vertebrates (all groups), invertebrates and plants. In many cases the extent of a protected habitat or species within Ireland is not well known, therefore national surveys are undertaken to gain an understanding of the distribution and/or ecology of the species or habitat in question.  When the full range of variation is realised, indicators of condition are derived and targets are set to assess conservation status.  These surveys are considered baseline monitoring surveys.  In the case where the drivers which influence conservation status are poorly understood more detailed research is undertaken.  The data derived from these research programmes are also used as a monitoring baseline.The frequency of monitoring will depend on the ecology of the species or habitat in question, with long-lived or less vulnerable species and habitats requiring less frequent monitoring (unless volunteer networks have been established).There is a cross over of monitoring programmes between some of the habitat categories listed above, e.g. heath and rocky habitats are covered in the bogs, mires and fen programmes.   The frequency of bird surveys is variable, often dependent on international co-ordination, national volunteer networks and vulnerability of the species.  ','','','','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Budgetary allocations for biodiversity come from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but also from other Departments such as Agriculture and Food, Communication Marine and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs and the Environment Protection Agency. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Ireland spent up to EUR1,666,496 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Ireland spent up to EUR625,000 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Ireland’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Ireland’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Ireland’s allocation for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) for 2007-2013 is EUR3.5m; there are no allocations for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) and category 55 (protection of natural assets). Ireland has had no cohesion funds since 2003.  Figures relating to structural funds are not available.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','07/05/2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Measure1','B1_1_8','','This information is not available.','','','','07/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure2','B2_4','','‘A new plan for biodiversity is in development and the Draft National Biodiversity Plan is due in June 2010. This is being developed in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.’','','','','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between business and biodiversity. However, there is a business representative on the Biodiversity Forum (see B 3.1.2). ','','','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Measure3','B3_1_2','','An Interdepartmental Steering group for Biodiversity meets annually, or more frequently as necessary, for the purposes of developing the National Biodiversity Action Plan and reviewing its implementation. The Biodiversity Forum, which was set up to advise on the implementation of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, has representatives of State agencies, farmers, landowners, industry, environmental NGOs and representatives from Northern Ireland Government and Northern Ireland Biodiversity Forum.','','There is a working group of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for staff and farming organisations which meets twice annually to discuss, in particular, issues concerning the Natura 2000 network.  There are a large number of informal meetings between forestry and biodiversity interests.','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage biodiversity and planning partnerships at local, regional, national levels.','','','','23/04/2010','','','na','27/04/2010'),
	('Ireland','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between business and biodiversity. However, there is a business representative on the Biodiversity Forum (see B 3.1.2). ','','','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity. ','','Business plans, statements of strategy and annual output statements are discussed annually by relevant government departments and the Department of Finance.','http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/StatisticsandRegularPublications/StrategyStatements/','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds. However, Ireland reported that in providing finance through Irish Aid, Ireland is always sensitive to considerations covered by the guidelines.','','','','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Measure4','B4_1_1','','A national public awareness campaign on biodiversity has been implemented called “Notice Nature”. The aim of the campaign is to raise awareness of the importance of biodiversity and to encourage everyone to play their part in its protection.','','This campaign was focussed on delivering CBD objectives on public awareness and as such supported the EU BAP.',' http://www.noticenature.ie  ','23/04/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Irish department of the environment, heritage and local government made a declaration in support of the IUCN Countdown Initative on the 10th January 2005. Between 2006 and 2008, Ireland contributed a total sum of 50,000 euros in funding for Countdown Initative projects.','',' In 2006, Ireland funded a Countdown 2010 Communication Strategy by contributing 50,000 euros.','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','23/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/04/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the condition of all rocky habitats and coastal habitats are reported to be favourable and unfavourable-inadequate respectively. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, all sclerophyllous habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 5 of the 6 (83%) rocky habitats, 9 of the 11 (82%) coastal habitats and 2 of the 3 (67%) heath and scrub habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 75% dune habitats, freshwater habitats, forest habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats is reported to be bad. 4 of the 6 (67%) grasslands are also in an unfavourable-bad condition. ','23/04/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Ireland has designated 423 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 13,553 km², totalling 10.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 96 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 6010 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 131, with a total area of 2815 km², totalling 2.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 66, with a marine area of 810 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','23/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','45 SACs and 4 SPAs have Conservation Plans that have gone through a full public consultation process; 51 SACs have published Conservation Statements which are broadly equivalent to management plans.','','Current work is focussed on conservation objectives for sites. Note the percentage figures above are approximate.','Reference or title:Weblink:  http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Ireland does not have tools in place or developed to support ecological connectivity','','',':','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 211 regularly occurring bird species in Ireland, 2 are globally Near-threatened and 2 are Red-listed (one of those, the Great Auk, is extinct). Note this refers to all bird species of Ireland, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 8 of the 26 (31%) mammals is favourable. All (1 of 1 or 100%) amphibians and reptiles as well as all (2 of 2 or 100%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.  The conservation status of 4 of the 4 (100%) fish and 18 of the 26 (69%) mammals is unknown.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 3 of the 8 (38%) fish, 11 of the 13 (85%) mammals and 4 of the 9 (44%) plants was reported to be in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 1 of the 8 (13%) fish, 4 of the 8 (50%) invertebrates, 2 of the 13 (15%) mammals and 5 of the 9 (56%) plants were reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 8 (38%) fish and 3 of the 8 (38%) invertebrates were reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. The condition of 1 of the 8 (13%) fish is reported to be unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable -inadequateU2= Unfavourable -badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians and reptiles 00%1100%00%00%00%1Fish 00%00%00%4100%00%4Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals831%00%00%1869%00%26Plants 00%2100%00%00%00%2Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%150%150%00%00%2Fish 338%113%338%113%00%8Invertebrates113%450%338%00%00%8Mammals1185%215%00%00%00%13Plants 444%556%00%00%00%9','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International data Weblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html ','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Ireland has the following completed species action plans: 13 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 1 for fish and 2 for plants. . In addition one species action plan for invertebrates is in preparation invertebrates. The Countryside Bird Survey (CBS) is undertaken between April and June each year and provides scientific data on the abundance and distribution of Ireland’s breeding bird populations. Red data lists have been published for plants, mammals and a number of invertebrate groups. Further Red Data Lists, for bryophtes, fish, amphibians and reptiles, are in preparation.  The Birds of Conservation Concern list is a National Red List equivalent for bird species.','','The Species Action Plans and Red Data Lists have been prepared on an all-Ireland basis where appropriate. See weblinks provided for details and downloadable documents. ','http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective10','A10_1','','Biodiversity research in Ireland is incorporated into a variety of national programmes. Specific programmes include: the NPWS Research programme for research on species and habitats listed under the Habitats and Birds Directives, including monitoring and conservation management, impacts of site designation, red listing and ecoinformatics; AG-BIOTA for monitoring and research on functional significance and management for the maintenance and economic utilisation of biodiversity in the intensively farmed landscape; Simbiosys for the quantification of impacts of key sectoral activities on biodiversity; Biochange for  research to support biodiversity policy; BIOFOREST for research into biodiversity in Irish plantation forests; PLANFORBIO for research on forest biodiversity; and Sea Change for the marine biodiversity research agenda.’','','','http://www.npws.ie/en/CurrentResearchProjects/; http://www.epa.ie/researchandeducation/research/projects/biodiversity/','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Ireland does not have any plans to follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). An assessment of the economic and social value of biodiversity was undertaken in 2008 (http://www.npws.ie/en/Biodiversity/EconomicValueofBiodiversity/).  Based on a monetary evaluation of biodiversity services in the areas of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Water, Human welfare and Health, the current marginal value of ecosystems services in Ireland, in terms of their contribution to productive output and human utility, was estimated at over €2.6 billion per annum.','','','Bullock, C., Kretch, C. & Candon, E. (2008) The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland. Report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service. http://www.npws.ie/en/Biodiversity/EconomicValueofBiodiversity/','23/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Ireland has a national platform for biodiversity research. The platform is a forum for scientists, policy makers and other interested stakeholders involved in the field of biodiversity research. The platform is run under the auspices of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency and administered by a secretariat (BEC Consultants Ltd). The aims of the platform include:Facilitating biodiversity research in Ireland, taking into account the needs of the research community, stakeholders, policy makers and the publicDefining national biodiversity research needsImproving the exchange of information between the research community and policy makersLinking with the EPBRS and other European and international biodiversity network','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Ireland became a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in January 2008. Ireland’s ‘Participant node’ is the National Biodiversity Data Centre, which manages national datasets such as invasive species, freshwater fish, water beetles, macro-moths, vegetation, the joint Irish cetacean database and others—many in collaboration with other national organisations. The main role of the National Biodiversity Data Centre with regards to GBIF is to promote, coordinate and facilitate the sharing, publication and use of biodiversity data amongst relevant people and organisations within Ireland.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. Three organisations in Ireland participate in ENBI: Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (private company)’ the Department of Botany at Trinity College, Dublin and the AlgaeBase Centre, Martin Ryan Institute at the National University of Ireland, Galway. Ecological Consultancy Services and the AlgaeBase Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, NUI are both ‘members’ of Work Package 5: Co-operation of pan-European checklist and \'Species bank\' database projects. The objectives of this Work Package are to establish the feasibility of providing an integrated gateway to the European Taxonomic Databases and European \'Species Banks\' systems; identify the gaps in taxonomic coverage, associated core data, and associated descriptive data, and identify ways of filling them; and establish the feasibility of introducing cultivated plant taxonomy to the databases dealing with European and Mediterranean plants. The Department of Botany at Trinity College Dublin is a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins (since 2009).•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats (in Natura 2000 sites).Other additional GAEC standards relate to soil protection (maintenance of soil structure and function) and the control of noxious weeds.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* since 2009** in Natura 2000 sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Ireland total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 2339.91 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 4298.75 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1861.91 million EUR, and 3385.3 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 75.97 and 78.75 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Ireland was 1149.11 million EUR (2089.3 with co-financing) and amounted to 49.11 per cent of the EAFRD (48.6 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 220.55 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (9.43 per cent of EAFRD) and 401 million EUR of public expenditure (9.33 per cent of public expenditure). There are no payments in Ireland for Axis 2 measures 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.According to the Member State, Ireland’s National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) launched a farm plan in 2006 that pays farmers for actions favouring biodiversity in designated areas and commonage.  The current annual budget is €5.1 million and this is entirely funded from the national exchequer. Additional grants are available under the Native Woodland Scheme (NWS) and Forest Environment Protection Scheme (FEPS).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00.10927Agri-environment payments (214)342.29236622.34975Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State, a national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of commercial tree species is promoted in  the national biodiversity strategy, and crop varieties and livestock breeds are addressed in the biodiversity action plan. There is also National Strategy for Plant Conservation which promote the in-situ conservation of crop varieties and commercial tree species. An Advisory Committee on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has operated since 1996. Ireland is a member of the European Forest Genetic Resources Network programme (EUFORGEN).In situ genetic conservation projects have addressed apples (covering 77 varieties), livestock (Kerry Cattle Scheme, and rare breed option in REPS/AEOS for Irish Draught Horse, Connemara Pony, Kerry Bob Pony, Irish Moiled, Dexter and Kerry Cattle and Galway Sheep) and Oak, Ash, Birch and Alder trees. There is a traditional Irish Orchards option in REPS; to support a threatened plant genetic resource by encouraging the planting of orchards containing traditional varieties of native Irish apple.The Kerry Cattle scheme is a specific national scheme, approved under State Aid Rules, to increase numbers of the Kerry Cattle breed. The REPS scheme has supported the breeds mentioned above with payments on a per livestock unit basis. The number of Kerry Cattle Animals paid for under the scheme from 2006-2009 was 1098.  This will continue in the new Agri Environment Options Scheme (AEOS) launched on 30 March 2010.Grants are available under the Native Woodland Scheme (NWS) for the planting of native tree species for conservation purposes.  Under forest reproductive material regulations a national register of tree seed stands incorporates seed stands specifically chosen for gene conservation purposes.A National Genetic Resources Grant Aid Scheme has been in place since 1996 and is available to support smaller scale projects, support activities to promote in situ conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and has supported a number of in situ conservation initiatives since its inception. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Ireland approved 595 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.55 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.88 million of total expenditure, representing respectively 0.16 and 0.14 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_15','','AfforestationAccording to the Member State, all forestry applications for afforestation grant aid or approval (both native and non-native tree species) are assessed as to their potential impact on biodiversity and this assessment influences whether or not they are approved or grant aided. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines, published in 2000 and currently under review, focus on how best to conserve and enhance biodiversity in Irish forests, through appropriate planning, conservation and management. Forest Service Guidelines are mandatory for all grant aided and licensed activities. In 2008 the Forest Service published the Forestry and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Requirements which apply to all potentially impacting forest operations within the catchments of FPM populations in rivers designated cSACs for the species. In 2009 the Forest Service published guidelines for two Habitats Directive Annex IV species namely the Forestry and Otter Guidelines and the Forestry and Kerry Slug Guidelines. The Forest Service refers all afforestation applications within designated areas or within the referral zones for designated areas to NPWS and is currently improving and formalising its appropriate assessment procedures.DeforestationAll forestry applications for limited felling licenses for both native and non-native tree species (deforestation) are assessed as to their potential impact on biodiversity and this assessment influences whether or not a license is granted. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines, published in 2000 and currently under review, focus on how best to conserve and enhance biodiversity in Irish forests, through appropriate planning, conservation and management (see above)ToolsBiodiversity Surveys and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to deforestation and afforestation operations. The current threshold for EIAs in Ireland is as follows:(i) initial afforestation of 50ha or more(ii) replacement of broadleaf high forest by conifer species, where the area involved would be greater than 10ha(iii)deforestation for the purpose of conversion to another type of land use, where the area to be deforested would be greater than 10ha of natural woodlands or 70ha of conifer forests.A sub-threshold EIA assessment is also undertaken for all afforestation and deforestation applications, which ensures that applications which are below the limits identified above are assessed for potential impacts. If a specific issue in relation to biodiversity is raised (through site visit by Forest Service inspector, referrals or consultations) then an ecological survey maybe requested (may be for a specific habitat or species). In addition, an appropriate assessment screening procedures is currently being improved (to date there has been a strong reliance on NPWS to identify sites that may impact biodiversity).     ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestservice/environmentalinformation/ ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official data, in 2009 Ireland had a total certified forest area of 446,124 hectares out of a total forest area of 669,000 hectares. All of the certified forest area in Ireland is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 66.69 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Ireland amounted to 1.16 million ha, representing a share of 20.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. For further information on national Initiatives please consult A2.1.8.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins (since 2009).•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats (in Natura 2000 sites).Other additional GAEC standards relate to soil protection (maintenance of soil structure and function) and the control of noxious weeds.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.* since 2009** in Natura 2000 sites','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','23/04/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. NPWS has contributed to the training of DAFF AES inspectors and REPS planners, has provided training for NPWS farm planners and through the support of the Burren LIFE scheme has facilitated training and education of farmers and administrators.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Regional and national monitoring schemes have been put in place for one of the mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators, namely population trends of farmland birds. The Countryside Bird Survey (CBS) is undertaken between April and June each year and provides scientific data on the abundance and distribution of Ireland’s breeding bird populations. It is conducted by BWI, NPWS and the Heritage Council.No monitoring is carried out of the other mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators, namely HNV farming, HNV forestry and tree species composition. According to the Member State, HNV land is not yet accurately defined in an Irish context.  Further work will be required to adequately map and describe the range and type of HNV farmland in Ireland.  In addition, work will be necessary to define the appropriate management regimes necessary for the maintenance of these HNV types.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of million 146 € has been added to the Irish national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Ireland attributed 89 million € in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 61 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, no national monitoring programmes have been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 88 per cent of the 8 occurrences of Atlantic freshwater habitats in Ireland have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 13 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Atlantic is the only biogeographical region in Ireland.Status of freshwater habitats:AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U11  U26       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Ireland oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, though falling from 1.03 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.00 mg O3/l in 2005, with rising values in between. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a decrease from 0.04 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.03 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.06 mg N/l in 2003. Values were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 13.2 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 13 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 13.6 mg NO3/l in 2004. Phosphorus concentration figures in lakes present a slight downward trend, decreasing from 0.02 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.018 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values well below the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe.No information on concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations in rivers was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.. ','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Ireland had a total number of 4 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 44.4 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, for transitional waters in Ireland, three out of four biological assessments were available, with fish fauna probably under development. All three biological assessment methods for coastal waters were developed. Benthic invertebrate assessment was implemented for rivers, all other methods for rivers and lakes under development, with the exception of phytoplankton for rivers.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Ireland had a total number of 461 IPPC installations and issued 360 permits. 101 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to Ireland’s national reporting under the NEC Directive, projections indicate that emissions for all four pollutants will continue to fall in the period to 2010. For three of the four pollutants, ammonia, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), Ireland is on target to comply, or significantly over-comply, with the ceilings set out in Annex I of the directive. However, in 2008 nitrogen oxides emissions were still well above the relevant ceiling and according to projections it will not met by 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Ireland the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 23 and 88 per cent respectively, considering an area of 8,935 km2 and 2,449 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 8 and 6 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 2 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 81 per cent in 2010 and 77 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 73 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Ireland’s gross nitrogen balance was 83 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 9 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1998 and 2006, Ireland’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general increase. By 2006 the indicator was 6.3 per cent above the 1998 baseline. 9 species were assessed. No data were available for the period 1990 to 1997.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition',' According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic grassland, forest and heath and scrub habitats in Ireland have an unfavourable conservation status. 88 per cent of the Atlantic peat land habitats also have an unfavourable status, while the remaining 13 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data. ','','Atlantic is the only bio geographical region in Ireland.Status of grassland habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U12  U24       Status of forest habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%U11  U23       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage33000100%0%0%0%U12  U21       Status of peat land habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U11  U26       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','23/04/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below .Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Ireland showed that of the four marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (25%), and the other three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (75%). Eleven coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—nine had an ‘Inadequate’ status (82%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (18%).A total of 33 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region—including reptiles, fish, mammals and plants. Of the 33, eight had a ‘Favourable’ status (24%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (9%) and 22 had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats125%375%00%00%00%4AtlanticCoastal habitats00%982%218%00%00%11Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%1100%00%00%00%1Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals831%00%00%1869%00%26Marine AtlanticPlants00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine AtlanticTOTAL824%39%00%2267%00%33The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusIreland indicated in their response to the Country Profile that they consider there to be 19 coastal habitats and 4 marine habitats in Ireland and that habitats 1120 and 8330 do not occur in Ireland. The 11 coastal habitats used by the contractor, are habitats: 1130, 1140, 1150, 1210, 1220, 1230, 1310, 1320, 1330, 1410 and 1420.  The four marine habitats used by the contractor are 1110, 1160, 1170, and 8330. These numbers are taken from ETC-BD data, which was based on the reports submitted by Member States for the 2001-2006 reporting period and quality control checked by the ETC-BD to create a consistent dataset comparable across all MS. The report for Ireland contained information on habitat 8330, sea caves, see: http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,6442,en.pdf   The entire dataset is publicly-available at http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ . Further details on the QA and QC Report on Final Delivery from Ireland at: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/habitats-art17report/library?l=/qualityassurancereports/art17_reportpdf_19/_EN_1.0_&a=d  The Contractor has not amended the tables as suggested by the Member State in order to retain consistency between all MS profiles so that a cross-EU analysis can be made.','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=TitleQA/QC Report on Final Delivery from Ireland: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/habitats-art17report/library?l=/qualityassurancereports/art17_reportpdf_19/_EN_1.0_&a=d The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland: http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,6442,en.pdf','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Ireland reported that, in 2009, it had 12 surveillance stations and 21 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Ireland has 113 coastal water bodies. Approximately 10% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates. A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is being developed.Surveys have been carried out on sand dunes and salt marshes. Part of these surveys was to identify threats and suggest management measures for the various habitats. The survey results will feed directly into the Water Framework Directive programme of work. The salt marsh survey in particular (which involved the survey of 131 sites) will help towards the development of River Basin Management Plans.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfRyle, T., Murray, A., Connolly, C., & Swann, M. (2009) Coastal Monitoring Project 2004-2006. Unpublished Report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service.McCorry, M. (2007). Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2006. Unpublished report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.McCorry, M. & Ryle, T. (2010). Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2007-2008. Unpublished report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','27/04/10'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_1_5','','Ireland reported the status of the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) as follows:  - The responsibility for Integrated Coastal Zone Management was transferred from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November 2009.  - Other functions in relation to the foreshore were also transferred to Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government following the enactment of the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Act 2009 (Number 39 of 2009)  - The transfer of the foreshore functions under this Bill is part of an overall strategy to modernise the foreshore consent system as on a phased basis.  - At present legislation and policy regarding the coastal zone depends on if the activity or development is above or below the high water mark of ordinary or medium tides. The Foreshore Act, 1933 (as amended) governs the regulation and granting of consents regarding activities or developments below the line of high water of ordinary or medium tides with 12 nautical miles being the outer limit.  With regard to development above the high water mark, since the Local Government Act of 2001, the maritime boundaries of cities, counties and towns are deemed to coincide with the ordinary high water mark (except where such boundaries already extend beyond that high water mark). - It is envisaged that the measures outlined will ensure greater cohesion between the consent systems for below and above the high water mark leading to a more integrated management of the coastal zone and coastal marine environment.The status of the development of a Marine Spatial Strategy / Coastal Zone Management Policy was reported and summarised as follows:  - The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government as part of the foreshore modernisation process, in collaboration with the Marine Institute and other key stakeholders intend to bring forward proposals to develop a marine spatial planning framework (including integrated Coastal Zone Management). This will clarify allowable location/type of development on the foreshore (and beyond the foreshore limits) to guide/direct decision-makers and users towards appropriate spatial uses of the foreshore and the efficient, sustainable use of marine resources. This process will ensure a more integrated approach between the existing planning system and the marine environment.  - Integrated coastal zone management is currently supported by the planning system. Since its inception, the planning system has had a broad remit, not only in the proper planning of our land resources but also in environmental protection and will continue to play a major part in relation to coastal zone management.  - The Planning and Development Act, 2000 was introduced to ensure that the Irish planning system can face the challenges meeting the country as it continues to grow and prosper. New requirements for forward and strategic planning have been introduced. A sustainable development ethos has been explicitly incorporated into the planning system. Under the provisions of the Act, each local planning authority must prepare a development plan setting out an overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.  - The 2000 Planning and Development Act provides that a planning authority’s development plan may include objectives for, inter alia: Regulating, restricting or controlling development in areas at risk of flooding (whether inland or coastal), erosion and other natural hazards;  regulating, restricting and controlling the development of coastal areas and development in the vicinity of inland waterways;  regulating, restricting and controlling development on the foreshore, or any part of the foreshore.','','','','23/04/2010','','','27/04/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_2','','Ireland currently has 122 coastal bathing areas. A relatively high proportion of these reached mandatory standards on water quality in 2008 (95.1%), although this was down from 96.7% in 2006 and 2007. The proportion reaching the stricter guidelines standards on water quality has also declined from 91.0% in 1996 to 80.3% in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations, out of 71 sampling stations in the Atlantic off the Irish coast the majority have seen no change in nitrogen concentrations between 1985 and 2005, with one station recording a decrease.  However 6 of these stations have recorded an increase in phosphate concentrations. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_4','','Ireland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €46,355,000and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity of fisheries targeting over-exploited stocks. Axis 3 (€12,800,000) supports an environmentally friendly and responsible approach specifically in the shellfish industry and includes adoption of fishing practices with lower benthic impacts, and Axis 4 (€7,200,603) promotes sustainable development and the improvement of coastal environments. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_63_en.htm','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','23/04/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Ireland had 1,843 vessels and 12% were involved in a serious infringement (223 vessels). A total of 1 penalty was imposed but no fine. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Ireland has a specific Salmon restoration plan which includes activities to restore habitats and remove migratory barriers. No further information was provided on restoration plans for other diadromous species. ','','','http://www.cfb.ie/fisheries_protection/salmonmanagement.htm','','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Although there has been an overall decrease in Ireland’s fishing capacity between 1999 and 2008 it has not been a consistent trend with some small increases in 2006. Fishing power is now 7% lower than that in 1999, but the number of vessels and tonnage has increased due to efforts to modernise the fleet. The operational programme 2007-2013 reports that it is now clear that fishing capacity exceeds the available resource, and this is particularly the case for monkfish and mackerel. There is a national decommissioning scheme in operation to reduce capacity from the whitefish sector by 47 vessels (8,904 tons). This will mainly target the polyvalent and beam trawl vessels over 18m in length. Priorities for decommissioning include vessels catching quantities of cod, haddock, whiting, monkfish, hake, plaice, sole, Nephrops, and in the case of certain vessels mackerel and herring. As part of the Strategy for a Restructured, Sustainable and Profitable Seafood Industry 2007-2013, Ireland is also investigating the need for a targeted decommissioning scheme for vessels less than 18m in length.','','2008 data: 2023 vessels: 69866 tons; 193,409 KW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Ireland had 1,843 active vessels. There were 39 type D breaches in this year and 1 penalty imposed but no fine. Ireland is undertaking a number of activities to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos including modification of fishing gear and implementation of by-catch limits. For example in the Irish sea cod fishery vessels are required to use a range of gear modifications that reduces by catch particularly of juveniles. Sea Fisheries Protection Officers engage in active inspection of fishing vessels to ensure that they comply with bycatch regulations and also engage fishermen to educate them on bycatch limits and data logging. The Naval Services also supports enforcement especially of protected areas where trawling is prohibited. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','23/4/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Shark MonitoringThe Central Fisheries Board, which has responsibility for developing and promoting recreational sea angling, commenced an elasmobranch tag and recapture programme in 1970, which continues to the present day (2010). The programme was initiated in response to declines in angling catches of these important recreational species and the paucity of knowledge about these species in Irish waters. Approximately 40,000 elasmobranchs have been tagged to date. Up to 2006, a total of16,804 blue shark (Prionace glauca) were tagged, with 813 recaptured (Green et al, 2008). The pattern of recaptures reinforces the decision to consider the North Atlantic separate to the Mediterranean and South Atlantic for assessment purposes. An analysis of CPUE data from 1978 to 2006 for the entire Irish blue shark sport fishery shows a decline especially since the late 1990s. Data from a subset of 10 skippers/boats representing vessels that have been under the same skippers and have used uniform fishing methods since 1989 confirms this trend. In the past decade effort in the Irish sport fishery has declined as a response to reduced catch rates, which provides further strong evidence that abundance of blue sharks in Irish coastal waters has declined.The longterm tagging and angling catch datasets for the remaining key elasmobranch species (thornback ray (Raja clavata), undulate ray (Raja  undulata), tope (Galeorhinus galeus), porbeagle (Lamna nasus) and angel shark (Squatina squatina) are currently being analysed. Unpublished data (Green, pers. comm) shows a consistent decline in angel shark abundance in the recreational angling fishery.       Seabird monitoring In total 24 seabird species regularly breed along the Irish coastline. During the breeding season Ireland holds internationally important populations of over 10 of these seabird species.  Selected seabird colonies were investigated (2006-2008) with the principle aim to establish sample plots for monitoring the productivity of seabirds breeding at selected (SPA) colonies in Ireland. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Ireland has 66 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). In December 2007 temporary protection measures were adopted for four candidate Natura 2000 sites in Irish waters. This required amendments to the 2008 ((EC) 40/2008) and 2009 ((EC43/2009) TAC & Quota Regulations. Work is underway to enable assessment of fisheries impacts in marine Natura2000 sites within territorial waters. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 100Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 4 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on formal requests for CFP measures in N2000 sites.','23/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Ireland has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2010. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Ireland outlines how data for the ecosystem indicators in Appendix XIII will be collected. For indicators 1-4, data will be collected in the Western IBTS Fourth Quarter Groundfish Survey, the Spawning Herring Acoustic Survey, the Pre-spawning Herring Acoustic Survey and the Blue Whiting Acoustic Survey. In addition, underwater TV surveys will collect information for Indicator 1 on the conservation status of fish species in ICES zones VIIb, VIIa and VIIg. For indicators 5-7, the Marine Institute will be granted access to VMS data by SFPA for the purposes of the Data Collection Regulation (DCR). Currently, vessel position data at collected hourly or every two hours for all Irish vessels over 15 m. This frequency can be increased to half hourly for the purposes of the DCR. It has already proven possible to link daily VMS positional data with logbook information for the Irish fleet thus allowing all positional data to be classified to level 6. The distribution of fishing activities, aggregation of fishing activities and areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears can be mapped and provided as required.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','07/05/2010','na','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean trophic index for the Irish EEZ in 2004 was 3.73. This represents an increase of 0.02 since 1999 and an increase of 0.17 since 1984.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','23/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective4','A4_3','','','','','','23/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective4','A4_4_1','','Ireland has published guidance for the tourism industry on the protection of biodiversity.  While the CBD guidelines have not been formally implemented, most aspects are in use in practice.','','','http://www.noticenature.ie/files/Tourism-and-the-Environment.pdf','23/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Irish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 3.5 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56). However, only spendings under category 56 are foreseen by the Irish Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','23/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Ireland has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction to the wild and control and eradication of IAS. The primary pieces of legislation relating to IAS in Ireland are the Wildlife Act 1976 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act of 2000. This legislation prohibits the introduction into the wild of any wild species without a license. The legislation also contains provisions for the control of IAS in Ireland. Under this legislation, the Minister can regulate to prohibit the possession or introduction of wild species which pose a threat to native species. The Regulation on the Control of Importation of Wild Animals and Wild Birds (1989) provides that the importation of live wild birds or animals is subject to licence by the Minister.A review of legislative provisions relating to invasive species and their enforcement in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland was undertaken by the \"Invasive Species in Ireland Project\" (see under Policy below) and completed in May 2008. This makes recommendations for improvements and may result in the development of dedicated invasive species legislation.. As a result, improved legislation to include a list of IAS for regulation is currently being prepared.  ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink:http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/ ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species (IAS) identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 34 are present in Ireland. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.According to the updated information from the Member States, 48 of the 163 EEA/SEBI listed species are currently found in Ireland.  Distribution maps are available for 44 of these species. ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','23/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_1_2','','A review of the legislative provisions relating to invasive alien species (IAS) in Ireland was completed in May 2008. Although no decisions have been made to date, the results of the review may lead to the development of dedicated IAS legislation. Under the National Biodiversity Plan for Ireland (2002-2006), proposals for addressing the effects of IAS on native biodiversity were published (in particular Articles 28, 29 and 30). The National Biodiversity Plan (2002) is under review and IAS will be a key theme focused on. A new Biodiversity Plan is due for publication in 2010. Invasive plant species are also covered by Target 10 of Ireland’s National Plant Conservation Strategy.The Birds and Habitats Regulations 2010, the drafting of which are being finalised, will provide for:prohibitions on the importation, sale, dispersal, planting or release into the wild of listed invasive/high risk speciespower for the minister to take and co-ordinate measures (Threat Response Plans) to address threats such as those posed by invasive species. power for the Minister to issue best practice guidelines for dealing with established IAS.There will also be provisions in place to allow the Minister to grant derogations for purposes of scientific research etc. where what is proposed does not constitute a threat to biodiversity and habitats.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaire, Invasive species in Ireland report and National Biodiversity PlanWeblink: http://www.npws.ie/en/Publications/','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Ireland has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, Ireland has a national database on IAS and the country is also currently developing a national system for information and early warning. The National Invasive Species Database, hosted by the National Biodiversity Data Centre prioritises collection and display of distributional data for species on the priority established and potential invaders species lists. There are currently 20,691 records publically available for 88 priority species.  The Data Centre is developing an early warning system and 6 species alerts have already been issued. Workshops to further develop awareness and support via a focal point network will be delivered to many State Bodies in 2010. The Data Centre also liaises and provides information to European and international IAS information networks such as GISIP, DAISIE and NOBANIS.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://invasivespecies.biodiversityireland.ie/  http://www.invasivespeciesireland.com/  ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to the Member State, no legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming has been adopted. While there is no legal instrument banning GMO cultivation, Ireland remains free of GMO crops. ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/  ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective6','A6_1_1','','Ireland has prepared the 4th National Report to the CBD and will submit the report early in May 2010. The National Biodiversity Plan was published in 2002 and a 2nd National Biodiversity Plan will be published in 2010.Ireland had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while the annual contribution to the World Heritage Convention for 2008, as of 31 Dec 2008, had not been made.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid for Ireland.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid for Ireland.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','23/04/2010','','','07/01/2010, 09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Ireland contributed EUR5.80 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.24% of the total replenishment. Ireland contributed EUR5.73 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.27 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','23/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante SEA have been applied to a number of regional operational programmes in Ireland.','','','','07/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective8','A8_1','','Ireland has provided funds for the CBD Working Group on Access & Benefit-sharing. No national legislation implementing the CBD Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing exists, and no public awareness on the Guidelines has been raised. There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and no awareness has been raised on the sMTA, however, the sMTA is being used for the transfer of crop germplasm. No information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is available. Ireland has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. A low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. Ireland has fully paid up its contributions to CITES, to date.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','23/04/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists, and no public awareness activities have taken place yet.','','','','23/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Ireland provided funds to the 5th and 6th meetings of the ABS Working Group in 2007 and 2008, respectively.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','09/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and no awareness has been raised on the sMTA, however, the sMTA is being used for the transfer of crop germplasm.','','','','07/05/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective8','A8_1_4','','This information is not available.','','','','07/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 23, 7 and 0, respectively. No import, export or re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The aggregate number for seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008 is 89. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and training was provided to the Management and Scientific Authorities and to the enforcement authorities. Ireland contributed funding to a review of Appendix I species and to the Elephant Dialogue meeting prior to CoP 14. Ireland has fully paid up its contributions to CITES, to date.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The exchange rate used for the contribution to the CITES Trust Fund is of 1 January 2010. ','','23/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Ireland','Objective9','','','','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Ireland','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Scientific studies on climate change impacts on biodiversity are undertaken in Ireland:- Wyse Jackson, P.S. (2007). The potential impact of climate change on native plant diversity in Ireland. BG journal, 4(2): 26-29.- COCOADAPT project: Impacts of climate change on protected species and habitats.- MONARCH project: Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate change.','','','COCOADAPT project: Impacts of climate change on protected species and habitats:http://icarus.nuim.ie/news-events/features/climate-change-and-biodiversity MONARCH project: Modelling Natural Resource Responses to Climate change:  http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=330&option=com_content&task=view ','23/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','MandE','C1_2','','Italy applies 4 of the SEBI indicators directly, with a further five indicators where Italy applies similar ones. There are also nine further indicators for biodiversity, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress. ',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','MandE','C1_2_1','','Italy applies 4 of the SEBI indicators directly, with a further five indicators where Italy applies similar ones. There are also the following nine further indicators for biodiversity, which are not equivalent to any of the SEBI indicators:Hunting densityOrganization of fishingEcological value distribution according to the Map of NatureWetlands of International importanceAnthropogenic pressure on wetlands of International importanceSpread of forest firesDefoliation of forest species canopyState of carrying out of planning in National ParksInclusion of Ecological Network in ordinary planning','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. ',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://annuario.apat.it/annuarioDoc.php?lang=EN','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','MandE','C1_3_1','','There are few monitoring activities carried out at national level, mostly by the Istituto Nazionale Protezione Ricerca Biodiversità (ISPRA), with a focus on mammals, birds and marine habitats and species. Basically monitoring activity is organised at regional level and in most cases monitoring schemes are not strictly divided into the above-mentioned categories. All regions have several ongoing monitoring activities, which inter alia cover habitat and species of community interest. A closer coordination at national level of regional activities is planned for the future also in relation to the National Network on Biodiversity described under point 10.1.8. ','','','','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Measure1','B1_1_1','','In Italy, there are various sources of funding for biodiversity. Besides national funding, decentralized cooperation promoted and funded by Regional Councils and local authorities has become more important over the last years. The 4th National Report to the CBD provides many examples of funding from national budgets (although there are no specific funding resources for Natura 2000 in ordinary national resources), including cofinancing of EU funds and funding from regional and local government sources.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Italy spent up to EUR13,090,791 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on programmes is taken from the 4th National Report of Italy to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 sites refers to Italy’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.At European level there are no clear indications how to report on expenditures for Natura 2000 activities. Consequently it is impossible to globally assess Natura 2000 expenditures.The data reported for Life projects in 2008 refer only to EU contributions for \"Natura and Biodiversity\"; other 10 million Euros come from the national contribution (including regional funds). About 40% (9,200,000 Euros) of the total sum (23,000,000 Euros) was spent for management and restoration of Natura 2000 sites.As reported in the Questionnaire \"Preparatory Actions for Natura 2000: The Economic and Social Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network\" (2009), 18,000 Euros are the expenditure in 2008 (European and national funds) for management and restauration of Natura 2000 sites. This datum is partial, coming from 14 Regions out of 21 (source: questionnaire prepared by IEEP, GHK and Ecologic for the European Commission, DG Environment). As already stated at the beginning, the expenditure is based on approximate and incomplete data, referring for each region to different data sources and funds, even because regions often have a general budget for all protected areas without distinction for Natura 2000 sites.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Italy’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR57.1m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR97.6m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR238.1m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','26/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Measure1','B1_1_8','','No information available.','','','','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Measure2','B2_4','','Italy’s National Biodiversity Strategy is under development and foreseen for approval for the end of 2010. The Strategy will focus on the new challenges from 2010 onwards, and builds on results achieved in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','www.minambiente.it','14/04/2010','','','30/032010',''),
	('Italy','Measure3','','','No information was available concerning any forums or similar platforms/frameworks to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','14/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Measure3','B3_1_2','','The Ministry for Agriculture set up the \"National Table for a Concerted Action to lay down the 2007-2013 planning phase for Rural Development\" by means of the Decree 960/05. The main aim of the Table was to assure contributions from institutional, economical and social partnerships in working out the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (PSN). Within the revision process of the PSN and of the Rural Development Programmes promoted by the Health Check, the Ministry for Agriculture assured the coordination and participation of all the Administrations and of all the subjects of the institutional, socio-economic and environmental partnerships in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of Rural Development planning and its integration with sectorial policies.At the regional level, a surveillance committee ensures the participation process of all the institutional and socio-economic partnerships on the analogy of the National Table for a Concerted Action for RD for every regional rural development programme.','','Institutions and bodies who took part in the \"National Table for a Concerted Action to lay down the 2007-2013 planning phase for Rural Development\" were following:- Ministry for Economy;- Ministry for Environment;- Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Department for Gender Equality;- Ministry for Fine Arts and Cultural Activities;- Italian Regions and Autonomous Provinces Trento and Bolzano;- AGEA (Agency for Agricultural Allocations);- ISTAT (National Institute of Statistics);- INEA (National Institute for Agricultural Economy);- ISMEA.(Institute for Agricultural and Food Marketing Services);- professional and cooperative organizations of agricultural and forest sectors;- main environmental associations;- National Observatory for juvenile contracting class in agriculture (Osservatorio nazionale per l\'imprenditoria giovanile in agricoltura - OIGA);- National Observatory for female contracting class in agriculture (Osservatorio nazionale per l\'imprenditoria femminile in agricoltura -ONILFA);- ANCI (National Association Italian Municipalities;- UNCEM (National Union Municipalities, Communities and Mountain Bodies);- UPI (Union Italian Provinces);- main trade unions;- main consumers associations;- stakeholders from industrial, agri-industrial, trade and bank sectors.','','15/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','Measure3','B3_1_5','','In Italy, the Ministry for Food and Agricultural and Forestry Policies prepares a National Strategic Plan(NSP) which is the principal policy at the national level. The Regions draw up regional planning documents, called Rural Development Plans (RDP). Italy does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for ItalyWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','15/04/10','','','11/12/2009','15/04/10'),
	('Italy','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any forums or similar platforms/frameworks to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','14/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any forums or similar platform/frameworks set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','15/04/10','','','15/04/10',''),
	('Italy','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','15/04/10','','','24/04/10',''),
	('Italy','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Measure4','B4_1_1','','Communication activities on the BAP have been carried out with the support of WWF Italy. The main outcomes are available on the web and include a translation of the BAP, a video, slide presentation poster, three brochures and 12 posters for a travelling exhibition.The campaign started in 2009 and the focus was on the NBS and on the results achieved within the BAP. The main outcomes of the campaign will be taken over by an outreach campaign for the IYB.','','','http://www.minambiente.it/opencms/opencms/menu/menu_attivita/Progetto__Verso_la_Strategia_Nazionale_p.html http://www.minambiente.it/opencms/opencms/home_it/menu.html?mp=/menu/menu_attivita/&m=argomenti.html|biodiversita_fa.html|Anno_iternazionale_della_Biodiversita.html&lang=it','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Ministry for Environment \"Ministero dell\'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare\" (13/06/2005), Agenzia Regionale per i Parchi - Regione Lazio (28/12/2006), Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione Ambientale della Sicilia (01/10/2005), Centro Flora Autoctona (Native Flora Centre of Lombardy) (23/05/2007), Ente Foreste della Sardegna (08/10/2007), Parco Nazionale dell\' Arcipelago di la Maddalena (01/07/2006) have all made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initiative. Some of the activities Italy has been involved in include:The Ministero dell\'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare organized a side event dedicated to Countdown 2010 at the first Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group on Protected Areas held in Montecatini Terme in 2005. Commitments of Agenzia Regionale l Parchi have included active support towards the Lazio regional government in developing a comprehensive biodiversity strategy identifying the main policy approaches and actions to be adopted to prevent the loss of biological diversity. The agency also highlighted biodiversity conservation as one of the core goals for the establishment of new protected areas and for the management of already existing ones.Centro Flora Autoctona (Native Flora Centre of Lombardy) communicated that it would contribute to the halt of biodiversity loss through several actions including the following: storing plant germplasm in the Lombardy Seed Bank, (including seeds of rare and threatened species, species endemic to Lombardy and species useful for environmental engineering), analysing the population status of plant species within and outside protected areas, ex situ propagation of native species to investigate their germination characteristics and reproductive biology, restock small populations (using potted plants), aid environmental engineering (using potted plants and seed mixtures).Ente Foreste della Sardegna communicated that it was committed to halting biodiversity decline, by promoting the topics of biodiversity, sustainable development and Countdown 2010 in environmental education and communication activities. It also assists local institutions in implementing energy policies based on sustainable use. Another priority is the conservation of species and Natura 2000 network habitats, managed by Ente Foreste della SardegnaParco Nazionale dell\' Arcipelago di la Maddalena contributes to Countdown 2010 with the European Lobster Realization Project in the waters of the park\'s re-population areas. The focus has been placed on controlling and eradicating hybrid boars. Monitoring the Marangone dal ciuffo and the fishing impact performed by the fishermen in the parks waters was also identified as a priority.Between 2006-2008, the Italian government cntributed 910,000 euros to fund IUCN Countdown projects. ','','In 2006, Italy contributed 100,000 euros to Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Forum-Curitiba Italy and 250,000 euros as the Italian contribution towards halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. In 2007, Italy contributed 335,000 euros for the Strategic partnership Agreement with the Ministry of Environment 2007-2008. In 2008, Italy contributed 25,500 euros to support the Pan-European Members Meeting, 9 Oct 2008, Barcelona. Also in 2008, Italy contributed 200,000 euros as the Post 2010 - Italian Contribution','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','24/04/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 50% or more of each habitat type are reported to be in favourable condition. 2 of the 5 (40%) heath and scrub habitats, 33% both freshwater habitats (4 of the 12) and forests (8 of the 24), and 4 of the 13 (31%) grasslands are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 1 of the 3 (33%) of sclerophyllous scrub habitats is reported as unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 3 of 3 (100%) of heath and scrub habitats are in favourable condition. 8 of the 9 (89%) and 5 of the 6 (83%) of rocky habitats and bogs, mires and fens are also reported to be in favourable condition respectively. Just over half (58%) of grasslands and freshwater habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. 4 of the 6 (67%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 5 of the 11 (45%) coastal habitats and 2 of the 12 (17%) grasslands is reported as unknown.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 1 of 4 (25%) of coastal habitats are in favourable condition. The remaining 3 of the 4 (75%) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. In the Mediterranean biogeographical region 5 of 5 (100%) rocky habitats are in favourable condition. Half or more of sclerophyllous scrub habitats (7 of the 11 or 64%), freshwater habitats (8 of the 12 or 67%), heath and scrub (2 of the 3 or 67%), forests (21 of the 28 or 75%), fens, bogs and mires (4 of the 5 or 80%), and grasslands (9 of the 11 or 82%,) are also reported to be in favourable condition. 4 of the 9 (44%) and 2 of the 9 (22%) dune habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate and an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. 4 of the 9 (44%) of coastal habitats are reported as of unknown condition as are 2 of the 9 (22%) of dunes habitats.','26/03/2010','The high percentage of habitat types in a favourable conservation status results from collected data which refer exclusively to habitats inside the Sites of Community Importance and not across the whole national territory. So in many cases data source addressed expert judgement to more positive evaluations than those ones that should originate from conservation status assessments across the whole national territory: it is a matter of fact that the inclusion in Natura 2000 sites guarantees a better conservation status and better management conditions for all habitats and species. Paradoxically data source affected in a more evident way evaluations about critically endangered habitat types like peat bogs. Sometimes positive evaluations on the conservation status are due to the fact that some seminatural habitat types of community interest, still common across the whole national territory (e.g. habitat type 6210 and 6220), maintain a good conservation status owing to an ancient coexistence between sheep farming and natural environment.Furthermore the almost complete impossibility of evaluating quantitatively the favourable reference values (FRVs) could have induced to more positive evaluations of the conservation status. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionsHabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported  AlpineFreshwater habitats650%433%18%18%00%12Heath & scrub360%240%00%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub267%00%00%133%00%3Grasslands862%431%00%18%00%13Bogs, mires & fens675%225%00%00%00%8Rocky habitats990%00%110%00%00%10Forests1563%833%00%14%00%24ContinentalCoastal habitats218%436%00%545%00%11Dunes habitats19%545%436%19%00%11Freshwater habitats758%542%00%00%00%12Heath & scrub3100%00%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub233%467%00%00%00%6Grasslands758%325%00%217%00%12Bogs, mires & fens583%117%00%00%00%6Rocky habitats889%111%00%00%00%9Forests943%1257%00%00%00%21Marine Mediterranean Coastal habitats125%375%00%00%00%4Rocky habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats222%333%00%444%00%9Dunes habitats111%444%222%222%00%9Freshwater habitats867%433%00%00%00%12Heath & scrub267%133%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub764%327%00%19%00%11Grasslands982%19%00%19%00%11Bogs, mires & fens480%120%00%00%00%5Rocky habitats5100%00%00%00%00%5Forests2175%414%14%27%00%28','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Italy has designated 2284 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 45,236 km², totalling 14.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 287 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 2300 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 591, with a total area of 43,670 km², totalling 13.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 55, with a marine area of 2870km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: Ministry for the Environment; NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update); Natura 2000 databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','According to the Article 6.1 of the Habitat Directive that states that management plans are not mandatory, (\"For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in Annex II present on the sites.\") the Italian Regions drew up conservation measures for most of the SPAs; they are also establishing conservation measures and if needed management plans for the SCIs of the Alpine, Continental and Mediterranean biogeographical regions.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Ecological connectivity is mainly implemented through Regional Ecological Networks which are strictly connected to vast area planning and to landscape planning. Most Regions have developed their own instruments and are going to give them a legal basis (e.g. RERU Rete Ecologica della Regione Umbria weblink: http://www.agriforeste.regione.umbria.it/canale.asp?id=511).','','Reinforcing compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity conservation is mainly implemented through Regional Ecological Networks. Ecological network policies are strictly connected to vast area planning and, general speaking, with landscape planning. ',':','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 352 regularly occurring bird species in Italy, 14 are globally Near-threatened and 8 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Italy, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 9 of the 31 (29%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of the 34 (24%) invertebrates, 10 of the 40 (25%) mammals and 36 of the 52 (69%) plants was reported to be favourable. 14 of the 31 (45%) of amphibians and reptile, 11 of the 16 (69%) of fish and 16 of the 40 (40%) of mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 16 of the 34 (47%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 40 (28%) of mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 31 (23%) of amphibians and reptiles and 13% apiece, 2 of the 16 for fish and 7 of the 52 for plants was reported to be unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 13 of the 32 (41%) amphibians and reptiles and 22 of the 40 (55%) of plants are in a favourable condition. 11 of the 32 (34%) amphibians and reptiles, 12 of the 26 (46%) fish, 15 of the 35 (43%) mammals and 13 of the 40 (33%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 19 of the 35 (54%) invertebrates, 8 of the 26 (31%) fish and 11 of the 35 (31%) mammals is reported to be unfavourable-bad. The condition of 7 of the 32 (22%) amphibians and reptiles and 12% of fish  ( 3 of the 26) and plants ( 3 of the 8 ) was reported to be unknown. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, I of the 6 (17%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 1 of the 6 (17%) invertebrates and 2 of the 14 (14%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 5 (60%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of 8 (100%) fish, 4 of the 6 (67%) invertebrates and 7 of the 14 (50%) mammals was reported unknown. In addition, 2 of the 5 (40%) amphibians and reptiles and 5 of the 14 (36%) of mammals was not reported. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 20 of the 48 (42%) amphibians and reptiles and 40 of the 68 (59%) of mammals are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 17 (41%) fish and 19 of the 44 (43%) plants was reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 13 of the 29 (45%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 11 of the 48 (23%) amphibians and reptiles and 3 of the 17 (18%) fish was reported to be unknown. In addition, the conservation status of 5 of the 68 (7%) mammals was not reported','26/03/2010','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.     In the framework of a research project carried out by LIPU Birdlife Italy for the Italian Ministry for Environment the conservation status of 100 bird species, which are listed in Annexes to the Directive 79/409/CEE and are present in Italy, was assessed through the determination of favourable reference values (FRVs). Out of 75 \"non Passeriformes\" species included in Annex I and nesting in Italy, 7 result in a good conservation status (green), 35 in an inadequate conservation status (amber) while 33 are in a bad conservation status (red). Among non Passeriformes species that are in worse conditions are Galliformes (5 species out of 7 are in a bad conservation status, 2 inadequate) and Puffinus puffinus that seems to be in a great trouble in all the Mediterranean countries. As regards to Passeriformes even 11 species out of 13 considered result in a bad conservation status, the remaining 2 are respectively in an inadequate and in an unknown conservation status.    With regards to flora it is necessary to point out how the lack of detailed information about the current distribution of a lot of species could have affected evaluations to more positive ones; for flora in fact often there is no certainty if a species is still present at some of the sites recorded in bibliography. Furthermore the almost complete impossibility of evaluating quantitatively the favourable reference values (FRVs) could have induced to more positive evaluations regarding the conservation status.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html;ftp://ftp.scn.minambiente.it/docs/Relazione_Finale_Progetto_FSC_21_Aprile_2009.pdf ','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','There are 5 action plans for birds, 3 for mammals and 1 for fish completed, with further action plans in preparation. All these Action Plans are National Action Plans; for the Amphibians and Reptiles there are some Regional Action/Management Plans; for the Invertebrates the guidelines for monitoring and conservation of saproxilic coleoptera included in the Annex of the Habitat Directive are in preparation; for the Chiroptera there are guidelines for their conservation in buildings. The Common farmland bird index is mainly developed from the common bird monitoring scheme Monitoraggio ITaliano Ornitologico (MITO).All existing red lists (for the vertebrate groups and for plants) are produced by independent organisations and, up to now, they have no official endorsement by the Italian Ministry for Environment.A Checklist of the species of the Italian fauna is available on line, in which the degree of threat of the species is indicated. Weblink: http://www.faunaitalia.it/checklist/index.htmlMoreover a repertoire of Italian fauna and flora, in which the status of the species, threats and measures of conservation are reported, is available on line. Weblink: http://www.iucn.it/documenti/flora.fauna.htm     ','','','www.minambiente.it (under section \"biblioteca\"); http://www.iucn.it/documenti/flora.fauna.htm','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective10','A10_1','','Italy does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to biodiversity; however, biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. The Ministry of Education, University and Research is carrying out two programmes that include biodiversity research: the National Research Programme (PNR) 2010/2013 and the Strategy for the Internationalization of Italian Research (SIRit). In the PNR, the section \"R&D Interventions of main priority for the Country\", sub-section \"Environment: terrestrial and marine systems and climate\", points out biodiversity as one of the issues on which it is fundamental to concentrate social-economical research, in order to achieve sustainable development. Among the research objectives is the development of techniques for determination of the economic value of biodiversity through a careful analysis of ecosystemic services and their subsequent quantification. Within SIRit, all of the international policies of Italian research for biodiversity are going to be stressed from the viewpoint of achieving sustainable development.','','The NBS in development pays attention to research aspects regarding biodiversity conservation and refers to the above-mentioned activities of the Ministry for Education, University and Research','','14/04/2010','','','30/03/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective10','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Italy is planning a follow up the the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as part of either a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the EEA European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA). Italy indicates that the assessment of ecosystem services plays a relevant role for future activities since the National Biodiversity Strategy in development stresses biodiversity conservation and restoration in order to assure maintenance of ecosystem services which are fundamental for Earth life and human wellbeing. The framework, experiences and findings of the original MA (2001-2005) are utilized in reviewing, revising and implementing national plans and strategies on biodiversity, development and cooperation in Italy.','','','','14/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Italy does not currently have a national biodiversity platform, but an initiative is under way to create a National Network on Biodiversity (NNB) to explore, describe and understand patterns in biodiversity and the processes that maintain biodiversity in space and time at the gene, species and ecosystem levels. It will offer integrated access to large scale data resources, advanced algorithms and computational capability to support knowledge and research on biodiversity. The NNB is going to be a research platform to support public administrations in biodiversity conservation and to share information. The platform is under construction, with a timeline adhering to the commencement of the LIFEWATCH project. ','','An Italian Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform was created within the European Forest Based Sector Technology Platform-European Partnership for Research and Development, aimed at preservation of the forest ecosystem.Italy is taking part to the Preparatory Phase of:- AURORA BOREALIS;- MSO - European Multidisciplinary Seafloor Observatory;- EURO_ARGO - Global Ocean Observing Infrastructure;- LIFEWATCH - Science and Technology Infrastructure For Biodiversity Data and Observatories;- EMBRC - European Marine Biologic Resource Centre.within the realization process of infrastructures of strategic priority for Europe that were identified by the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info European Platform for BIodiversity, http://www.bioplatform.info/ http://piattaformaforestale.org/documenti/it-SRA-forestale.pdfftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/docs/esfri_roadmap_update_2008.pdf   ','14/04/2010','','','na','30/03/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Italy is not currently a Participant or Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. Several organisations participate in ENBI in Italy. The Department of Environmental Sciences at the Universita degli Studi della Tuscia and Finsiel Territorio e Ambiente, part of Finsiel Consulenza, a private company, are both members of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. The Biotechnology Department at the National Institute for Cancer Research and the Council for Research and Experimentation in Agriculture both are members of Work Package 5: Checklists and species banks. The International Plant Genetic Research Institute is a member of Work Package 6: Collections. The Institute of Research on Maritime Fish at the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche participates as a member of Work Package 11: Multilingual access. Finally, the biotechnology department at the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development is a member of Work Package 12: Information services on European data.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','14/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','30/03/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures of particular relevance to biodiversity conservation have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other additional GAEC measures address:Arable stubble managementMinimum land management that reflects site-specific conditionsRetention of terracesStandards for crop rotationsMinimum soil cover standardsAvoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural landProhibition of the grubbing up of olive treesMaintenance of olive groves and vines in good vegetative conditionEstablishment of buffer strips along water courses (from 1st January 2012)Compliance with authorisation procedures for the use of water for irrigation.In the past, all the standards have been well implemented, with the exception of the two concerning minimum soil cover requirements and the retention of landscape features (including the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees). But implementation has been strengthened as a result of the 2010 Decree for Cross Compliance application at a national level, which applies (EC) no. 73/09.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Italy total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 8658.24 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 17269.84 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 3713.25 million EUR, and 7183.22 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 41.37 and 42.27 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Italy was 1991.5 million EUR (3845.49 with co-financing) and amounted to 23 per cent of the EAFRD (22.27 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 17.28 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.2 per cent of EAFRD) and 33.08 million EUR of public expenditure (0.19 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 4.06 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.05 per cent of EAFRD) and 9.06 million EUR of public expenditure (0.05 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 22.45 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.26 per cent of EAFRD) and 43.87 million EUR of public expenditure (0.25 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided.NOTE: Lombardia, Puglia, Calabria and Piemonte missing Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)224.1503433.7839Forest environment payments (225)0.005960.01318','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species is promoted in the national biodiversity action plan and through other means. The Ministry for Agriculture has drawn up the National Plan on Agricultural Biodiversity (PNBA), approved in February 2008, with the aim of providing guidelines for the conservation and exploitation of agricultural genetic resources. Further purposes of the PNBA are:the coordination of all international and national initiatives on agricultural biodiversity;the definition of a national system for agricultural biodiversity conservation involving all the Italian regions according to Law n. 101/2004.The PNBA provides for the formation of the \"Standing Committee for Genetic Resources\" (CPRG), coordinated by the Ministry for Agriculture, with the aim of systematizing knowledge on genetic resources and implementing suitable activities at national and regional level. The in-situ and ex-situ conservation of commercial tree species is also covered under the “Framework Programme for the Forest Sector” (Programma quadro per il settore forestale – PQSF) – See Action 2.1.15). In addition, the National Biodiversity Strategy currently under development is going to address the in situ and ex situ conservation of genetic resources in the working area specifically given to this item.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: National Biodiversity Strategyhttp://www.minambiente.it PQSF http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/416  PNBA http://www.politicheagricole.it/NR/rdonlyres/eqcmef4rz5k4jzt26ixu6jse32hq7axu2sd7edta4iqewcz5bxb63a7xejygi6zaihtdplpteyukmktv2jp4towbztb/20080313_SR_Piano_nazionale_biodiversita_agricoltura.pdf      ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Italy in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national and general guidelines on afforestation are provided by the Ministry of Environment according to Decree 16 June 2005. Requirements take into account biodiversity and environmental concerns regarding forest management and forbid the use of non-native or not naturalised species in afforestation activities. More detailed provisions are available according to regional legislation, as the Regions are responsible for regulating forest management.Deforestation activities are usually not allowed following national forest legislation N. 3267/1923 and N. 227/2001. Change from forest to other forms of land used is only allowed for small, authorised and registered areas. This, according to the Member State, limits the application of related tools.Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not requested for forest management plans. Also Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) are not needed for forest management plans according to letter d, article 6 of the legislative decree No 4/2008. Biodiversity surveys are sometimes carried out in Natura 2000 areas. Most of the Italian Regions established specific legislation to regulate forest management policies and identified organisation models for the forest administration in a long-term programmatic document, the Regional Forest Programme (PFR – Piano Forestale Regionale). During the periodic reviews of the PFR, specific sectoral goals, actions and resources are identified.In addition, a general strategy on forest management is provided by the “Framework Programme for the Forest Sector” (Programma quadro per il settore forestale – PQSF). The Programme, as part of the Rural Development Programme, will last ten years (2009 - 2018) and will guide all forest activities carried out in Italy in this period.As Italian forest surface significantly increased during the last 50 years, reaching some 10 million hectares in 2005, afforestation is no longer a big priority for the Italian forest administrations. Some afforestation activities are still carried out using the EU funds provided by EC Regulation No 1698/2005, coordinated and implemented by the Regions according to regional rural development plans analysed and approved by the European Commission.','','','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: PQSFhttp://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/416  State Forest Servicehttp://www.corpoforestale.it http://www.ambientediritto.it:80/Legislazione/Boschi/2005/dm%2016giu2005.htm ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Italy had a total certified forest area of 765,868 hectares out of a total forest area of 9.98 million hectares. 48,766 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority is certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 717,102 hectares were certified. In total, 7.68 per cent of the forest area in Italy was certified.According to reporting by the Member State, as of 31 December 2009, 744,538.68 hectares of the Italian forest area are certified by the PEFC system, with a growth of 28.435,29 hectares in comparison with December 2008. In 2010, the total amount of forest area certified by FSC equals 62,281.91 hectares with an increase of 19.322.2 hectares. On the whole there is a growth of about the 45% in comparison to figures in 2008.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asphttp://www.fsc-italia.it/index.php?module=News&catid=&topic=6 http://www.pefc.it ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Italy amounted to 6.13 million ha, representing a share of 33.4 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. Detailed information on work carried out by the Member State with regard to HNV farmland can be found under A2.1.8.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures of particular relevance to biodiversity conservation have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other additional GAEC measures address:Arable stubble managementMinimum land management that reflects site-specific conditionsRetention of terracesStandards for crop rotationsMinimum soil cover standardsAvoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural landProhibition of the grubbing up of olive treesMaintenance of olive groves and vines in good vegetative conditionEstablishment of buffer strips along water courses (from 1st January 2012)Compliance with authorisation procedures for the use of water for irrigation.In the past, all the standards have been well implemented, with the exception of the two concerning minimum soil cover requirements and the retention of landscape features (including the prohibition of the grubbing up of olive trees). But implementation has been strengthened as a result of the 2010 Decree for Cross Compliance application at a national level, which applies (EC) no. 73/09.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','13/05/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State, no training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to reporting by the Member State, national and regional monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory RDP biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	HNV farming.•	HNV forestry.•	Tree species composition.To satisfy the RDP\'s evaluation requirements the Farmland Bird Index was calculated in 2005 at regional and national levels on the basis of a national list of bird species. A process of revision of the index is currently under way, in order to improve its effectiveness at local levels. The regional lists of species have been revised in order to be more consistent with regional situations, and representative of farmland.Currently no detailed data on high nature value farmland is available. An analysis is being carried out in the framework of the ‘National Rural Network’ programme (rete rurale). In July 2009 guidelines for an evaluation of high nature value forest areas at national and regional level were developed by the \"Environment and GAEC\" Task Force within the same programme. HNV farming and forestry indicators are therefore in a process of methodological improvement.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/844 http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/D.6dc0dfede6bdac659ae7/P/BLOB:ID%3D2129 http://www.governo.it/GovernoInforma/Dossier/rete_rurale/brochure_ita.pdfhttp://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2130 http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/1687 http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2265 http://www.lipu.it/pdf/pdf_agricoltura/PSR%20e%20biodiversit%E0%20LIPU.pdf','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 465 million € has been added to the Italian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Italy attributed € 86 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 18 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','no link','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programme on soil biodiversity has been implemented. To date, only regional activities have been carried out, both for -	microbiological indicators (e.g., a yearly monitoring of microbiological and biochemical indicators - identified according to Bloem et al., 2005 - has been implemented since 2005 for the whole Latium Region; work is mostly undertaken by CRA (Consiglio per la Ricerca e sperimentazione in Agricoltura), and -	soil fauna (eg, ARPA Piedmont annually monitors regional soils, and is using the QBS-ar Index, as provided by the Regional SOE Yearly Reports since 2003,) The ISPRA “Progetto Speciale Funghi” specifically addresses the innovative use of mycological indicators. It is operative since 2007 and gathers, through a series of conferences, the experience of the best national experts and the “Mycological Association Bresadola-Mycological Study Centre” (AMB-CSM) on the utilisation of fungi as biological indicators of land quality. A national project called SIAS (“Sviluppo di Indicatori Ambientali sul Suolo in Italia - Development of Soil Indicators in Italy”) provides the opportunity of an exchange of soil data and maps. It has the objective of collecting soil data from soil data providers at regional level, in order to assemble, at the first stage, Italian maps on soil organic carbon. In this regard, a 1km x 1km grid has been prepared for each Italian region. Each region should provide only data for its cells.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://rsaonline.arpa.piemonte.it/rsa2009/rapporto_2009/index0451.html?option=com_content&view=category&id=11&Itemid=46 http://www.arpa.piemonte.it/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=getit&lid=2347  http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/Meusis/italy.html http://www.arpa.piemonte.it/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&btitle=CE&mid=&ceid=717 http://rsaonline.arpa.piemonte.it/rsa2009/rapporto_2009/index1245.html?option=com_content&view=category&id=78&Itemid=292 http://www.apat.gov.it/site/it-IT/Servizi_del_sito/Area_riservata/LoginStanze.html?workspace=50 http://www.apat.gov.it/site/it-IT/Servizi_del_sito/Area_riservata/LoginStanze.html?workspace=32    ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 58 per cent of the continental fresh water habitats in Italy have a favourable conservation status; the status of the remaining 42 per cent is unfavourable. 67 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have a favourable status, 33 per cent have an unfavourable status. With regards to the alpine fresh water habitats in Italy, half have a favourable conservation status. A further 42 per cent have an unfavourable status and the status of the remaining eight per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12570042%58%0%0%U15   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12561042%50%8%0%U14  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12480033%67%0%0%U14  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Italy.According to the Member State, SINTAI is the information system established by law in Italy for data collection and analysis aimed for fulfilment of reporting obligations at EU and national level on protection of inland and marine water.SINTAI is developed and managed by ISPRA – Higher Institute for Environment Protection and Research in its support activity for Italian Ministry of Environment and Protection of Land and Sea.SINTAI manages data channel according to the following EU directives and national legislation where objectives and technical issues are established:Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and its national transposition laws D.Lgs 152/2006, D.M. 131/2008, D.M. 56/2009 and D.M. 17 luglio 2009UWWTD Directive 91/271/ECNitrate Directive 91/676/EC	D.Lgs 152/2009 implemented by D.M. 198/2002 and still effective for data channel on fish and shellfish water and waters used for abstraction of drinking waterAnalytic and geographic data transmitted to SINTAI in order to accomplish reporting obligation are to be considered as official and certified data.SINTAI was established in 2004. Past report as UWWTD report in 2007 and 2009, Nitrate report in 2005 and 2008, ex Art. 8 report for Water Framework Directive in 2007 and future report as RBMP report in 2010 are processed through SINTAI which now contains more than 2700 files. ','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on water, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Italy had a total number of 390 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 50.8 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, the colour of the water, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Italy did not develop any biological assessment methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters or no information was available.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 2234 in Italy.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Italy had a total number of 5562 IPPC installations and issued 3989 permits. 1588 permits were still outstanding. 11 was the number of permits that that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, Italy has not yet provided 2008 reports, so no data for 2006 to 2007 were available. According to Italy’s 2006 National reporting under the NEC Directive, the country is having difficulties in meeting its designated emission ceilings for nitrogen oxides and ammonia. In 2005 Nitrogen oxides emissions far exceeded the NEC Directive targets and the country does not expect to meet them by 2010.  However, the latest projections show that 2010 emission ceilings for sulphur oxides, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds will be complied with.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Italy the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 0 and 69 per cent respectively, considering an area of 124,788 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate no change, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will also be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 61 per cent in 2010 and 55 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 14 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Italy’s gross nitrogen balance was 39 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 16 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the year 2000 and 2006, Italy’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. In 2005, there was an increase of nearly 10 per cent from the previous year but by 2006 this had decreased to 68.6 per cent, a 31.4 per cent decrease from the year 2000. 27 species were assessed. No data exist for Italy on national farmland bird indicators between 1990 and 2000.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the habitat with the highest percentage of favourable conservation status in Italy are the continental heath and scrub habitats, where all three occurrences are considered favourable. The alpine and Mediterranean heath and scrub habitats in Italy have a generally high level of favourable conservation status (60 and 67 per cent respectively). The remaining alpine and Mediterranean heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable status. 57 per cent of the continental forest habitats in Italy have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 43 per cent is favourable. 63 per cent of the alpine forest habitats in Italy have a favourable status, 33 per cent have an unfavourable status, while the status of the remaining four per cent is unknown. With regards to the Mediterranean forest habitats in Italy, a high percentage (75 per cent) have a favourable status. A further 18 per cent have an unfavourable status while the status of the remaining seven per cent is unknown. 58 per cent of the continental grassland habitats have a favourable conservation status, 25 per cent an unfavourable status and the status of the remaining 17 per cent is unknown. A high percentage (62 per cent) of the alpine grassland habitats in  Italy have a favourable status, while 31 per cent has an unfavourable status and the remaining eight per cent is of unknown status. 82 per cent of the Mediterranean grassland habitats in Italy have a favourable conservation status, nine per cent an unfavourable status and the remaining nine per cent is of unknown status. The continental, alpine and Mediterranean peat land habitats of Italy all have a conservation status that is generally favourable (83, 75 and 80 per cent respectively). The status of the remaining grassland habitats of Italy in all bio geographical regions is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12372025%58%17%0%U13   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13481031%62%8%0%U14  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1119109%82%9%0%U11  U20       Status of forest habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage211290057%43%0%0%U112   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage248151033%63%4%0%U18  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage285212018%75%7%0%U14  U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage303000%100%0%0%U10   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3120033%67%0%0%U11  U20       Status of peat land habitats ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6150017%83%0%0%U11   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8260025%75%0%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5140020%80%0%0%U11  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','','','10/12/2009',''),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Italy showed the status of the five marine habitats of Community importance in the Marine Mediterranean region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (40%) and three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (60%). Coastal habitats were assessed in both the Continental and the Mediterranean biogeographic regions. In the Continental region, out of 11 coastal habitats assessed, two had a ‘Favourable’ status (18%), four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (36%), and five had an ‘Unknown’ status (45%). A total of 33 marine species of Community interest were assessed in Italy—including amphibians & reptiles, invertebrates, fish and mammals. Overall, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (3%), three had a ‘Bad’ status (9%), 22 had an ‘Unknown’ status (67%) and seven were ‘Not reported’ (21%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','05/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Italy reported that, in 2009, it had 303 surveillance stations and 185 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Italy has 260 coastal water bodies. Approximately 90% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. No assessment methods appeared to have been developed for monitoring phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates or for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm.A programme of measures for coastal areas has not yet been developed under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','15/04/10','','','13/01/10','15/04/10'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_1_5','','A national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) is being developed. The Italian Ministry for the Environment is working on the preparation and the implementation of the national ICZM strategy. A first version of the document \"Towards the National Strategy for ICZM” was prepared. The approach adopted by the Ministry aims to involve all the social, political, administrative, scientific, and economic actors playing a significant role in the use, management and conservation of Italian Coastal Zone. In the near future, a formal operative meeting will be held with the other Ministries involved in the development of an ICZM National Strategy.','','The Italian Ministry for the Environment has also assigned several operational tasks to ISPRA, and it formally signed an agreement with the Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del MAre – CONISMA. The Ministry formally assigned financial effort to sustain actions finalized to integrate the ICZM principles in the Environment national legislative framework. The Ministry promoted and adopted the Carta di Siracusa on the Biodiversity, where ICZM principles were cited and integrated with other environmental management needs. Moreover Ministry has started several initiatives, measures and activities with reference to the 7th Protocol of Barcelona Convention, on Integrated coastal zone management in the Mediterranean. In particular, the Ministry is proactively collaborating with the PAP/RAC of MAP to the implementation of Coastal Area Management Programme – CAMP. CAMP Italy is a multi-CAMP area project, which will provide a good example of the application of the ICZM Protocol at sub-national level, representing an opportunity to test on the ground (i) new multi-level governance models concerned with coastal management, and (ii) new instruments finalized to integrate the interests of stakeholders of all the sectors linked to coastal zone with the necessity to deal with emerging coastal environmental challenges, such as the climate change.With reference to the information that was available in the “2006 ICZM Evaluation Report” (4.5.3 Status and Effectiveness of ICZM Implementation), which indicated that for Italy “some positive practices are reported, however, in no instance there is an effort close to a national ICZM strategy in place”, the stage of development of the strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management is now improved and from Category IV (i.e. No equivalent, only fragmented tools in place) Italy could now be considered between Category III (No ICZM National Strategy but equivalent) and Category II (ICZM National Strategy ready or under development). In fact, the number of positive examples of ICZM which can be found in regional and local efforts has increased and even if a certain level of fragmentation still persist a National coordination is now activated and Italian ICZM National Strategy is under development.','','15/04/10','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_2','','Italy currently has 4,917 coastal bathing waters and the majority of these fulfil mandatory standards on water quality: 92.8% in 2008, down from 93.4% in 2006. A high proportion also reaches stricter guidelines standards, around 91% between 2006 and 2008.  However, a large number of bathing areas have had to be closed during the season with an increase from 262 closures in 2006 to 302 closures in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations, sampling sites in the Mediterranean off the Italian coast show that in the main there has been little change in nitrogen and phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005. However, three sampling sites have shown an increase in nitrogen and phosphate concentrations. Conversely four sites have shown a decrease in phosphate concentrations and one of nitrogen concentrations. ','','-','','26/3/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_4','','Italy’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measuresTotal funding for Axis 1 is €330,987,428 and includes measures such as reducing some over-capacity and improving gear selectivity. Axis 2 (€212,171,426) encourages the development of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€216,414,856) supports the protection of aquatic flora and fauna and Axis 4 (€46,677,712) promotes sustainable development and diversification of activities. ','','There is a slight difference in numbers between the amounts of EC funds as reported within the text of the Operational Programme and the figures provided by DG Mare. Data from the Operational Programme is used in the table above. ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_01_en.htm','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/12/2009',NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Italy had 14,093 vessels and 27% were involved in a serious infringement (3,868 vessels). A total of 3,457 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,206 and maximum fine of €20,660.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Conservation and management of fresh water species are committed to Provinces and therefore it is not possible to report into details all the initiatives carried out for diadromous species.As regards to eel there is an EC regulation that provides the realization of its management plan by Member States. In Italy the development of a management plan for eel is committed to Regions. At the moment only Sardinia has developed guidelines for eel management. The main actions of the Sardinian plan are the development of regulations for the protection of young eels and adults; improvement of environmental quality and the elimination of physical barriers to the movement of eels along the rivers. Environmental improvements are also foreseen through reducing fishing pressure to allow the sea migration of part of the adult population in order to reproduce and contribute to the renewal of the population. A monitoring program has been set up to assess the current situation and the results of implementing the plan. Furthermore there have been related activities to support diadromous species through the following projects: LIFE04 NAT/IT/000126: Conservation and breeding of Italian cobice endemic sturgeon; LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113: Conservation of Acipenser naccarii in the River Ticino and a large-scale restocking programme aimed at restoring viable populations of Adriatic sturgeon in the middle reach of the River Po.LIFE00 NAT/IT/007268: Conservation of Salmo marmoratus and Rutilus pigus in the River Ticino aimed at the removal of migratory barriers.','','','','26/3/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_5_3','',' Italy’s fishing capacity has reduced consistently since 1999. The number of vessels has reduced by 25% to 13,654 vessels in 2008. Tonnage has decreased by 21% to 195,847 tons and power by 22% to 1,114,910 kW. The capacity of the Italian fleet was reduced by means of scrapping vessels. During 2007, 177 vessels with a combined tonnage of 9,422 GT and total engine power of 38,372 kW were decommissioned. The average activity of Italian fishing vessels has also steadily diminished, with a value for 2007 of 131 days per vessel. ','','2008 data: 13654 vessels; 195847 tons; 1144910 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','26/3/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats.  In 2006 Italy had 14,093 active vessels. There were 1,984 type D breaches in this year and 1,768 penalties imposed with an average fine of €903. There are no specific activities to reduce by-catch beyond those required under the CFP. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Shark Monitoring Italy has had several years of implementing shark monitoring programmes under different projects but it’s not possible to determine the total number of years of shark monitoring, as programmes depend on funds availability and there have been break periods.  However, compilation of data has provided a dataset running from 1795. Examples of such programmes are given below: 1) MedLem (MEDiterranean Large Elasmobranchs Monitoring) is a monitoring programme on the capture and sighting of the large cartilaginous fishes (including sharks) occurring in the Mediterranean Sea. This programme directly links up with the FAO IPOA-SHARKS (International Plan of Action).The principal aims of the programme are:Contribute to the knowledge and conservation of sharks following a common protocol to collect data about the specimens sighted, stranded or accidentally captured in the Mediterranean Basin; The collection of scientific papers related to elasmobranches in the Mediterranean area.The main objectives of the MedLem Database Application are:Implementation of data collection; Standardization of the data-entry procedures; Effective data sharing among the participating countries;Free access for participants to the web site.http://www.arpat.toscana.it/progetti/medlem/pr_medlem.html Thanks to the collaboration with several research institutes, military authorities as well as with professional and recreational fishermen, the MedLem programme has acquired valuable information on catch, sighting and stranding of large cartilaginous fish, starting from 1795 up to now.2) As well the MedLem programme there are GRUND and UE MEDITS bottom trawl survey projects which collect data on cartilaginous fishes. Seabird Monitoring There are several monitoring programmes for seabirds carried out nationally or at local level, some of them not longer ongoing. The following list reports some of the more significant programmes:1) Monitoring of Larus audouinii colonies in Italy, since 1997, coordinated by ISPRA;2) Monitoring seabirds along transects within a project  to identify a marine IBA, LIPU – Birdlife;3) National monitoring of Calonectris diomedea and Puffinus puffinus, also in relation to eradication projects of Rattus rattus, since 2000, carried out by ISPRA within protected areas;4) Italian Beached Bird Survey, 2006, coordinated by ISPRA (http://www.infs-acquatici.it/#MUS );5) Monthly monitoring transects between Livorno-Bastia, started in 2009 by ISPRA and Centro Ornitologico Toscano;6) IWC, wintering waterbird census, coordinated by ISPRA (http://www.infs-acquatici.it/#Censimento%20invernale%20degli%20uccelli%20acquatici%20(International%20Waterbird%20Census,%20IWC). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.arpat.toscana.it/progetti/medlem/pr_medlem.htmlhttp://www.infs-acquatici.it/#MUShttp://www.infs-acquatici.it/#Censimento%20invernale%20degli%20uccelli%20acquatici%20(International%20Waterbird%20Census,%20IWC) ','26/3/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','26/3/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Italy has 401 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However there are different ways of identifying marine sites and national data sources estimate the total at 342 (again see clarification below). Italy has not defined any specific fisheries measures for marine Natura 2000 sites. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusItaly’s national sources record 342 marine Natura 2000 sites (287 SCIs and 55 SPAs). However, Marine SCIs and marine SPAs may be distinct or may partially or totally overlap. The number of marine SPAs has been evaluated on the basis of the geographic location verifying if not the centroids but the borders include a marine part. This method is based on the presence of the following habitats and species:Habitats1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time1120 *Posidonia beds1130 Estuaries1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide1150 *Lagoons1160 Large shallow inlets and bays1170 Reefs8330 Submerged or partly submerged sea cavesMammals1366 Monachus monachus1349 Tursiops truncatusAmphibians and reptilesCaretta caretta1227 Chelonia mydasFishes1100 Acipenser naccarii1101 Acipenser sturio1102 Alosa alosa1103 Alosa fallax1099 Lampetra fluviatilis1095 Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 140Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). However, Italy has not requested any  specific fisheries measures within marine Natura 2000 sites outside of their territorial waters, or included any such measures within sites within territorial waters. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','26/3/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Italy has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. All environmental indicators as reported in the appendix XIII of the DCF 10121/2009 will be estimated. The Medits and MEDIAS surveys will be used to estimates ecosystem indicators from 1 to 4. A dynamic indicator-based approach to the assessment of multi-stock fisheries has been applied to the data series obtained from Medits surveys (since 1994) by an international working group involving all the scientific teams contributing to the data collection process. A suite of population and community indicators, matching the ones proposed by the guidelines (SGRN 08-01), calculated from the Medits data and applied to areas defined according to the GFCM geographical units, have been already analysed by the Medits international working group. All the calculations have been made with the R-SUFI software. The application was done according to the 13 GFCM geographical sub-areas sampled by the MEDITS surveys. A set of simple indicators related to fishing impact on fish populations and communities were estimated from the MEDITS time-series data. The criteria for selecting the indicators for measuring fishing impacts on the population and community levels were that they should easily and reliably (with high precision) be calculated with the available MEDITS survey information and the direction of change under the impact of fishing should be known. According to these criteria, four indicators of population state, intrinsic population growth rate, total mortality, mean length and length at maturity, and five indicators of community state, total abundance and biomass, mean individual weight and length and the proportion of large individuals (across all species) were selected.The MEDIAS survey will record data necessary to assess indicators 1-3 of Appendix XIII in the scope of the pelagic ecosystem. Particular attention is given to the presence of species which could be affected by changes in climate and in the ecosystem structure, e.g. Sprattus sprattus (sprat) distribution and abundance in the Adriatic and Lessepsian migrants. All species caught are identified and registered (code 1); maximum mean length and proportion of large fish (codes 2 and 3) are registered for small pelagic fishes based on the net sampling. Moreover, acquisition of CTD profiles will allow studying the link between fish populations and oceanography and the definition of spawning and nursery areas. Data will be stored in a national as well as in an international MEDIAS database, realized with the co-operation of the other Member States involved in acoustic surveys in the Mediterranean.Data collected through the biological sampling will be used to estimate indicator 4 (Size at maturation of exploited fish species) and indicator 8 (Discarding rates of commercially exploited species). Ecosystem indicators 5 to 7 listed in appendix XIII (Distribution of fishing activities, Aggregation of fishing activities, Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears) will be estimated using VMS data. Ecosystem indicator 9 will be calculated using economic and transversal data.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.Italy provided the following additional details on collection and use of Indicators 5-7:Indicator 5: Distribution of fishing activities Indicator of the spatial extent of fishing activity. It would be reported in conjunction with indicator 6. It would be based on the total area of grids (3 km x 3 km) within which VMS records were obtained, each month.Indicator 6: Aggregation of fishing activities Indicator of the extent to which fishing activity is aggregated. It would be reported in conjunction with the indicator for ‘Distribution of fishing activities’. It would be based on the total area of grids (3 km x 3 km) within which 90% of VMS records were obtained, each month.Indicator 7: Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gearsIndicator of the area of seabed that has not been impacted by mobile bottom fishing gears in the last year. It responds to changes in the distribution of bottom fishing activity resulting from catch controls, effort controls or technical measures (including MPAs established in support of conservation).The use of VMS apparatus started mainly as a control tool for the application of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries’ resources. The so-called “blue box”, i.e. an on-board system allowing a fishing vessel to be tracked remotely, is one of the measures that the European Commission adopted under Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002). The Regulation provides that, beginning on 1st of January 2005, fishing vessels with an overall length exceeding 15 m “shall have installed on board a functioning system which allows detection and identification of that vessel by remote monitoring systems”. Subsequent Regulation (EC) No. 2244/2003 lays down more detailed provisions. VMS data represent a useful tool for management purposes as well, and are fully compatible with graphic rendering and interpretation through the GIS. The VMS database contains a huge amount of data, and a careful and long job of data “cleaning” will be necessary, since quality of data is imperative for its use in resource management. It will be necessary as well the separation between signals coming from the vessel during navigation and those transmitted during fishing activity, and their selection according to different fishing system. This data will be crossed with other sources of data: - Vessel Register, containing information about Boat characteristic (OL, GT, KW, fishing license...);- Logbook, containing vessel ID and information on the gear used. This allows the identification of the vessel to métier level 4. Logbook information usually includes retained catches of the main commercial species on a trip by trip basis and at the scale of an ICES rectangle. This information allows the identification of the vessel to métier level 5 or 6.VMS and logbook information needs to be processed in order to better describe fishingactivity for use in the three pressure indicators. Different methods are used to:• Identify fishing activity;• Create fishing tracks;• Define métiers.At first, it is necessary to distinguish fishing activity from other activities (e.g., steaming). This is possible by using both information data about boat activity (the “blue box” code) and vessel speed. These two sources of information have to be combined in different ways for the different metiers. The time frequency of VMS position returns for Italian vessels is 20 minutes. According to the Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), this is a very short intervals (< 0.5 h), so that it is likely that many fewer unaccounted movements have been undertaken and joining points by straight lines is reasonable. Métier level 4 describes gear types. Level 5 describes trawl with species (i.e., otter trawl and plaice), while métier level 6 is a specific description based on the catch. The DGMARE request indicates that activity information is required disaggregated to métier level 6. This level is based on the catch composition. However, level 6 (mesh size) corresponds to level 5 for what concern trawlers (for the bottom and pelagic trawl the minimum mesh size is 40 and 20 mm respectively, Reg. 1967/06/CE). Regarding the small scale fishery, all the different mesh sizes have been aggregated at level 5. According to the WGECO, the key information would be about the vessels and its gear, so down to métier level 5. If this is agreed, it should significantly reduce the data volume needed to address the request and have no impact on the conclusions. The approach used to define métiers at level 5 consists in a quantitative analysis of logbook data, which were directly combined with information gathered from VMS. The results will permit to describe the distribution of activity of fishing boats (over 15 metres long), linking descriptive with “operative” information. All the calculation has been made with the R software, in agreement with the other experiences carried out for indicators 1-4. Definition of indicator 5, in particular, foresees the selection of signals during fishing activity, and can be defined according to the main different fishing system. With this purpose, exercises and case studies were already performed and utilized for activities of technical assistance to the Directorate of Fisheries, as well as in framework of the project “Construction of a GIS supporting management processes in maritime fishing and aquaculture sectors…in the framework of EFF (European Fishing Fund)”. This exercises made possible the identification of the geographical and temporal distribution of fishing boats considered.Definition of  indicator 6 needs the elaboration of “frequency areas” for signals coming from different kind of fishing systems, and their assemblage according to their frequencies in the different geographical areas (GSA as a reference), and this could fit with the definition of indicator 6.Last indicator (N. 7 “Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears”) can only partly derived from the elaborations of number 5. It foresees the use and the crossing among different sources of data, as the areas subject to a kind of total or partial protection (both geographical and temporal), or dedicated to different activities. The presence of the majority of this data already stored in a GIS will facilitate their use according to the specific goal.It has to be noted, as a final note, that the definition of all the three indicators will be covered by the VMS data only for the fishing fleet over 15 metres long.','Italian National Program under Council Regulation No 199/2008 and Commission Regulation No 665/2008. National Programme 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94848 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDFMedits, 2007. Assessment of indicator trends related to exploited demersal fish populations and communities in the Mediterranean. DCF  Medits Working group. Nantes–France, 15-18 March 2005 and Kavala–Greece, 2-6 April 2006: http://www.ifremer.fr/docelec/default-en.jsp  ','14/04/2010','','','','05/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Italian waters* in 2004 was 2.93. This represents a decrease of 0.11 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.36 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','*Italy has never declared an EEZ. Maritime limits and boundaries depicted on Sea Around Us Project maps are not to be considered as an authority on the delimitation of international maritime boundaries. These maps are drawn on the basis of the best information available to the project. Where no maritime boundary has been agreed, theoretical equidistance lines have been constructed. Where a boundary is in dispute, the project attempt to show the claims of the respective parties where these are known and show areas of overlapping claims. In areas where a maritime boundary has yet to be agreed, it should be emphasized that these maps are not to be taken as the endorsement of one claim over another.From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.Italy also provided the following clarification: Currently Italy has not established an EEZ, but is planning to establish a EPZ in the northern Tirrenic Sea, according to law n. 61/2006.Moreover there are bilateral agreements regarding the continental shelf in offshore waters:- Agreement between the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Italy for the determination of the continental shelf of each of the two countries 18 December 1992 (entry in force 26/02/1999)- Agreement between the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic on the delimitation of the respective continental shelf areas of the two States, 24 May 1977 (entry into force: 12 November 1980- Agreement between Italy and Yugoslavia concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two countries in the Adriatic Sea (entry in force 21/01/1970)- Convention between Spain and Italy on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two States, 19 February 1974 (entry into force: 16 November 1978)- Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Tunisia and the Government of the Italian Republic concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two countries, 20 August 1971 (entry into force: 6 December 1978)- Agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Italian Republic on the Delimitation of maritime frontiers in the area of the straights of Bonifacio, 28 November 1986 (entry into force: 15 May 1989).','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Italy','Objective4','A4_3','','In Italy, ecological connectivity is mainly implemented through Regional Ecological Networks which are strictly connected to vast area planning and to landscape planning. Most Regions have developed their own instruments and are going to give them a legal basis (e.g. RERU Rete Ecologica della Regione Umbria). Besides Ecological network policies are strictly connected to vast area planning and, general speaking, with landscape planning. ','','','RERU: http://www.agriforeste.regione.umbria.it/canale.asp?id=511','26/03/2010','','','23/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines are mostly implemented within the protected areas, where most efforts are developed for sustainable tourism.In Italy, the major legislative milestones in the area of tourism are the Framework Law n.135 of 29 March 2001  and Law n.181 of 18 May 2006, by which responsibility in the matter was conferred to the President of the Council of Ministers. The Department for the Development and Competitiveness of Tourism was set up, under the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, some months later, through Law n.286 of 24 Nov.2006.It is crucial to consider that the constitutional reform of 2003 (art.117) entitles regions and autonomous provinces with exclusive legislation powers in the matter. For that reason each of the 20 Italian regions has its own law in the matter. According to the basic principle of subsidiarity, however, all of them must follow the principles dictated by both EU and national legislation.In the field of policy-making, inter-ministerial cooperation was enhanced by setting up a “Tourism Policy Committee” a coordination body whose main task is to identify, in a common vision, the areas of interventions for drafting guidelines, both at national and regional level, and to find out initiatives in the framework of shared strategies, aiming at the  development of the tourism sector. It is chaired by the Minister in charge of Tourism. Sitting in the Committee are the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Economy and Finance, Economic Development, Innovation in the Public Administration, Environment, Transport, Regional Affairs. The Department for the Development and Competitiveness of Tourism encourages and participates in all international initiatives in the field of sustainable tourism such as:- EDEN \"European Destinations of Excellence\" preparatory actionThe broad aim of this initiative launched by the European Commission in 2006 is twofold:to draw attention to the value, diversity and shared characteristics of European tourist destinations, and to promote destinations where the economic growth objective is pursued in such a way as to ensure the social, cultural and environmental sustainability of tourism. So far, four editions have been launched, each one with a specific theme: Best Emerging European Rural Destinations of Excellence (2007); Tourism and local intangible heritage (2008); Tourism and protected areas (2009); and Aquatic Tourism (2010). - Permanent Secretariat of the World Committee on Tourism Ethics,- Since November 2008, the Department also hosts, within the framework of UNWTO activities, the Permanent Secretariat of the World Committee on Tourism Ethics, promoting the Global Code of Tourism Ethics including Tourism as a factor of sustainable development.','','','Law n.135 of 29 March 2001:http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/01135l.htm Law n.181 of 18 May 2006:http://www.tuttocamere.it/files/egov/2006_181.pdfLaw n.286 of 24 Nov 2006:http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/06286l.htmEden Project:http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/eden/what-is-eden/index_en.htm','26/03/2010','','','23/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Italian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 392.8 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','26/03/2010','','','04/01/2010','23/04/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Italy has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and eradication and control of IAS. Provisions prohibiting the introduction of IAS into Italy are found under the Decree of the President of the Republic (DPR no. 357 of 1997) and its amendments (DPR no. 120 of 2003; Article 12). Despite a lack of clear reference to IAS, Law no. 157/1992 regulating the import of alien species for hunting purposes. The law provides for protection and control measures to be applied to potential IAS (Article 20 regulates on import and Article 19 on the control of mammals and birds including those that are non-native species). Alongside national legislation, some regional laws from the 20 regions in Italy contain provisions for IAS. One example is the Lombardia Regional Law no. 10/31 March 31 2008 which contains provisions for the introduction, eradication and control of IAS. The possession of potentially dangerous IAS is covered by regional Law 150/92. Imports of plants belonging to Chamaecyparis Spach and Pinus L. species that originate from Japan are covered under the Decree outlining phytosanitary requirements.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.   ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 67 are present in Italy. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','',''),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_1_2','','No national strategy or action plan on IAS has been developed in Italy. However, the upcoming Italian Biodiversity Strategy is foreseen to address a number of specific IAS related aspects, including issues related to prevention, early warning and control of IAS in different ecosystems / sectoral areas. Furthermore, the Ministry for the Environment and Territory has produced very specific action plans for freshwater fishes (2003) and guidelines for exotic mammal and bird management (2001) which include control and eradication programmes.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Italy has not yet ratified the Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). However, the country has been otherwise active in addressing the spread of IAS via ballast water. In 2001, the Italian Ministry for Environment established a national, cross-sectoral body of experts to address issues related to ballast water and IAS. Italy was also actively involved in the development of the IMO Convention, e.g. highlighting the requirements for regional and sub-regional cooperation in closed and semi-enclosed seas, such as the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Sea. In addition, Italy is a member of the following international bodies dealing with ballast water:Trilateral Ballast Water Management Sub Commission (Croatia – Italy – Slovenia), established in 2004. Adriatic Ionian Initiative on Sustainable Development and Environment. ICES/IOC/IMO Study Group on Ballast and Other Ship Vectors (SGBOSV). Joint Expert Group for the designation of the Adriatic Sea as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) (proposal to be submitted at the 59th Session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO together with Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia). Mediterranean Globallast Regional Task Force (Italy is the lead country to develop the policy and monitoring component of the Mediterranean strategy on ballast water issue)As regards monitoring, Italy has had a dedicated national programme for monitoring the quality of coastal waters since 1997. However, this program does not include monitoring biological assemblages (e.g. possible IAS) in ports. Consequently, the first national baseline survey for introduced species in ports was conducted in 2006. The survey was carried out by Institute for Environmental Research and Protection (ISPRA, former Central Institute for Marine Research - ICRAM) and supported by the Ministry for Environment. The survey provided baseline information for two Italian ports and it also supported the development of a broader survey protocol to be further used in other ports. More baseline surveys are planned for spring 2010. Furthermore, Italy is also planning to introduce a voluntary ballast water reporting form (BWRF) for the risk assessment of Italian ports, as agreed in the frame of the Trilateral Sub-Commission between Croatia, Italy and Slovenia. The BWRF, together with the port surveys, will represent the first step in order to build an efficient and prompt early warning system in marine areas in Italy.The Italian Ministry for Environment has also provided support to scientific research on IAS in marine ecosystems. Assessment of non-indigenous species in Italian seas started in 2002 by ISPRA/ICRAM with the collaboration of several Italian universities and other research institutes.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','13/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) has conducted a national inventory of alien species (including all taxonomic groups) with the aim to develop an indicator of IAS trends to be included in their annual report on the state of environment (Annuario dei dati ambientali). The inventory also explored the relationship between alien and native species in Italy, and the relative proportions of alien vs. native species were used as additional indicators for the overall status of IAS in Italy. The collected data was included in a database, together with species-specific information on the taxonomy, area of origin, year of introduction, observed impacts of a given species. It is foreseen that this database will form a basis for the establishment of a regularly updated IAS portal online. No early warning and information system for IAS is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire,DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species GatewayCelesti-Grapow, Pretto, Carli, Blasi (eds), 2009. Non-native flora of Italy. CD. MATTM-DPN, SBI, Interuniv. Res. Center “Biodiv., Phytosoc. & Landscape”Minelli, Ruffo, La  Posta (eds.), 1993-1995. Checklist delle specie della fauna italiana. Fascicoli 1-110. Edizioni Calderini, Bologna; Conti, Abbate, Alessandrini, Blasi, 2005. An annotated checklist of the italian vascular flora. MATTM-DPN; Univ. di Roma La Sapienza-Dip.Biol.Veg.Weblink:http://www.europe-aliens.org   ','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Italy has not adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.     However, Italy does have some draft measures with regards to the cultivation of genetically modified crops. These include that the cultivation of genetically modified crops be excluded from protected areas and Natura 2000 areas (as well as other areas protected for biodiversity). It is foreseen by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces that in the future closed areas will be developed where the cultivation of genetically modified crops will be banned.Currently, 16 out of 20 Italian regions, 41 provinces and 2446 municipalities have declared themselves to be free from genetically modified organisms. Liguria, Marche, Molise, Piemonte, Sardegna, Toscana and Umbria are all members of the European network of genetically modified organism-free regions.According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, in Italy 16 out of 20 Italian regions, 41 provincias and 2446 municipalities have declared themselves, formally or informally GMO-free.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm, http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','13/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in March 2009. The National Biodiversity Strategy is under development (foreseen for the end of 2010), the document “Strategy and Preliminary Programme for the Implementation of the Convention of Biodiversity in Italy” posted on the CBD web site represents a preliminary Programme for CBD implementation.Italy had paid their contributions to CBD, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. As of 28 Nov 2008, there were still EUR56,921 outstanding for the 2008 contribution to the CMS Trust Fund.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/ ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Italy spent EUR0.9m in 2007 on multilateral biodiversity-related aid, which is 0.01% of the total multilateral biodiversity-related aid budget. The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid for Italy for 2006.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Italy spent EUR2.7m in 2006 and EUR73.2m in 2007 for bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.001% and 0.07%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/200907/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Italy contributed EUR106.97 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 6.81% of the total replenishment. Italy contributed EUR87.91 million to the 4th replenishment which is 4.11% of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective7','A7_2_2','','In Italy, the SEA Directive has been transposed by the D.lgs 152/06 (the so called “Codice dell’ambiente”), entered into force on 31st July 2007 and modified by Dlgs 4/2008, in force since February 2008. They define and revise the framework for all environmental assessment procedures (Sea, Eia, Appropriate assessment).A list of relevant projects, following Directive 85/337/CE, is provided at national and regional level. For such projects EIA is mandatory.Plans and programmes concerning Natura 2000 sites are in any case subject to SEA. ','','At national and regional level, until 2008 most SEA activities focussed on structural funds (SF) programmes (more or less 50 programmes). Some plans and programmes not financed by SF underwent a SEA process at regional level, due to regional legislation in force before 31.07.2007. Now Regions have in different ways transposed national legislation and all plans and programmes concerning sectors listed within the Directive 2001/42/CE undergo a SEA or at least a screening procedure.If assessed plans or programmes concern Natura 2000 sites, an appropriate assessment has to be provided within the SEA process. Its results have to be inserted into the environmental report in a specific chapter.','www.minambiente.it (section VAS for SEA and VIA for EIA)','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective8','A8_1','','Italy has not provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. While there is no national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing, public awareness on the guidelines has been raised, in particular through the Standing Committee for Genetic Resources. The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources has been transposed into national legislation and awareness of it has been raised. In 2004 the Ministry for Agriculture started the project \"Plant Genetic Resources (RGV/FAO)\" with the aim of implementing at national level the FAO Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources combining capabilities and scientific experiences. 28 Centres and Research Units are involved under the guidance of the Council for the Research and Experimentation in Agriculture (CRA). Moreover in 2007 10 NGOs were involved in the Semi Rural Network (Rete semi Rurali). The three-year project provides for restoration, conservation, characterization, exploitation and documentation of plant genetic resources. No information is currently available on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. No support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implements the CBD Bonn Guidelines. The aims of the Standing Committee for Genetic Resources (see Narrative Summary in Action A.2.1.1) include:- the possible development of vegetable genetic resources marketing and the regulated access to benefits according to Bonn Guidelines;- the implementation of the Bonn guidelines even in relation to the ecosystem approach.','','','','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Italy did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','In 2004 the Ministry for Agriculture started the project \"Plant Genetic Resources (RGV/FAO)\" (weblink: http://sito.entecra.it/portale/public/documenti/rgvtrattatofao.pdf) with the aim of implementing at national level the FAO Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources combining capabilities and scientific experiences. 28 Centres and Research Units are involved under the guidance of the Council for the Research and Experimentation in Agriculture (CRA - http://sito.entecra.it/portale/index2.php). Moreover in 2007 10 NGOs were involved in the Semi Rural Network (Rete semi Rurali; weblink: http://www.semirurali.net/).The three-year project provides for restoration, conservation, characterization, exploitation and documentation of plant genetic resources. Information on RGVs are available in a web database (weblink: www.rgv-politicheagricole-cra.it).','','','http://sito.entecra.it/portale/public/documenti/rgvtrattatofao.pdf;  http://sito.entecra.it/portale/index2.php; http://www.semirurali.net/; www.rgv-politicheagricole-cra.it','26/03/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective8','A8_1_4','','No information available.','','At this stage there are no official and aggregate data, while there is various partial information on certified products, regional activities, etc.','www.fsc.italia.it','26/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 14.889, 324 and 96.118, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The aggregate number of seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008 was 284. However, disaggregated information is not available on the numbers for seizures and confiscation of specimens for 2007 and 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the staff of enforcement authorities and the Scientific Authority. Technical assistance has been also been provided to the Scientific Authority. Italy has not provided CITES related technical or financial assistance. Italy paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','26/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Italy','Objective9','','','In Italy, a national adaptation strategy including biodiversity is foreseen (for more informations see national communication to UNFCCC).However, some regional strategies have been developed for which links are provided: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Regione Piemonte, Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aosta ','','','http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php Provincia Autonoma di Trentohttp://www.provincia.tn.it/trentinoclima2008/materiali.html Regione Piemontehttp://www.regione.piemonte.it/cgi-bin/montagna/pubblicazioni/frontoffice/pubblicazione.cgi?id_settore=1&id=825&id_argomento=53&area=1 Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aostahttp://www.regione.vda.it/gestione/gestione_contenuti/allegato.asp?pk_allegato=3872 Italian Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf','26/03/2010','','','22/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_3_2','','The Italian Ministry for Agriculture is developing the Biomass Action Plan, whereas the NREAP is in development according to art. 4.2 of Directive 2009/28/EC on the use of energy from renewable sources.','','','','26/03/2010','','','22/04/2010',''),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_4_1','','In Italy, a national adaptation strategy including biodiversity is foreseen (for more informations see national communication to UNFCCC).However, some regional strategies have been developed for which links are provided: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Regione Piemonte, Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aosta ',NULL,NULL,'http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php Provincia Autonoma di Trentohttp://www.provincia.tn.it/trentinoclima2008/materiali.html Regione Piemontehttp://www.regione.piemonte.it/cgi-bin/montagna/pubblicazioni/frontoffice/pubblicazione.cgi?id_settore=1&id=825&id_argomento=53&area=1 Regione Autonoma Valle D’Aostahttp://www.regione.vda.it/gestione/gestione_contenuti/allegato.asp?pk_allegato=3872 Italian Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf','26/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'22/04/2010',NULL),
	('Italy','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Habitats most at risk in Italy have been identified and for more information please see the Chapter 6.1 Section “Biodiversity and natural ecosystems” from the Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCC.About forestry species most at risk the Italian Ministry for Environment promoted the project “BioRefugia”, created by the La Sapienza University of Rome to complete an initial project jointly funded by the EU and the State Forest Department. The effects of climate changes on the surveyed species (27 tree species most commonly found in Italian woodlands) were assessed using a model with two climate scenarios created by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (scenarios B1 and A1F1).','','','Italian Fifth National Communication under the UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/ita_nc5.pdf BioRefugia project website: http://sweb01.dbv.uniroma1.it/bruno/biorefugia/index.html ','26/03/2010','','','22/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','MandE','C1_2','','Of the 26 SEBI indicators, Latvia applies two directly (Nationally designated protected areas, Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives), while 11 have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','MandE','C1_2_1','','Of the 26 SEBI indicators, Latvia applies two directly (Nationally designated protected areas, Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives), while 11 have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','MandE','C1_3_1','','Latvia implements monitoring schemes for the following habitats: coastal habitats (2 schemes), dunes habitats (2), freshwater habitats (2), heath and scrub (1), grasslands (1); bogs, mires and fens (1), rocky habitats (1) and forests (1).  Monitoring schemes are implemented for the following species groups: birds (2 schemes), amphibians and reptiles (1), plants (1).','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Measure1','B1_1_1','','In Latvia, there are direct budget allocations for nature conservation as well as indirect allocations through the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund (LEPF). In 1995 the Latvian parliament adopted a law “On Nature resources tax”, which provides for imposing tax on use of natural resources such as water, air, and packaging material. All tax is collected in the Latvian Environmental Protection fund, which finances project proposals in eight different budget lines. The most important are the budget lines “Biodiversity” and “Environmental education and awareness building”. LEPF also provides co -financing to important nature protection project proposals submitted to the Global Environmental Facility, EU LIFE programme, and bilateral projects. Biodiversity issues are fully integrated in the Rural Development Plan, implementation of which is financially supported by the EU European Agriculture Guidance Guaranty fund. Biodiversity issues concern both the requirements to be taken into account under regular agriculture activities as well as specially dedicated activities for the management of important habitats.Bilaterally the Danish EPA, as well as Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan have provided the most substantial support. Multilateral external funding sources relate to the EU and the GEF. In addition, EU subsidies are paid for the maintenance of biodiversity in agricultural lands; the Latvian Environmental Protection fund is financing smaller scale environmental and biodiversity protection projects. Within LIFE projects from 2004 – 2008, Latvia spent up to EUR1,555,658 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Latvia spent up to EUR456,182 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Latvia’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Latvia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','05/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Latvia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR26m; there are no allocations for category 55 (protection of natural assets) and category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage).','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Measure1','B1_1_8','','No information is available.','','','','25/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Measure2','B2_4','','Latvia has created the Concept of the Environment Policy 2009-2010, which has been approved by the Government. A new Biodiversity Programme will be due by 2012.','','','http://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/dokumenti/ppd/?doc=9338   ','05/03/2010','','','11/03/2010 ',''),
	('Latvia','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No partnerships have been facilitated for setting up farming and biodiversity or forestry and biodiversity partnerships.However, a small number of activities have been established for forestry and biodiversity. Some examples can be found in the local development groups established through the support of LEADER programme of CAP.','','','','05/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up to encourage biodiversity and planning partnership at local, regional, national levels.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','01/03/2010','','','na','16/03/10'),
	('Latvia','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','05/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level','','','','01/03/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Latvia has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions have been made by Latvia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','05/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of all Marine Baltic coastal habitats is reported to be favourable. In the Boreal biogeographical region, 5 of the 9 (56%) forest habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. Half or more of heath and scrub, 1 of the 2 (50%), freshwater, 4 of the 7 (57%), bogs, mires and fens 4 of the 7 (57%), dune 8 of the 9 (89%) and sclerophyllous scrub 1 (100%) habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 10 (60%) grasslands habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of the 2 (50%) of heath and scrub habitats and 2 of the 7 (9%) of freshwater habitats is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','01/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Latvia has designated 331 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 7663 km², totalling 11.0% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 6 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 562 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 98, with a total area of 6766 km², totalling 9.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 4, with a marine area of 520km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','01/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','46% of the Natura 2000 sites have a completed management plan, while management plans are in preparation for 4% of sites. Certain management schemes are applied to all Natura 2000 sites in Latvia.  Apart from tailor-made management plans for individual Natura 2000 sites, there are Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers (Nr. 415, 22.07.2003.) \"General regulation for protection and management of specially protected nature territories\". General regulations contains the list of prohibited activities acording to the category of protected area. All Natura 2000 sites in Latvia are legally protected as specially protected nature territories or micro-reserves.  ','','Since June 1, 2009, all protected areas in Latvia are managed by the Nature Protection Board. ','Reference or title:Weblink:www.daba.gov.lv ','01/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_2_3','','1) For the protection of rare, as well as disperse species and habitats apart from specially protected nature territories, micro-reserves are being established in Latvia. A buffer zone (supporting ecological connectivity to some extent) can be set around micro-reserves established for protection of bird species. 2) Protected belts along the sea coast and rivers and around lakes are set in legislation. Although they were established to decrease or eliminate the effects of the negative anthropogenic impact on the objects for which the protection zones have been determined, they can serve also as connectivity corridors among protected territories.','','',':','02/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 269 regularly occurring bird species in Latvia, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Latvia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. In the Baltic Sea biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate, another 1 of the 3 (33%) are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1of the 3 (33%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 5 of the 14 (36%) amphibians and reptiles, 8 of 13 (62%) fish, 23 of 34 (68%) of invertebrates, 12 0f the 26 (46%) mammals and 7 of the 23 (30%) plants are in a favourable condition. 15 of the 23 (65%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition and 3 of the 14 (21%) amphibians and reptiles are in a unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 5 of the 13 (38%) fish, 8 of the 34 (24%) invertebrates and 8 of the 26 (31%) mammals is unknown.','01/02/2010','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Baltic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%133%133%133%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Boreal Amphibians and reptiles 536%536%321%17%00%14Fish 862%00%00%538%00%13Invertebrates2368%39%00%824%00%34Mammals1246%312%312%831%00%26Plants 730%1565%14%00%00%23','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;  http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Latvia has the following species action plans (all are completed): 3 for birds, 3 for mammals, 3 for amphibians and reptiles, and 3 for invertebrates. There are two Farmland Bird indices used in Latvia: the Latvian Farmland Bird Index (LFBI, 12 species) and the Europe Farmland Bird Index (EFBI; 13 species according to list as of 2006).  Number of species according to species groups included in the Red Data List of Latvia:Total number of Red List species - 759, including Mammals - 24, Birds - 78, Reptiles and amphibians - 9, Fishes - 15, Invertebrates - 162, Plants - 315, Mosses - 87, Lichens - 34, Mushrooms - 35.','','','http://biodiv.lvgma.gov.lv/cooperation/fol288846','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective10','A10_1','','Latvia does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research, nor does it incorporate biodiversity research into other national programmes.','','','','05/03/2010','','','11/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Latvia is not planning to follow up the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) at the national nor as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency','','','','05/03/2010','','','25/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Latvia has a national biodiversity platform, developed during the European BIOplatform project. However, the copyright date on the website and the news articles have not been updated since 2004.','','','Reference or title: Bioplatform website (European Platform for Biodiversity)Weblink: http://www.bioplatform.info/EPBRS, http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info Latvian National Bioplatform: http://bioplatforma.daba.lv/ ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Latvia is not a participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). There are no organisations from Latvia participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI), the European contribution to GBIF.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.A standard for the retention of landscape features will be introduced in 2010.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Luxembourg total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 94.96 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 393.06 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 53 million EUR, and 212.01 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 51.82 and 53.94 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Luxembourg was 26.78 million EUR (107.12 with co-financing) and amounted to 28.2 per cent of the EAFRD (27.25 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.16 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.17 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.65 million EUR of public expenditure (0.16 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Luxembourg for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)1.4821.852Agri-environment payments (214)n/an/aForest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','18/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A Programme on Sustainable Use and Long-term Conservation of Genetic Resources of Plants and Animals, Forest and Fishes used in Agriculture and Food, 2007-2009 was adopted by the Government in 2007. No further details of measures or their budgets were provided. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','','05/03/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Latvia in this regard, and thus no payments were made. According to reporting by the Member State, support for the long term maintenance of local breeds was available under the Rural Development Plan 2004-2006. This was subsequently covered by national subsidies from 2007 onwards. Payments for the maintenance of local breeds will again be covered under EU Rural Development financing in 2010.','','Percentages were calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys are not applied. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 50 ha for afforestation and deforestation. The Law on Environmental Impact Assessment determines only types of documents for which SEA should be applied. Within evaluation of these documents the impact of afforestation and deforestation can be also analysed, but legislation does not refer to any limits in application in ha. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Latvia had a total certified forest area of 1.62 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.94 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Latvia was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 55.11 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Latvia amounted to 0.57 million ha, representing a share of 19.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','18/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.A standard for the retention of landscape features will be introduced in 2010.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have not been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_8','','The only mandatory biodiversity related indicator that is currently monitored is the population trends of farmland birds. Monitoring schemes have not been put in place for HNV farming, HNV forestry or tree species composition mandatory indicators, or any additional programme-specific biodiversity indicators.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 13 million € has been added to the Latvian national Rural Development Programme The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Latvia provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','24/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 57 per cent of the boreal freshwater habitats in Latvia have an unfavourable conservation status while 14 per cent have a favourable status. The status of the remaining 30 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Latvia.Status of freshwater habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7412057%14%29%0%U14  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Latvia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 1.98 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.72 mg O3/l in 2005, but with a peak of 2.41 mg O3/l in 2003. Figures were well below the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a weak increase from 0.10 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.11 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were well below the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.09 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.00 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were well below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 0.5 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 2.1 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2005. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.036 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.040 mg P/l in 2005. Values were well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present an upward trend, increasing from 0.055 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.057 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values above the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Latvia had a total number of 152 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 66.1 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to 2007, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values had decreased, whereas in previous years it had been increasing. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Latvia did not develop any biological assessment methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters or no information was available.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 261 in Latvia.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Latvia had a total number of 76 IPPC installations and issued 76 permits. 1 permit was still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','05/03/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Latvia’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, non-methane volatile organic compounds and sulphur oxides already were far below the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Although the country expects slight increases in its emissions of nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides, it is expected to easily meet its 2010 targets. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Latvia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 20 and 99 per cent respectively, considering an area of 35,823 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 14 and 12 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and a reduction to 96 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 44 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','24/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, no data are available in the requested format.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.meteo.lv/upload_file/parskati/slodzes/VUK_PARSKATS_2008_gala_25062009.pdf ','05/03/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1995 and 2006, Latvia’s national farmland bird indicator has remained fairly stable. In 2004, there was a decrease of 14.6 per cent from the previous year to reach the lowest it had been since 1995. By 2006 the indicator was 99.4 per cent, a 0.6 per cent reduction from the baseline year of 1995 (where it was 100 per cent). No data exist for Latvia on national farmland bird indicators between 1990 and 1995.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 80 per cent of the boreal grassland habitats in Latvia have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 20 per cent have a favourable status. 44 per cent of the boreal forest habitats in Latvia have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 56 per cent have a favourable status. With regards to the boreal heath and scrub habitats in Latvia, 50 per cent have an unfavourable conservation status and the status of the other 50 per cent is unknown. 43 per cent of boreal peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status, the remaining 57 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.     ','','Boreal is the only bio geographical region in Latvia.Status of grassland habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10820080%20%0%0%U12  U26       Status of forest habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9450044%56%0%0%U14  U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2101050%0%50%0%U11  U20       Status of peat land habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7430057%43%0%0%U14  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','01/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Latvia found that of the two marine habitats assessed in the Marine Baltic region both had a ‘Favourable’ status (100%). There were seven coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region in Latvia—three of these had a ’Favourable’ status (43%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (43%) and one had a ‘Bad’ status (14%).There were three marine species assessed in Latvia, all mammals, of which one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%), one had a ‘Bad’ status (33%) and the remaining one had an ‘Unknown’ status (33%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','23/10/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Latvia reported that, in 2009, it had 14 surveillance stations and 4 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Latvia has 7 coastal water bodies. Approximately 85% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It currently no has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates or any assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae. Latvia has established a programme of measures and a monitoring programme for coastal areas under the Water Framework Directive.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-frameworkCoastal measures link: http://www.meteo.lv/public/29935.html ','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','31/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_1_5','','The Spatial Development Concept of the Coastal Zone (2011-2017) is being prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development and Local Governments in February 2010.It will include an overview of existing situation and problems in the coastal area, define values of national importance in the coastal area; define unified goal of conservation and development of the coastal area;  will determine policy principles and actions to be implemented from 2011-2017.','','','','24/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_2','','Latvia has 46 coastal bathing areas. In 2007 100% of these achieved mandatory standards for water quality, but this dropped to 95.7% in 2008 because two sites were found not to reach standards for E.coli. An increasing proportion of sites are reaching the stricter guidelines standards increasing from 77.8% in 2006 to 84.8% in 2008. There are no trend data for nitrogen concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005. The sampling station off the coast of Latvia in the Baltic Sea showed no change in phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005.','','-','','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_4','','Latvia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €27,814,590 and includes capacity reduction as one of the activities. Axis 2 (€61,505,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€32,204,000) promotes the protection of aquatic flora and fauna, while Axis 4 (€38,548,635) supports diversification of economic activities. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/archives/com07/com07_97_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','05/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Latvia had 897 vessels and 10% were involved in a serious infringement (94 vessels). A total of 94 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €129 and maximum fine of €1,138.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Latvia does not have specific management plans for salmon, trout, sturgeon or eels. However, river restoration takes place in a number of different projects and in relation to the removal of migratory barriers there have been discussions on the removal of the Staicele dam (on the Salaca river) for several years. There is some stock enhancement undertaken for salmon, trout, lamprey and vimba. ','','','','02/03/2010','','','24/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Latvian’s fishing capacity has reduced from 942 vessels in 2004 to 841 in 2008 (11% reduction). Tonnage has also decreased from 42,137 to 38,299 tons (9% reduction) as has fishing power from 70,807kW to 61,080kW (14% reduction). During the FIFG programme (until 2006) the Latvian fishing fleet was decreased by 52 vessels through a compensation scheme. The current operational programme for fisheries 2007-2013 includes an objective for matching the capacity of the Latvian fishing fleet to the available fishing resource. Decommissioning of 70 vessels in the Baltic segment and 110 vessels in the small-scale segment is foreseen in order to adjust capacity to the available quotas. During 2007, 17 vessels with a total capacity of 950 GT and 2 228 kW were decommissioned with public aid.','','2008 data: 841 vessels; 38299 tons; 61080 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Latvia’s regulation regarding ‘Commercial fishing in Territorial Waters and Economic Zone Waters’ sets the timing, allowed methods for fishing as well as allowed size of fish and provisions regarding by-catch. In relation to Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy which concern prohibited fishing gear or methods (i.e. those most likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats) there were 14 type D breaches of Latvia’s fleet in 2006 (from a total of 897 active vessels). Penalties were imposed for all of these breaches with an average fine of €136. ','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Latvia has been monitoring seabirds since 1984 which includes registration of the number and species of wintering birds. Monitoring of seabirds includes registration of number and species of wintering seabirds. (See http://www.meteo.lv/public/monitoringa_atskaites.html for the 2006 monitoring report of wintering seabirds).  ','','','http://www.meteo.lv/public/monitoringa_atskaites.html','05/03/2010','','','24/03/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','05/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Latvia has 31 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). All these sites are coastal and within territorial waters. There is currently insufficient information on the existence of respective species and habitats outside territorial waters to designate offshore sites. Establishment of marine Natura 2000 sites and respective management requirements do not include prohibition or limitation of fishery activities.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 3Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). ','Data source: DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites. ','05/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Latvia has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under  Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, Latvia indicates that the planned Baltic International Acoustic Survey (in cooperation with other Baltic Member States) and the sprat acoustic survey could contribute to the calculation of ecosystem indicators 1-4 in Appendix XII.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','05/03/2010','','','23/10/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Latvia was 3.18 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.06 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.50 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','05/03/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Latvia','Objective4','A4_3','','Latvian legislation does not require considering ecological networks in spatial planning.','','','','02/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective4','A4_4_1','','There is no information available on implementation of CBD guidelines on sustainable tourism in Latvia, and tourism policy documents do not contain measures to minimize impact of tourism on biodiversity or other provisions of the guidelines.','','','','02/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Latvian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 26 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spending on the categories 51 are foreseen by the Latvian Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','05/03/2010','','','04/01/2010','29/04/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Latvia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however; there is specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Possession and trade of IAS is not addressed. The Law on Protection of Species and Habitats (16.03.2000) contains provisions for the control and introduction of IAS. Introduction of non-native species into Latvia is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. If a positive assessment is given then introduction for social or economic use may be possible. The Law on Plant Protection regulates for the import and export of plants. Amendments to the Law introduced on 2 November 2006 establish provisions for introduction and control of IAS (Articles 18.1 and 18.2). Furthermore, there is national legislation in place that prohibits the use of alien tree species in forest restoration of afforestation.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 37 are present in Latvia. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Latvia has not developed a national strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS).The National Programme on Biological Diversity sets out goals for controlling IAS in all relevant sub-programmes including agriculture, inland waters, marine and coastal areas, forests and urban ecosystems although there is not a biodiversity action plan which deals comprehensively with IAS.According to reporting by the Member State, as for actions on specific species, in 2006 the Programme of Localisation and Distribution of Hogweed 2006-2012 was adopted by the government. In 2008, it also adopted specific Regulations on the Localisation of Distribution of Hogweed.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Latvia has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.   ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','05/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is under development.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','02/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Latvia has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is Regulation No. 30, Adopted 15 January 2008, Regulation regarding the Requirements for Coexistence of GM Crops, as well as the Procedures forSupervision and Control. Ziņotājs No.4, 28.02.2008.        According to the Law on Circulation of Genetically Modified Organisms a local government may determine a prohibition by issuing binding rules for the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the relevant administrative territory or in a particular territory thereof upon its own initiative or on the basis of a proposal of a person. The prohibition shall be determined for a period of time which is not less than five years. Prior to taking of the binding rules the local government shall inform the public and publish a notification regarding the intention to determine such prohibition in the newspaper issued by the local government, but, if there is no such newspaper – in other local newspaper as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and  the Ministry of Environment indicating the territory where the determination of the prohibition for cultivation of genetically modified crops is intended, as well as the place and term for the submission of public opinions, proposals and objections. The term for the submission of proposals and objections may not be less than 30 days from the day of publication of the notification.  According to the Law on Circulation of Genetically Modified Organisms a local government may determine a prohibition by issuing binding rules for the cultivation of genetically modified crops in the relevant administrative territory or in a particular territory thereof upon its own initiative or on the basis of a proposal of a person. The prohibition shall be determined for a period of time which is not less than five years. Prior to taking of the binding rules the local government shall inform the public and publish a notification regarding the intention to determine such prohibition in the newspaper issued by the local government, but, if there is no such newspaper – in other local newspaper as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and  the Ministry of Environment indicating the territory where the determination of the prohibition for cultivation of genetically modified crops is intended, as well as the place and term for the submission of public opinions, proposals and objections. The term for the submission of proposals and objections may not be less than 30 days from the day of publication of the notification.  According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, 29 local governments have issued binding rules on prohibition for the cultivation of genetically modified crops, as of beginning 2010.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaire, Notifications published and binding rules on prohibition for the cultivation of genetically modified crops issued by local governments, MS questionnaire Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmMinistry of Environment of Latviahttp://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/gmo/ Ministry of Agriculture of Latviahttp://www.zm.gov.lv/?sadala=1772 Ministry of Environment of Latviahttp://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/gmo/ Ministry of Agriculture of Latviahttp://www.zm.gov.lv/?sadala=1772 GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','02/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Latvia','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective6','A6_1_1','','Germany submitted their 4th national report to the CBD in April 2010. The “National Programme on Biological Diversity” (no date of publication given) was posted on the CBD website in 2003.Latvia had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Latvia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure on Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Latvia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','05/03/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Latvia has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','05/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective7','A7_2_2','','In Latvia, ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory.','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective8','A8_1','','There is no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing or the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and no activities raising awareness of these issues has been raised yet. There is no information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources. Latvia has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and many items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','05/03/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','There is no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing and no activities raising awareness of the Guidelines has been raised yet.','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Latvia did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and no activities raising awareness of the Agreement has been raised yet.','','','','05/03/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective8','A8_1_4','','No data is available.','','','','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 519, 4 and 17, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. Latvia made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens. The total number of seizures and confiscation of specimens was 2400 for 2007 and 89 for 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to traders, NGOs and the public. Oral and written advice/guidance, training and financial assistance was also provided to the Staff of Management Authority, Scientific Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Latvia has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Latvia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','05/03/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Latvia','Objective9','','','','','','CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.http://www.cbd.int/countries/ ','05/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_3_2','','A Programme on Development of Biogas Production and Use 2007-2011 was adopted in Latvia in 2007 as well a concept on Use of Renewable Energy Resources 2006-2013 (elaborated in 2006)','','',':http://www.vidm.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/atjaunojamie_energoresursi/','05/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.http://www.cbd.int/countries/ ','05/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'29/04/2010',NULL),
	('Latvia','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Although no scientific studies have been carried out to identify most vulnerable species and habitats in Latvia, there is opinion of several experts on particular species and habitats for which Latvia cannot achieve favorable conservation status because of climate change. These assumptions are based on unpublished information and opinions from ornithologists that relates to species with winter-related ecological requirements (temperature, snow coverage)However, since 2006 there is a state research program on “Impact of climate change on the waters of Latvia” which consists of 9 working packages, and 2 of them are dealing with inland and sea waters ecosystems. No results are published yet though.','','','Further information on the “Impact of climate change on the waters of Latvia” Program: http://kalme.daba.lv/en/wp1/National reports in the framework of UNFCCChttp://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php','05/03/2010','','','29/04/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','MandE','C1_2','','Lithuania applies 10 SEBI indicators directly and has nationally adapted further two: Evaluation of critical loads to ecosystems according to EMEP/CORINAIR requirements; and Nutrient flow through selected typical agro-ecosystems.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','MandE','C1_2_1','','Lithuania applies 10 SEBI indicators directly and has nationally adapted further two: Evaluation of critical loads to ecosystems according to EMEP/CORINAIR requirements; and Nutrient flow through selected typical agroecosystems. ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','MandE','C1_3_1','','The National Environmental Monitoring Programme (NEMP) for the period of 2005-2010 includes special parts for monitoring of species and habitats of EU importance. The main objective of these parts of NEMP is the collection of data, necessary for the assessment and forecast of the changes in the state of habitats and species of EU importance, effects of natural and anthropogenic factors on them, providing the possibility to make optimal decisions for conservation and restoration of habitats and species. Monitoring of bird species started in 2005, other species (mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates, plants) in 2008, detailed monitoring of habitats (coastal habitats; dunes habitats; freshwater habitats; heath and scrub; grasslands; bogs, mires and fens; forests; other habitats) is planned to start in 2012. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://gamta.lt/files/LR_vyriausybes_nutarimas_del_valstybines_aplinkos_monitoringo_2005-2010_metu_programos_patvirtinimo.pdf','20/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Measure1','B1_1_1','','After Lithuania\'s accession to the European Union, compared to domestic funds, financial resources from the European Union became dominant. Relevant state programmes include the Environmental Protection Promotion Programme, with allocations for protection and management of biodiversity and landscape (including scientific studies of protected species, enforcement of control of use of nature resources, public information) and the Action Programme of Cohesion Encouraging for 2007-2013. The latter receives major funding from the European Regional Development Fund and includes several biodiversity-relevant measures. Additionally, in the framework of the Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013 major funding is dedicated to forest ecosystems. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Lithuania spent up to EUR2,369,624 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Lithuania’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Lithuania’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','20/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Lithuania’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR71.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR73.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR42.7m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','20/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Measure1','B1_1_8','','This information is not available.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure2','B2_4','','Lithuania has not created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','B3_1_5','',' Lithania aims to include key actors and stakeholders in the private sector in partnerships to integrate biodiversity concerns into their relevant sectoral and cross – sectoral plans, programmes and policies. The Long-term Development Strategy of the State (LTDSS) adopted by Lithuanian Parliament on 12 November 2002 (Resolution No. IX-1187) is a strategic planning document is one of the most significant planning documents. It includes aspects of sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection. Lithuania does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.  ','',' No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnershipsat the local, regional and national levels.','Reference or title: Lithuania CBD 4th National ReportWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','20/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Measure4','B4_1_1','','A communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. Lithuania reported that it has not yet been fully implemented.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Lithuania has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Lithuania between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','20/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.All coastal habitats in the Marine Baltic biogeographical region are reported to be in favourable condition.In the Boreal biogeographical region, 100% (2 of 2) of coastal habitats are in favourable condition. Half or more of bog, mire and fen habitats (4 of the 8 or 50%), rocky habitats (2 of the 3 or 67%), dune habitats (6 of the 9 or 67%), freshwater habitats (5 of the 7 or 71%) and sclerophyllous scrub habitats (1 of 1 or 100%) are reported to be in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. 56% of grassland habitats are in an unfavourable- bad condition. The condition of the single Boreal heath and scrub habitat is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regions HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine Baltic Coastal habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1BorealCoastal habitats2100%00%00%00%00%2Dunes habitats00%667%333%00%00%9Freshwater habitats229%571%00%00%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%444%556%00%00%9Bogs, mires & fens225%450%113%113%00%8Rocky habitats133%267%00%00%00%3Forests323%646%431%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and  http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Lithuania has designated 267 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 6664 km², totalling 9.9% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 2 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 171 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 77, with a total area of 5435 km², totalling 8.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 1, with a marine area of 171 km².','','The percentage for marine areas is not available.3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. ','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','24/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Lithuania has 16% of Natura 2000 sites with a management plan completed, 20% of sites with a management plan in preparation and 36% of sites with no management plan completed or in preparation.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Lithuania has tools in place to support ecological connectivity. Nature frame network is used to strengthen the connectivity between Natura 2000 sites or other protected areas.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.vstt.lt/VI/rubric.php?rubric_id=50','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 242 regularly occurring bird species in Lithuania, 7 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Lithuania, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 7 of the 14 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 10 of the 15 (67%) of fish, 9 of the 28 (32%) invertebrates and 15 of the 23 (65%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 6 of the 28 (21%) and 19 of the 23 (83%) invertebrates and plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, respectively. The conservation status of 5 of the 14 (36%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 28 (21%) invertebrates was reported to be unfavourable-bad. The status of 2 of the 15 (13%) fish and mammals and 7 of the 28 (25%) invertebrates is unknown.   ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Boreal Amphibians and reptiles 750%214%536%00%00%14Fish 1067%213%17%213%00%15Invertebrates932%621%621%725%00%28Mammals1565%417%14%313%00%23Plants 14%1983%14%29%00%23','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','24/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Lithuania has the following number of action plans per species group in preparation: 9 for birds, 5 for mammals, 1 for fish, 3 for invertebrates and 4 for plants. Red data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.am.lt/files/Raudonoji_knyga.pdf','24/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective10','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Lithuania.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','13/05/10',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Lithuania currently does not have plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','20/04/2010','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The Lithuanian Biodiversity Research Forum (LBRF) is a network of institutions and societies of Lithuania that work on or are interested in biodiversity research, protection, sustainable use or dissemination of information. It was launched at 15 October 2004. Scientists, practitioners and policy-makers as well as all institutions working in the field of biodiversity are invited to take part in active exchange of knowledge and opinions within the Forum. The front page indicates that the latest additions were made in 28 October 2005.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Lithuania does not currently participate in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as either a Participant or Associate Member.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.  In Lithuania, the Institute of Ecology, Department of Terrestrial Ecosystems at the University Vilniaus and the state scientific Institute of Botany-Flora, Geobotany lab, Mycology lab are participants of ENBI. The Institute of Ecology is a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums, which aims to provide ENBI work packages and ENBI Community at large with a communication space, and consolidates the outcomes of this communication as an information resource open to everybody. The Institute of Botany is a ‘member’ of Work Package 6: Collections. The objectives of this Work Package are to organize and integrate networks of European natural history specimen databases and develop strategies to update and maintain key European specimen  databases; materially broaden the network of European specimen databases; and  Develop standards and best practice for the archiving and digital imaging of reference (\'type\') specimens.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Lithuania total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 1765.79 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 2285.3 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 659.67 million EUR, and 824.59 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 37.35 and 36.08 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Lithuania was 291.93 million EUR (364.92 with co-financing) and amounted to 16.53 per cent of the EAFRD (15.97 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 6 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.34 per cent of EAFRD) and 7.5 million EUR of public expenditure (0.33 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 20.4 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.16 per cent of EAFRD) and 25.5 million EUR of public expenditure (1.12 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 8 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.45 per cent of EAFRD) and 10 million EUR of public expenditure (0.44 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only) Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0.1450.182Agri-environment payments (214)8.5910.737Forest environment payments (225)0.0010.001','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/10','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, a national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, in situ conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds is promoted in the national biodiversity strategy and action plan. But no further details of the actions taken are provided by the Member State.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Lithuania in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. EIA is applied when afforestation/deforestation area is larger than 1 ha in urban areas and 10 ha in rural areas, SEA if the area is larger than 10 ha. If these procedures are applied biodiversity data are usually carried out as well.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Lithuania had a total certified forest area of 1.02 million hectares out of a total forest area of 2.1 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Lithuania was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 48.62 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Lithuania amounted to 0.63 million ha, representing a share of 15.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'11/05/2010',NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity, but no further details are provided.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, national / regional monitoring schemes have not been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds.HNV farming.HNV forestry.Tree species composition.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/02/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 22 million € has been added to Lithuania’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Lithuania attributed no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. However, the section on ecosystems monitoring of the National Environmental Monitoring Programme includes monitoring of density of pedobionts and soil microbiological activity according to the International Cooperative Programme (ICP) integrated monitoring requirements.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://gamta.lt/files/LR_vyriausybes_nutarimas_del_valstybines_aplinkos_monitoringo_2005-2010_metu_programos_patvirtinimo.pdf ','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the majority of the boreal freshwater habitats in Lithuania have an unfavourable conservation status (71 per cent). The remaining 29 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.    ','','Boreal is the only biogeographical region in Lithuania.Freshwater habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7520071%29%0%0%U15  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title   ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Lithuania oxygen demand (BOD5) figures did not show a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, slightly increasing from 2.51 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.56 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.34 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.45 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were slightly higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.53 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.69 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 1.95 mg N/l in 2004. 2005 figures were below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 1.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 2.2 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 2.8 NO3/l in 2003. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.168 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.111 mg P/l in 2005. The latter value was lower than the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a weak upward trend, increasing from 0.03 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.038 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values below the weighted average of 0.051mg P/l for Eastern Europe.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Lithuania had a total number of 52 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 61.9 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','24//02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Lithuania developed a benthic invertebrate assessment for rivers. All other biological assessment methods for rivers, but also lakes, transitional and coastal waters are only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete).','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Lithuania under the Water Framework Directive.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Lithuania had a total number of 151 IPPC installations and issued 148 permits. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, Lithuania’s emissions for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia and volatile organic compounds are currently well below the EU Emissions Ceilings Directive targets. It is predicted that the implementation of all current legislation for these pollutants and other measures taken within the framework of climate change policy will allow Lithuania to achieve these levels in 2010. However, this also means that a further increase of all emissions is expected. 2007 data compared to the previous year show an upward trend for ammonia and nitrogen oxides.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of 2007 emissions, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Lithuania the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 52 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 26 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 32 and 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 92 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','A2_4_3','','','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','20/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','','','','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, terrestrial habitats of Community interest in Lithuania generally have an unfavourable conservation status. All 9 occurrences of boreal grassland habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 77 per cent of the boreal forest habitats have an unfavourable status, while the remaining 23 per cent have a favourable status. The conservation status of the boreal heath and scrub habitats is unknown. Peat land habitats in Lithuania have a predominantly unfavourable conservation status (63 per cent). 25 per cent of peat land habitat has a favourable status and the status of the remaining 13 per cent is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Boreal is the only bio geographical region in Lithuania.Status of grassland habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U14  U25       Status of forest habitats  BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131030077%23%0%0%U16  U24       Status of heath and scrub habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitatsBorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8521063%25%13%0%U14  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/02/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','20/04/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. For the Second Article 17 Report for Lithuania, only one marine habitat was assessed in the Marine Baltic region, and it was assessed as ‘Favourable’. There were two coastal habitats assessed in the Boreal biogeographic region, both of which had a ‘Favourable’ status. There were no marine species assessed.','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','24/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_1_4','','No monitoring programmes have been established for coastal areas. No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','20/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_2','','Lithuania has 15 coastal bathing areas and in 2008 100% of these achieved both mandatory standards and the stricter guidelines standards for water quality. This is an improvement particularly in relation to the guideline standards from 66.7% in 2006 and 60.0% in 2007. In terms of nutrient concentrations, there has been no change in recorded nitrogen concentrations in the Baltic Sea off the Lithuanian coast, but there has been some decrease in recorded phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005.','','-','','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_4','','Lithuanian’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €16,528,892 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and improving gear selectivity to reduce by-catch. Axis 2 (€29,908,007) promotes aqua-environmental measures in aquaculture and reduction of fishing capacity in the inland sector. Axis 3 (€12,332,322) supports the protection of aquatic flora and fauna, and Axis 4 (€8,925,027) aims to diversify activities and promote eco-tourism. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_98_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','20/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','20/04/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Lithuania had 266 vessels and 1.5% were involved in a serious infringement (4 vessels). A total of 4 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,231 and maximum fine of €1,593.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Lithuania has specific management plans for Salmon, Trout and Eel. The trout recovery and protection program (2003 – 2011) includes the following measures: Restore sea trout migration to potential breeding places, which are currently segregated by mechanical barriers. Also restore migration routes within the Baltic Sea and the lower Nemunas, Neris, Minija, Dubysa and Venta rivers basins;Prevent the build (or rebuild) of dams or other hydraulic equipment which impede fish migration within rivers important for migration of sea trout;Install artificial sea trout and sea trout spawning grounds for juveniles within suitable locations;Monitor the status of sea trout stocks, and perform genetic research; and Strengthen the protection of sea trout during periods of migration and spawning. Lithuania has submitted an Eel management plan (under Council Regulation (EC) 1100/) to the European Commission which was adopted by the EC on 22th December 2009.  The plan sets out measures for the recovery of the stocks of European eel. Lithuania had declared its national territory as one unit for European eel stock management, as the Nemunas river basin includes almost all Lithuania territory and the most important eel habitats within the country. Practical measures to stop eel stock decline are as follows:(1) Limit fishing in the northern part of the Curonian Lagoon to allow silver eel escapement to the sea;(2) Decrease fishing effort by about one third by 2012;(3) Reduce fishing licenses by 43% within inland water bodies and further reduce effort by shortening the fishing season to spring time only;(4) Shorten the fishing season for yellow eels to 3 months;(5) Limit the use of bait in long lining;(6) Reduce the day catch limit from five to three eels within recreational fishing; (7) Assess the impact of the plan in the most essential sites and, according to obtained data, discuss and implement measures to further decrease mortality. Stocking will be also used as one of the measures for eel stock recovery.Since March 13, 2009 Lithuania has been ready to implement CITES requirements by regulating trade on the national market through import and export controls. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Lithuanian fishing capacity has decreased from 2004 to 2008. Vessel numbers have reduced from 293 to 221 (25% reduction); tonnage from 75,588 to 50,478 tons (37% reduction); and power from 77,721 to 59,764 (23% reduction). Reductions were made between 2000 and 2006 using FIFG funds as an overall reduction in the Baltic high sea fleets by 45%. However, there is still excess capacity in the Baltic. In 2007, eleven vessels with a total capacity of 1 173 GT and 1 893 kW were decommissioned.','','2008 data: 221 vessels; 50478 tons; 59764 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Lithuania had 266 active vessels. There were 2 type D breaches in this year and 2 penalties imposed with an average fine of €869. No information on actions taken to reduce unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by Lithuania.','','2007 data is currently not available ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','20/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_6_2','','There are no shark monitoring programmes in Lithuania. No information on seabird monitoring was provided by Lithuania.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Lithuania has 7 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below).  However, according to Lithuanian sources, there are two established marine Natura2000 sites within territorial waters which have selected on criteria which are different from those detailed below. Lithuania has defined specific fisheries management measures for one of the marine Natura2000 sites within its territorial waters. No further information on the type of fisheries measures was provided. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below: Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 6Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Lithuania has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, the Lithuanian Fisheries Research Laboratory will collect data for ecosystem indicators 1—4 and 8 in Appendix XIII. The data for Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency of fish capture is collected annually with economic data collection questionnaires, but it can be difficult to produce the data per metier, as the data is collected as total by vessel rather than per metier, as vessels can change between different metiers during the year. However, it is possible to calculate this indicator in accordance with the KW Days, collected with transversal data. The time lag for fuel consumption is 1 year as with economic data collection (the data for 2008 will be collected in 2009). The parameter fuel efficiency of fish capture will be calculated in accordance with DCR and STECF recommendations. The required data for indicators 5-7 cannot be provided by defined level at this time.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture',' ','20/04/2010','na','','na','13/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Lithuanian EEZ waters in 2004 was 3.16. This represents a decrease of 0.12 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.57 since 2004. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','20/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective4','A4_3','','Nature frame network is mandatory in Lithuania and must be taken into account in spatial planning.','','','','24/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective4','A4_4_1','','Development of sustainable tourism is considered as part of the Lithuanian National Strategy for Sustainable Development. (Adopted in 2003, amended in 2009)','','','National Strategy for Sustainable Development: http://www.am.lt/VI/en/VI/index.php#r/140','07/04/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the hypothesis detailed hereunder, Lithuanian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 198.3 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','07/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Lithuania has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) however, there is specific legislation addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Several pieces of legislation in Lithuania provide for the control of pathways for introducing species including the Law on Wild Flora (1999), the Regulation of the Ministry of Environment on import of new plant and fungi species (2000) and the Law on Protected Plant, Animal, and Fungi Species and Communities (1997, amended 2001). The import and export of plant species is regulated by the Law on Plant Protection (1995, amended 2003). It is also prohibited to use alien species for afforestation under national legislation. The Ministry of Environment approved an Order on Introduction, Reintroduction and Relocation, an Order on Control and Eradication of Invasive Species and Composition of Committee on Invasive Species Control (Order no. 352) issued in 2002 (and amended in 2008). A list of IAS was approved by Ministerial Order No. D1-433 in 2004 and amended in 2009.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 39 are present in Lithuania. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 39 are present in Lithuania. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.According to reporting by the Member State, at the national level 19 species are included in the list of invasive species, approved by the Ministerial Order in 2009.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_1_2','','No national strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) has been developed in Lithuania. The Lithuanian Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (1998) sets a goal (to protect locally characteristic species and natural populations by preventing the spread of adventitious and invasive species and by enhancing research) and actions related to IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Lithuania has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','07/04/2010','','','','11/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is in place.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','07/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Lithuania has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The co-existence legislation in force in Lithuania is: the Order of Minister of Agriculture No 3D-1 Concerning Approval of the Rules on GM Plants Intended to Be Grown in Lithuania Declaring and Information Providing. Official Journal „Valstybės žinios“ No 5-236 (2007); the Order of Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Environment No 3D-504/D1- 608 Concerning Approval of the Rules on Coexistence of GM Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops. Official Journal „Valstybės žinios“ No 121- 4978 (2007) and; Order of the Head of State Seed and Grain Service under the Ministry of Agriculture No 1A-235 Concerning the Rules on the Inspection of the GM agricultural plants seed crops, nurseries of propagating materials of horticultural and ornamental plants. Annex of the Official Journal „Valstybės žinios“ No 3-48 (2005).  According to the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Lithuania.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, GMO free Europe initiativeWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmhttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/','07/04/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in October 2009. The “Republic of Lithuania Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan” was published in 1996.Lithuania had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention (for the latter, the data source shows an outstanding payment of EUR8 as of 31 Dec 2008)..','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','04/07/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Lithuania for 2006 and 2007.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Lithuania for 2006 and 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/07/2010','','','07/01/2010, 12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Lithuania has not contributed to the 3rd or 4th GEF replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','04/07/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','04/07/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective8','A8_1','','While no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing or the Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exist, law No IX-533 on National Plant Genetic Resources was adopted in 2001. No public awareness regarding the Guidelines or the MTA has been raised. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is nearly 100%. Lithuania has issued a low number of import, export and re-export applications for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','04/07/2010','','','13/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','In 2001, law No IX-533 on National Plant Genetic resources was adopted. No activities raising awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines have been undertaken.Law No IX-533 on National Plant Genetic resources adopted in 2001 ','',' ','Reference or title:Weblink:','04/07/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Lithuania did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','04/07/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Lithuania does not have national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources nor have national activities raising awareness on this treaty been undertaken. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources from 2006 - 2009 is nearly 100%.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','20/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 175, 15 and 0, respectively. The number of import applications denied in 2007 and 2008 were 15. No export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The aggregate number of significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 62 for 2007-2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training have been provided to Staff of Management Authority, Staff of Scientific Authority, Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and the public. Lithuania has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Lithuania paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','20/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','','','','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','20/04/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','20/04/2010',NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('Lithuania','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','MandE','C1_2','','A national biodiversity monitoring programme has been developed between 2008 and 2009. Its implementation will begin in 2010. A number of biodiversity indicators will be derived from the national biodiversity monitoring programme and will be regularly updated.','','Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD.                                                               Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','22/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','MandE','C1_2_1','','A national biodiversity monitoring programme has been developed between 2008 and 2009. Its implementation will begin in 2010. A number of biodiversity indicators will be derived from the national biodiversity monitoring programme and will be regularly updated.','','','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD                                                                   Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','22/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','MandE','C1_3_1','','A national monitoring programme for a range of habitats will be launched in 2010, while a national inventory of annex 1 habitats was carried out between 2007 and 2010. Species on the annexes of the Habitats Directive will be monitored starting in 2010.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Measure1','B1_1_1','','The Plan National Protection Nature (PNPN) 2007-2011 contains a detailed budget for the envisaged measures to implement the seven targets of the 2007-2011 action plan; the total spending foreseen is EUR52,241,000. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Luxembourg spent up to EUR1,493,999 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Luxembourg’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','22/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Luxembourg does not have any allocations for categories 51, 55 and 56.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Measure1','B1_1_8','','Luxembourg has allocated EUR59,000 in 2006, EUR36,000 in 2007, EUR54,000 in 2008 and EUR600,100 in 2009 for biodiversity research activities and programmes. From 2006-2009, Luxembourg has spent between EUR36,000 and EUR600,100 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure.','','','','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure2','B2_4','','Since the 1960s, over 80% of wetlands and about 35% of dry grasslands have disappeared in Luxembourg. At the same time, the area occupied by orchards has been reduced by 58.5%. In terms of structural elements of landscapes, nearly 28.5% of hedges and rows of trees and more than half (- 55%) of solitary trees have been removed. In order to reverse this trend of commoditization and standardization of the natural environment and to focus government action and its partners on Conservation Council of Government adopted the National Plan for Protection Nature (PNPN) at its meeting on May 11, 2007. The PNPN is a political action program for the protection of nature for the period 2007 - 2011, combining two strategic objectives (1) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and (2) Protection of landscapes and ecosystem services, as well as seven specific targets to achieve these objectives. The PNPN focuses primarily on the implementation of concrete measures for the protection and conservation of nature and identified 41 priority measures including 15 priority measures and 36 priority sites to be classified as a protected area. An estimate of the budgetary impact of these measures is an integral part of PNPN.','','','http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PNPN/PNPNvfinale200407-2.pdf','22/02/2010','','','03/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by Luxembourg to encourage business biodiversity partnerships','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','B3_1_2','','Engagement of key stakeholders in the fields of agriculture and forestry are encouraged locally through contractual biodiversity conservation initiatives  On a national level, agriculture and forestry representatives are represented at the national council for nature protection, which is a platform for exchanging and advising government authorities on biodiversity related issues','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','B3_1_5','','A national, legally binding spatial planning instrument (“plan sectoriel paysage”) aimed at the conservation and sustainable development of the landscape was in preparation. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument will be compatible with Natura 2000 network objectives and will directly address biodiversity conservation by aiming to further the current network. The plan was being prepared with close collaboration between the Ministries for the Environment and for Spatial Planning with the active participation of governmental, private and non-governmental stakeholders. At a regional level, local municipalities have collaborated to establish syndicates for nature protection and conservation. Five syndicates currently exist and cover approximately 45% of the national territory.','','The “plan sectoriel paysage” is currently available in the form of a first draft, which was adopted by the government in 2008 and presented to the Parliament. It is expected that the final document and the relevant legal instruments will be in place by the second half of 2011. This timeframe takes into account the time allocated for a broad public consultation to take place in the second half of 2010.','http://www.sicona.lu/http://www.sias.lu/html/naturzenter_-_station_biologiq.htmlhttp://www.naturpark-our.lu/http://www.naturpark-sure.lu/','23/02/2010','','','','27/02/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by Luxembourg to encourage business biodiversity partnerships','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up by Luxembourg to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','23/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds in Luxembourg.','','','','22/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Measure4','B4_1_1','','A national campaign on biodiversity and nature conservation was launched and fully implemented in 2007. The campaign consisted of a website (www.biodiv.lu), a TV spot, also shown in major cinemas, notices in daily newspapers and internet news sites and the publication of a brochure. The main objective of the campaign was to involve the general public in nature conservation in their daily lives. With the support of national celebrities, the brochure aimed to demonstrate that the daily choices we make can have a positive influence on nature conservation and biodiversity generally. The website has now been reorganized to reflect the national partnership dedicated to the celebration of the international year for biodiversity. ','','','www.biodiv.lu','22/02/2010','','','27/02/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Ministry for the Environment of Luxembourg made a declaration supporting the implementation of joint actions under the 2010 countdown initiative on the 21 May 2007. It suggested implementation of a national plan using tangible measures, like the creation and implementation of action plans concerning target species and their habitats. Luxembourg also stated that it would extend the national network protected areas of Community, national and municipal interest. The Ministry expressed a commitment to promote good practices with respect to biodiversity protection among private companies and public bodies and towards the integration of nature protection principles in development cooperation projects. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Luxembourg between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects. ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','22/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','27/02/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Continental biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in favourable condition. The remaining 1 of the 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of all heath and scrub habitats is reported to be unfavourable-bad. For all freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats as well as for 5 of the 6 (83%) rocky habitats and for 3 of the 7 (43%) grassland habitats the conditions are unknown. Conditions have not been reported for 1 of the 7 (14%) grasslands and 1 of the 8 (13%) forests habitats.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','04/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of November 2009, Luxembourg has designated 48 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 399 km², totalling 15.4% of the country’s area. All these sites have been designated as Special Areas of Conservation. The number of Special Protection Areas is 12, with a total area of 139 km², totalling 5.4% of the country’s area. ','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Luxembourg.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm; http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2009/0220/a220.pdf#page=2','   04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan',' In Luxembourg, 29 % of Natura 2000 sites have a management plan completed, 6 % of the sites have a management plan in preparation and 65% have no management plan completed and in preparation. The terms of reference for the establishement of Natura 2000 management plans is currently being revieved. New management plans will be initiated during the second semester of 2010. For the 35% of SAC\'s with a management plan completed or in preparation, a pluridisciplinary management body has been established. A national, legally binding spatial planning instrument aiming at the conservation and sustainable development of landscapes is in preparation. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument are compatible with and aiming at the achievement of the objectives of the Natura 2000 network. ','','For the 35% of SAC\'s with a management plan completed or in preparation, a pluridisciplinary management body has been established. A national, legally binding spatial planning instrument aiming at the conservation and sustainable development of landscapes is in preparation. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument are compatible with and aiming at the achievement of the objectives of the Natura 2000 network. ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PSP/index.html','04/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Regulations on subsidies for financing the establishment of structural landscape elements such as hedgerows, field margins and trees are in place. Nationally relevant biological corridors are being defined by a national, legally binding spatial planning instrument for landscape protection (see above).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PSP/index.htmlhttp://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2008/0046/a046.pdf#page=2','04/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 182 regularly occurring bird species in Luxembourg, 4 are globally Near-threatened and none are Red-listed. Data on the national bird red list for Luxembourg is available at http://www.luxnatur.lu/lnv005.htm. Note the figures above refer to all bird species of Luxembourg, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Continental biogeographical region, 5 of the 10 (50%) amphibians and reptiles, 1 of the 6 (17%) fish, 4 of the 15 (27%) invertebrates and 3 of 7 (43%) plants are in a favourable condition. 2 of the 6 (33%) fish and 15 of the 25 (60%) mammals are in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 10 (30%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of 6 (50%) fish, 10 of the 15 (67%) of invertebrates, 8 of the 25 (32 %) of mammals and 2 of the 7 (29%) plants species is regarded as unfavourable- bad. The condition of 2 of the 7 (29%) plant species is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= unfavourable - inadequateU2= unfavourable - badXX= unknownNA=not reported Continental Amphibians and reptiles 550%110%330%110%00%10Fish 117%233%350%00%00%6Invertebrates427%17%1067%00%00%15Mammals00%1560%832%28%00%25Plants 343%00%229%229%00%7','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html; http://www.luxnatur.lu/lnv005.htm','04/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Luxembourg has the following completed species action plans: 5 for birds, 3 for mammals, 6 for amphibians and reptiles, 3 for invertebrates and 11 for plants. In addition, there are species action plans in preparation, namely, 4 for birds, 1 for invertebrates and 3 for plants. The European common bird index not yet available in Luxembourg but monitoring began in 2009. The red list for mammals is limited to bats. Invertebrate red lists exist for butterflies and moths, dragonflies as well as orthoptera. Fish and bird red lists will be updated in 2010.','','','http://www.mnhn.lu/recherche/default.htm#rl','23/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective10','A10_1','','Luxembourg public research has undergone major shifts in recent years and is facing a period of important transformations in the near future. Biodiversity research in Luxembourg is being funded through the following programme of the National Research Fund (FNR): Sustainable Resource Management. Understanding Ecosystems and Biodiversity Research in this field will help to reverse the trend of ongoing loss of biodiversity and to ensure the achievement of long-term sustainability goals. These research activities will also contribute to fulfil the many commitments Luxembourg has to the EU, particularly those under the European Commission Action Plan aimed at conserving biodiversity and preventing biodiversity loss within the EU and internationally. Besides several objectives related to safeguarding important habitats and species, the Luxembourg National Action Plan for Nature Conservation explicitly states the need for improving the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, which requires strengthening of the related research areas. One objective of public research in this domain is to reach a systematic assessment of ecosystem services in order to properly ascertain the socio-economic benefit of biodiversity, which is practically unvalued so far. This approach should identify opportunities for economic benefit by emphasising the potential sources of economic growth through conservation of biodiversity.','','','http://www.fnr.lu/en/Grants-Activities/Research-Programmes/CORE-Programme','04/02/2010','','','03/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Luxembourg does not have any plans to follow up the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as part of either a national initiative or wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','04/02/2010','','','03/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The development of nature protection policies and strategies should be based on sound scientific evidence, in order to effectively evaluate the measures and projects implemented and to guide development of future strategies.The Act of January 19, 2004 concerning the protection of nature and natural resources in Luxembourg required a substantial strengthening of the scientific process, particularly regarding the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. As of December 4, 2003, the Chamber of Deputies passed a motion urging the Luxembourg Government to draft a bill providing for the association of municipalities in the implementation of the objectives of the Act of January 19, 2004 and the building and the improvement of scientific work on conservation. An audit on the protection of the natural environment created by the design offices and BASLER ERSA demonstrated the absence of a sound scientific basis for nature protection. In particular, the requirements for scientific monitoring the implementation of the European network Natura 2000, including the description, every 6 years, the conservation status of 31 habitats and 19 species to be protected in Luxembourg as well as 75 species of birds, required strengthening and improvement of scientific work as well as better coordination with all stakeholders. These findings and discussions led to the passing of the Act of August 3, 2005 regarding the partnership on environmental protection and the establishment of a national biodiversity platform in the form of the observatory of the natural environment, composed of representatives of the Ministry of Environment and Administration of Forestry, the National Museum of Natural History, municipalities and municipal unions and associations active in the field of conservation and the environment. In addition, three scientists in the field of preservation of biodiversity are part of the observatory.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','04/02/2010','','','na','03/03/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Luxembourg became an Associate Member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in May 2008.No organisations from Luxembourg are members of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI), which is Europe’s contribution to GBIF. ','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','04/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','03/03/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter, and minimum levels of maintenance of agricultural areas.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Luxembourg total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 94.96 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 393.06 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 53 million EUR, and 212.01 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 51.82 and 53.94 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Luxembourg was 26.78 million EUR (107.12 with co-financing) and amounted to 28.2 per cent of the EAFRD (27.25 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.16 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.17 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.65 million EUR of public expenditure (0.16 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in Luxembourg for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)6.3390725.35676Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. Nor is the in situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species promoted in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan. However, measures are taken through the RDP to conserve the Ardennes breed of draft horse (with a cost of 27,000 EUR). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Luxembourg in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. There are currently no limits set in hectare for the application of the above mentioned instruments.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Luxembourg had a total certified forest area of 45,340 hectares out of a total forest area of 87,000 hectares. 18,835 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system, under which 26,505 hectares were certified. In total, 52.11 per cent of the forest area in Luxembourg was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC).  ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Luxembourg amounted to 0.01 million ha, representing a share of 9.0 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address soil erosion, soil structure and organic matter, and minimum levels of maintenance of agricultural areas.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','22/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Advisory services have been set up top support implementation of cross-compliance, including measures to retain landscape features, but no information is provided on RDP Axis 2 measures.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','No link','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_8','','The only mandatory biodiversity related indicator that is currently monitored is tree species composition. Monitoring schemes are being set up for farmland bird population trends and HNV farming (both to be started in 2010). No monitoring is carried out in being developed for HNV forestry. ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 5 million € has been added to Luxembourg’s Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Luxembourg provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’.','','This table presents the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','04/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','22/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all four occurrences of the continental freshwater habitats in Luxembourg have an unknown conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.    ','','Continental is the only biogeographical region in Luxembourg.Status of freshwater habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage400400%0%100%0%U10   U20       According to reporting by Member State, between 2007 and 2010 a national survey of all Annex I habitats has been carried out. Information on the conservation status of freshwater habitats will thus be available for the next reporting period.','Reference or title: HD Article 17 report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Luxembourg oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 4.66 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.47 mg O3/l in 2005. 2005 figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.36 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.43 mg N/l in 2005. Values were higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005. No figures for 2003 were available.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 5.08 mg N/l in 2002 to 4.67 mg N/l in 2005, but with a peak of 5.29 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly above weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear trend from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 24.2 mg NO3 /l in 2003 and 23.8 mg NO3/l in 2005.No information on phosphorus concentrations in river and lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Luxembourg had a total number of 10 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 50 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has slightly increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Luxembourg all biological assessment methods for rivers were partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete), including phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish fauna.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 4 in Luxembourg. ','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Luxembourg had a total number of 32 IPPC installations and issued 42 permits. No permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','26/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Luxembourg’s non-methane volatile organic compounds did not meet the ceilings of the NEC Directive. According to its reporting, the country expects emissions in 2010 to be well below the NEC Directive targets for sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and ammonia and slightly below for non-methane volatile organic compounds. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Luxembourg the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 15 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 1,015 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 13 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction by 2010 and a reduction to 99 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 98 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Luxembourg’s gross nitrogen balance was 129 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 44 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 43 per cent of the continental grassland habitats in Luxembourg have an unfavourable conservation status, 43 per cent have an unknown status and 14 per cent were unreported. 38 per cent of the continental forest habitats have a favourable conservation status, 38 per cent have an unfavourable status, 13 per cent have an unknown status and the remaining 13 per cent were unreported. All of the continental heath and scrub habitats have an unfavourable conservation status and the status for all 3 occurrences of continental peat land habitats is unknown. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.   ','','Continental is the only bio geographical region in Luxembourg.Status of grassland habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7303143%0%43%14%U12   U21       Status of forest habitats ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8331138%38%13%13%U12   U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U10   U21       Status of peat land habitatsContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage300300%0%100%0%U10   U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective3','A3_4','','There is no Fisheries Operational Programme listed for Luxembourg: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','-','Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','04/02/2010','','','','28/4/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Luxembourg has a specific management plan for European Eel which has been submitted to and approved by the Commission although the document is not currently accessible. Luxembourg does not have specific plans for salmon, trout or sturgeon, but does have a number of activities that support and promote diadromous species. For instance in terms of restoring habitats, there are activities to protect gravel banks, allow the natural dynamics of rivers and rehabilitate natural habitats as well as improve water quality. There are also activities to remove migratory barriers including the creation of fish ramps and fish passes; stock enhancement for salmon through the breeding and release of fingerlings; and finally for eels there have been initiatives to trap and truck mature eels from up river to down river. Some key initiatives for diadromous species include: 1) A national inventory of migratory obstacles has been established (2008-2010) which indicates the priorities for transformation. Transforming migratory barriers has been underway over the past 10 years.2) Mapping areas of spawning and juvenile salmon congregations, as well as stock enhancement has been undertaken from 1992 to 2004 in the river Sure and Our.3) Trapping and trucking of about 400 to 1000 Atlantic eels is undertaken annually since 2004 taking adult eels from the river Sure tributary to the Mosel/Rhine (where there is no commercial fishery).','','','','22/02/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective4','A4_3','','A national, legaly binding spatial planning instrument aiming at the conservation and sustainable developpement of landscapes is in preparation in Luxemburg. Restrictions and recommendations established by this instrument are compatible with and aiming at the achievement of the objectives of the Natura 2000 network as well as the coherence of ecological networks in general. ','','','http://www.environnement.public.lu/conserv_nature/dossiers/PSP/index.html','23/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective4','A4_4_1','','','','','','04/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, there was no direct spending from Luxembourg under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity. Indeed, no spending under biodiversity categories (51, 55 and 56) is foreseen by the Luxemburg Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','04/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','24/04/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Luxembourg has no specific legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, there is general legislation that addresses various issues relating to IAS. The Act of 19 January 2004 on Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (amended) contains provisions under Articles 30, 26 and 27 that can be applied to IAS. Article 30 prohibits the import and introduction of alien species into the wild without Ministerial authorisation which may only be granted following an extensive consultation. Articles 26 and 27 contain provisions for the control, possession and trade of wild native and alien flora and fauna. There are some legal measures for preventing the introduction and distribution of muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Although no legislation pertaining to the control and eradication of alien species is currently in force, hunting legislation is under development for the control of alien species if necessary. A review of the legal framework is underway in order to determine whether or not it is sufficient.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 19 are present in Luxembourg.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_1_2','','There is no national strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) in Luxembourg. The National Nature Conservation Plan (Plan National Protection de la Nature 2007-2011) adopted in May 2007 contains an IAS strategy which addresses IAS issues. As part of the strategy, action plans may be prepared for IAS that threaten native biodiversity or public health.According to reporting by the Member State, a national survey on certain IAS species has been carried out by the National Museum for Natural History, Luxembourg. Training courses to identify and eradicate the main target species have been organised. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkhttp://mnhnl.lu/cgi-bin/baseportal.pl?htx=/projects/neophytes/intro ','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Luxembourg has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','04/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, there is no specific database on invasive alien species (IAS), but rather a common, centralised national database for all biodiversity relevant data hosted by the musée national d’histoire naturelle. This database is called RECORDER and contains all data stemming from inventories of IAS undertaken since 2006 within the overall framework of a project (see link below). No an early warning and information system for IAS is under development. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://mnhnl.lu/cgibin/baseportal.pl?htx=/projects/neophytes/intro ','04/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Luxembourg has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is: Loi du 18 mars 2008 sur la commercialisation des semences et plants ainsi que sur la coexistence des cultures génétiquement modifiées, conventionnelles et biologiques. Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 27 mars 2008, p. 446; and Règlement grand-ducal du 22 juillet 2008 fixant les distances d’isolement et les conditions techniques à respecter lors de la mise en culture de semences et plants génétiquement modifies. Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 20 août 2008, p.1824.  At the local level, 69% of municipalities have declared themselves GMO free zones. 10% of farmers have sigend individual declarations of abstaining from planting GMO\'s on their farms. On the national level, the cultivation of MON810 is banned.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm,','04/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBS has been submitted and published on the CBD website in December 2009. There is currently no National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.Luxembourg had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention, while payments for 2007 and 2008 for the World Heritage Convention were, as of 31 Dec 2008, still outstanding.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Luxembourg for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Luxembourg for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Luxembourg contributed EUR5.16 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.21% of the total replenishment. Luxembourg contributed EUR4.79 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.22% of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','','04/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective8','A8_1','','While Luxembourg did not provide funds for the Access & Benefit-sharing (ABS) Working Group and has no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on ABS, national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exists and awareness on the conservation and propagation of local fruit tree varieties has been raised. No information on the national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is available. Luxembourg has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with a few applications denied, and a low number of items seized. Support to the development of national capacity for implementing CITES was provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','04/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Luxembourg has no national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on ABS and no awareness on the Guidelines has been raised. ','','','','04/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Luxembourg did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','04/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Luxembourg has national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. Awareness raising campaigns about the conservation and propagation of local fruit tree varieties have taken place regularly over the last decade, mainly by national NGOs, partially supported by the LEADER programme.  ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:For national ratification, see http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2003/0196/a196.pdf#page=8','23/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective8','A8_1_4','','No wood products consumption data available.','','','','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 146, 2 and 13, respectively. Information was not available on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 5 for 2007 and 8 for 2008 representing a net increase of 3. As to capacity-building at the national level, training was provided to Staff of Management Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Technical assistance was provided to traders. Luxembourg has not provided technical and financial assistance in relation to CITES. Luxembourg paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','04/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','','','No national biodiversity strategy does actually exist in Luxemburg.In 2010 a broad partnership between governmental, private and non-profit organisations will be launched with the aim of determining new strategies and concrete measures in the realm of climate change. Biodiversity will be one pillar of this process with the objective to identify concrete win-win situations, projetc and measures between biodoversity, climate, development and agricultural policies.','','','','04/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_3_2','','The NREAP of Luxemburg is currently in preparation under the supervision of the Ministry of economy and foreign trade and is planned to be finalized by the end of June 2010.','','','The overall capacity of production of renewable energies and a strategy for their further development in Luxembourg are shown in the following document: http://www.eco.public.lu/documentation/etudes/2007/03/Endbericht_RES-Lux_26_03_07_final.pdf','22/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_4_1','','No national biodiversity strategy does actually exist in Luxemburg.In 2010 a broad partnership between governmental, private and non-profit organisations will be launched with the aim of determining new strategies and concrete measures in the realm of climate change. Biodiversity will be one pillar of this process with the objective to identify concrete win-win situations, projetc and measures between biodoversity, climate, development and agricultural policies.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'04/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'24/04/2010',NULL),
	('Luxembourg','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Luxemburg is currently undertaking studies on identification of species at risk of climate change. An example of research is a study on the risk of climatic changes to the conservation of Arnica Montana, which is an ongoing PhD project under the supervision of Dr. G. Colling of the Museum of natural history in Luxembourg. There is no such scientific studies for habitats identification so far.','','','','04/02/2010','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','MandE','C1_2','','Out of the 26 SEBI indicators listed, Malta has specified that 8 of these indicators have been computed for Malta. Additionally, for 6 of the SEBI indicators a similar biodiversity indicator has been identified. The remaining 12 indicators are not available or not applicable to Malta.','','Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','MandE','C1_2_1','','Out of the 26 SEBI indicators listed, Malta has specified that 8 of these indicators have been computed for Malta. Additionally, for 6 of the SEBI indicators a similar biodiversity indicator has been identified. The remaining 12 indicators are not available or not applicable to Malta. At the national scale, around ten additional indicators have been considered.','','N/a means not applicable or not available for Malta.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','MandE','C1_3_1','','In view of the designation processes of the Natura 2000 exercise, countrywide surveys were carried out as well as literature analysis on both habitats and species listed in the EC Habitats Directive. This was further augmented through the first assessment carried out by Malta in line with Article 17 of the EC Habitats Directive; this assessment has established the baseline for gathering future trend data on species and habitats of Community interest.Selected habitat types are treated with higher priority and surveyed on a regular basis (e.g. dunes and \'forests\'), whilst other species and habitats (i.e. those not covered by the EC Habitats Directive) are surveyed on an ad-hoc basis. Moreover, general surveillance is also carried out in a number of key protected areas, and monitoring is ongoing in protected areas covered by a Management Plan.Work has continued in relation to a number of habitats for which there is limited or no information. In this regard, MEPA has carried out a survey of the immediate coastal area of the Maltese Islands in relation to the reef habitats and macroalgae, which is still ongoing. Moreover, MEPA has commissioned a number of surveys aimed at identifying threathened and endemic species found in the Maltese Islands, which include all fauna of the Maltese Islands. This has produced species data sheets with information on abundance, status and distribution of each species.Similarly, MEPA has commissioned surveys aimed at identifying alien flora and fauna of the Maltese Islands, with the aim of prioritising activities in relation to safeguarding the native flora and fauna, and maintaining and/or restoring the conservation status of these species.','','','','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Measure1','B1_1_1','','No information from national reports to the CBD on biodiversity funding programmes was available. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Malta spent up to EUR459,867 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','No information from national reports to the CBD on biodiversity funding programmes was available because, as of November 2009, Malta had not submitted any national reports to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Malta’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','04/05/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Malta’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR1.7m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR19.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR4.3m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','04/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Measure1','B1_1_8','','A specific value in Euro cannot be provided at this stage, also since some activities carried out vis-à-vis research are in kind.Malta has been actively involved in carrying out research activities with the aim to gain a better understanding of the Maltese biodiversity. Moreover, various national research institutions including the University of Malta and its institutes, as well as relevant NGOs, also contribute towards strengthening an understanding of Maltese biodiversity, and some also participate in regional research projects (apart from academic research at a national level).Amongst the activities related to biodiversity research Malta has conducted the following:The commissioning of a number of studies, through the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, covering a number of taxonomic groups, with the aim to assist in the development of a National Database on Biodiversity, including studies on endemic species and invasive alien species;Application for funds with the aim to prepare management plans and/or legislation for the Natura 2000 sites of the Maltese Islands;The establishment of the ‘National Research & Innovation Programme’, which is set on 4 priorities namely: ICT, Health & Biotech, Energy & Environment, and High Value Added Manufacturing. Specific allocations of funding for biodiversity research activities fall directly under the Energy and Environment priority. A typical example is a 4-year Project on the ‘Valorisation of the indigenous vine varieties of Malta: Conservation, Assessment and Innovation’ which has been funded under the R&I 2008 Programme;Nationally, the Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences is involved in scientific research and monitoring, in addition to the technical advice provided to the fishing and aquaculture community. In general, Malta is involved in a variety of fisheries related activities, such as the MEDITS trawl survey, MEDLEM, collaboration on a project on the incidental by-catch of seabirds and participation in the EU-financed SELFDOTT project;Participation in the EU funded project on the development of the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy;Sponsorship of journals and the publishing of biological abstracts; Assistance to university students carrying out dissertations which are deemed to provide relevant information;Studies carried out by national experts in their own capacity. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','04/05/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Measure2','B2_4','','Malta’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) are currently under development.  Although the process for developing Malta’s NBSAP is still ongoing, other national documents of a strategic nature have been developed that have put forward a number of recommendations for safeguarding, as well as conserving and managing, biological resources in the Maltese Islands. These include: State of the Environment Reports (SOERs), State of the Environment Indicators (SOEIs), the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD) and the National Report on the Strategic Action Plan for the Conservation of Maltese Coastal and Marine Biodiversity (SAPBIO Report). The NBSAP, once developed and formally adopted, will aim to yield results in terms of increased awareness on, and stewardship of, biodiversity, and drive forward direct biodiversity action across sectors via an integrated approach. The participation of all relevant stakeholders is deemed crucial in order to achieve this.','','-','','19/2/2010','','','09/03/2010',''),
	('Malta','Measure3','','','No information was provided by the Member State. It appears that no forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No partnerships have been facilitated for farming and biodiversity or forestry and biodiversity.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Measure3','B3_1_5','','The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) is the national agency responsible for land use planning and environmental regulation in Malta (established under the mandate of the Environment Protection Act (2001) and the Development Planning Act (1992)). MEPA is committed to ensuring that land use and the protection of the environment meet the needs of current and future communities by aiming to implement a policy of sustainable development. The Authority is governed by the MEPA Board which provides strategic guidance as well as being responsible for deciding upon certain planning and environmental permits. Other relevant frameworks in Malta include the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands and its Seven Local Plans adopted through the Development Planning Act. The Structure Plan aims to influence the quality and distribution of land use through a set of sectoral and area-based policies that take into account the socioeconomic and environmental conditions of the Maltese Islands. The Structure Plan provides guidance to Local Plans, and provides a general direction for development control with conservation and enhancement of the countryside in mind.  Local plans are aimed at regulating development both at a regional level and at the local level.','','The MEPA website provides access to information on Maltese biodiversity, protected areas and adopted policies, including State of Environment Reports/Indicators for Malta. It also provides information on developments and related permits and decisions.','Reference or title: MEPAWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/organisationReference or title: Boards and CommitteesWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/boards-committeesReference or title: Structure Plan Weblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpg-structureplanReference or title: Local Plans Weblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/LPLegislationPolicyDocs?topic=none&doctype=Local%20Plans%20&doctypeid=1&docname=none','19/2/2010','','','na','16/03/10'),
	('Malta','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was provided by the Member State. It appears that no forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Measure3','B3_1_7','','Although no forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity, a number of private banks in Malta have financially supported biodiversity conservation projects. On certain occasions, banks have established dedicated funds for activities to improve the environment and for raising public awareness on environmental issues. On other occasions, staff time has been devoted to participation in conservation projects. Local banks are engaged in and affiliated with afforestation projects, clean-up activities, awareness-raising and education.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Measure4','B4_1_1','','A communications campaign in support of full implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan was being developed.Over the course of 2010, Malta  will  be  holding  events  to  celebrate  the 2010 International  Year  of  Biodiversity. Activities planned for 2010 and beyond may  include  several  short  written  contributions  in a local newspaper  and  on  the  MEPA  website,  together  with  the publication of posters,  the  launching  of  a  Red Data List (of selected species) and action plans. Other activities are expected to include a biodiversity photo competition,  setting  up  billboards  at  specific  protected  areas, open lectures,  awareness-raising and  clean-up activities.   Selected   legislation   and   policy documents related to biodiversity are also expected to be issued in 2010.','','','','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Malta has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Malta between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.   ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','19/2/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data..In the Mediterranean Sea biogeographical region, the condition of 1 of 1 (100%) rocky habitats and 3 of the 4 (75%) coastal habitats is unknown. For the 1 of 4 (25%) coastal habitats that have been assessed the condition is reported to be favourable. In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) and 1 of 1 (100%) freshwater habitats and grasslands are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively. 3 of the 3 (100%) dune habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of the 2 (50%) rocky habitats, 1 of the 2 (50%) freshwater habitats and 2 of the 5 (40%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats are unknown. For the 1 of the 7 (14%) coastal habitats that have been assessed the condition is reported to be favourable.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_summaries/national_sumarypdf_16/_EN_1.0_&a=d and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','19/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Malta has designated 28 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 50 km², totalling 13.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. There is 1 site with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 8 km² (0.18%). The number of Special Protection Areas is 13, with a total area 16 km², totalling 4.5% of the country’s terrestrial area. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','19/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Of 28 Sites of Community Interest, 1 site is covered by a Management Plan (MP), MPs are being prepared for 3 other SCIs, while for the remainder no MP has been prepared or completed.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Information provided is extracted from the Article 17 General Report (2008).Weblink: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/mt/eu/art17/','19/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_2_3','','National tools to support ecological connectivity are in place and can be found in a variety of forms ranging from plans and associated policies to national legislation offering protection to ecological corridors.The development framework for the Maltese Islands is laid out in the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands adopted through the Development Planning Act of 1992. The Structure Plan aims to influence the quality and distribution of land uses through a set of sectoral and area-based policies that take into account the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the Maltese Islands. The objective of this national planning tool is three-fold. The Structure Plan provides guidance to Local Plans and gives a general direction for development and strives to conserve and enhance the countryside and promote integrated land and water planning. The Structure Plan encompasses a variety of policies, including RCO Policies, which aim towards the conservation of natural habitats, natural features and the landscape. The said RCO Policies provide conservation measures with respect to a number of issues ranging from ecology, to rehabilitation of degraded habitats and landscapes to agricultural land.In addition, ecological corridors in Malta are considered to be essential for the coherence, connectivity and resilience of the natural environment. As such, nationally, these corridors include traditionally built rubble walls, and natural features such as valley watercourses. Rubble walls are legally protected by the ‘Rubble Walls and Rural Structures (Conservation and Maintenance) Regulations, 1997’ (LN 160 of 1997, as amended by LN 169 of 2004). Important valley watercourses are being addressed via the implementation of the EC Habitats Directive and the EC Water Framework Directive as well as related national legislation.Nonetheless,  the majority of protected areas that form part of the National Ecological Network come along with a “buffer zone”, which for instance covers agricultural land, apart from the fact that the boundaries of certain protected areas (under different designations) overlap. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Structure Plan:http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpg-structureplanRubble Walls and Rural Structures (Conservation and Maintenance) Regulations, 1997 as amended:http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1362','19/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 204 regularly occurring bird species in Malta, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 3 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Malta, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Mediterranean Sea biogeographical region, the conservation status of all amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates, mammals and plants is unknown. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 7 of the 9 (78%) amphibians and reptiles and 1 of 13 (8%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 6 (33%) invertebrates and 8 of the 13 (62%) plants and 1 of 1 (100%) fish is regarded unfavourable-inadequate. 3 of the 6 (50%) invertebrates, 4 of the 13 (23%) plants and 1 of the 9 (11%) of amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 6 (17%) of invertebrates and 1 of the 8 (13%) of mammals is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported Mediterranean SeaAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%1100%00%1Fish 00%00%00%1100%00%1Invertebrates00%00%00%6100%00%6Mammals00%00%00%8100%00%8Plants 00%00%00%2100%00%2MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 778%111%111%00%00%9Fish 00%1100%00%00%00%1Invertebrates00%233%350%117%00%6Mammals338%450%00%113%00%8Plants 18%862%431%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_summaries/national_sumarypdf_16/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','19/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','National species action plans have been drafted, for marine mammals and marine turtles. However, these need to be reviewed and processed for consultation. Moreover, Malta is currently drafting a further species action plan concerning cartilaginous species, which would also require reviewing and processing for consultation.Red Data Lists: The Red Data Book (RDB) for the Maltese Islands was published in 1989. In view of this, studies were commissioned in connection with selected groups of species in order to re-assess their status in line with the new (updated) IUCN Criteria. Publication of Red Data Lists, and hence updating the RDB, is envisaged.','','','','19/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective10','A10_1','','Although Malta does not have a specifically dedicated programme aimed at supporting biodiversity research, the Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) supports biodiversity research, both directly and indirectly, through assistance to students of the University of Malta undertaking studies related to various issues of biodiversity and nature protection, and funds (partially or completely) the publication of relevant scientific studies and scientific journals. MEPA has also commissioned a series of studies throughout the years with the aim to increase the understanding of biodiversity on a national scale, including studies related to the collation of information on threatened and endemic species, as well as study of Posidonia meadows in Maltese waters. Various national research institutions also contribute towards the better understanding of Maltese biodiversity, and some of these intuitions also participate in regional research projects. These institutions include the University of Malta Department of Biology and its established Institutes (e.g. the International Environment Institute, the Institute of Islands and Small States and the Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics) and the Malta Centre for Fisheries Science. ','','','Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences: http://vafd.gov.mt/capture-fisheries  Department of Biology - University of Malta http://home.um.edu.mt/biology/11_research.html  Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.ies.com.mt/  International Environment Institute http://www.um.edu.mt/iei/ Institute for Islands & Small States http://www.um.edu.mt/islands/ Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Insular Coastal Dynamics http://www.um.edu.mt/iei/entities/icod Malta Council for Science and Technology (MCST) http://www.mcst.gov.mt/ Malta National Biodiversity Platform http://www.um.edu.mt/pressreleases/2003/bioplatform.html MEPA International Funded Projects http://www.mepa.org.mt/internationally-funded-projectsatmepa','19/2/2010','','','09/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Malta does not have any plans to follow up the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as part of either a national initiative or wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. A number of issues identified in the MA are catered for through various policies and processes within the Malta Environment & Planning Authority and other relevant bodies, as well as through assessments such as the State of the Environment Report. ','','','','19/2/2010','','','09/03/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Malta has a national biodiversity platform, composed of different government and nongovernment representatives working together to assess and promote research and policy requirements for biodiversity in the Maltese Islands and also support the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy. The main objectives of this platform are to provide a network for scientists and policy makers that work in different fields of biodiversity, thus enhancing the communication between scientists and end-users of research results; to promote the dissemination of current best practices and information regarding the scientific understanding of biodiversity conservation; and to contribute to European Research Area for Biodiversity, by promoting the National Platform on biodiversity and linking it to other European Platforms, thus helping to improve the effectiveness of European biodiversity research. ','','Last update date for the www.maltabioplatform.org is 12/2/2010','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info http://www.maltabioplatform.org/ ','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/03/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Malta is not currently a participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility as a Participant or Associate member. There are also no organisations from Malta are participating in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI), which is the European contribution to GBIF.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','09/03/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC conditions implemented in Malta relate to minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), retention of terraces, standards for crop rotation (where applicable), arable stubble management, appropriate machinery use and the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative condition.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://docs.justice.gov.mt/LegalPub/Legal_Publications%5CLegal_Notices%5CEnglish%5C2009%5C207%20-%202009%20-%20E.pdf ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_1','','According to official data in 2010, for the period 2007-13, the Maltese indicative budget for expenditure from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounts to 77.65 million EUR and to 101.61 million EUR if national expenditures are included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 is that of 20.02 million EUR, and 25.03 million EUR if national expenditures are included. This amounts to 26 and 25 per cent of Axis 2 budget respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment measures (M214), the EAFRD budget is that 8.42 million EUR (10.53 with co-financing) and amounted to 10.84 per cent of the EAFRD (10.36 per cent with co-financing). Axis 2 Measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) were not selected for the current Rural Development Programme and therefore there is no expenditure allocated to these measures, according to reporting by the MS','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)0*0*Agri-environment payments (214)n/a*n/a*Forest environment payments (225)0*0**According to reporting by the Member State, following data refer to actual payments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 20th January 2010:(213): n/a(214): EAFRD: € 369, 953.57 Total: € 462, 441.32(224): n/a(215): n/a','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties and rare breeds of livestock is promoted. The Rural Development Fund 2004-2006 (funded under the EAGGF) enabled the uptake of funds aimed at the conservation of species in danger of genetic erosion including an agri-environment measure aimed at the ‘Conservation of Autochthonous species – Maltese Ox’. Moreover, the agri-environment measures under the RDP 2007-2013 provide for support for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture (including plant species and varieties and livestock breeds).   ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: RDP 2004 – 2006: http://www.agric.gov.mt/maltas-rural-dev04-08?l=1 RDP 2007 – 2013: http://www.agric.gov.mt/programming-period07-08?l=1 ','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Malta in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','19/2/2010','','','',''),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation or deforestation into account. Planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys are not applied. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 5 ha for afforestation and 3 ha for deforestation. No information on limitations of the application of SEA in hectare was available. It should be noted that afforestation and deforestation are regulated through different aspects of the Environment Protection Act and the Development Planning Act. Afforestation would constitute a ‘development’ under certain criteria of the latter Act. In such circumstances, afforestation would be subject to a development permit from MEPA, in which cases biodiversity considerations are taken into account.Indeed, the \'Environment Impact Assessment Regulations, 2007\' (Legal Notice 114 of 2007), which transpose the EIA Directive, published through the powers of the Development Planning and Environment Protection Acts, includes provisions related to afforestation and deforestation activities. An Environment Planning Statement or an Environment Impact Statement would be required depending on the area covered by the afforestation scheme. Afforestation and deforestation projects are also covered through Section 9 of Schedule IA of the above-mentioned Regulations, which refers to developments affecting natural and cultural heritage (such as protected trees and protected copses).Moreover, any afforestation activities located within protected areas declared under various Regulations of the Environment Protection Act would also be regulated, as for instance would afforestation within Special Areas of Conservation under the \'Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006\' (Legal Notice 311 of 2006). If such afforestation is not within management of the protected site, and is likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, an appropriate assessment would be required to assess the implications of such operation or activity on the site in view of the its conservation objectives, as per regulation 19 of the aforecited Regulations.Deforestation activities are covered through the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations (Legal Notice 114 of 2007). An Environment Planning Statement or an Environment Impact Statement would be required depending on the area covered by the deforestation (more than 3 ha; more than 10 ha, respectively).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/permitting-ea-overview http://www.mepa.org.mt/permitting-ea-sea http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpgdocuments/LNs/LN114%20english.pdf ','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','No information on forest certification in Malta was available.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','No information on Malta was available.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC conditions implemented in Malta relate to minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), retention of terraces, standards for crop rotation (where applicable), arable stubble management, appropriate machinery use and the maintenance of olive groves in good vegetative condition.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Malta developed the GAECs on the basis of the framework set up in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, taking into account the specific characteristics of Maltese conditions. Although all the issues indicated in the annex were covered, not all the standards were applicable to Malta. These standards are listed in Schedule III of the \'Cross-Compliance Related to EU Aid Applications in terms of the Paying Agency (Amendment) Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulations, 2009\' L.N. 207 of 2009.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://docs.justice.gov.mt/LegalPub/Legal_Publications%5CLegal_Notices%5CEnglish%5C2009%5C207%20-%202009%20-%20E.pdf ','19/2/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Members State’s response training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. No further details on training related to Axis 2 measures were provided. However, according to reporting by the Member State, farmers will benefit from training under Measure 111 on a number of subjects. These subjects may include (i) adherence to Cross Compliance requirements, (ii) understanding and implementing a Fertilizer Plan, (iii) the use of plant protection products, (iv) food handling, grading and traceability and (v) the use of information technologies and modern production methods. Beneficiaries from agri-environment payments are obliged to attend a minimum number of hours of training regarding this measure. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have not been put in place for any of the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	HNV farming.•	HNV forestry.•	Tree species composition.No other programme-specific biodiversity indicators have been drawn up. As regards population trends of farmland birds, in 2008, BirdLife Malta was contracted by the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs to monitor and evaluate requirements related to Farmland Birds, specifically to create the FB Index for Malta. The work was undertaken by BirdLife Malta in collaboration with the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) who helped with the development of the methodologies and provided expertise for fieldwork development and data analysis. The following Graph shows the FB Index for two hypothetical scenarios (I) an increase in all populations over 5 years and (II) a decrease of 10% in all populations over 5 years.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No linkDr. André Raine and Dr Simon Gillings, 2008. Farmland Bird Report for Malta. Sub-contracted to BirdLife Malta by Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 1 million € has been added to Malta’s national Rural Development Programme The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Malta provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’. ','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. However, projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. No details were available in this regard.Indicators documented on the State of the Environment for the years 2005 and 2006, have been compiled by the Malta Environment & Planning Authority (MEPA) in partnership with the National Statistics Office (NSO). In addition to the 2005 indicators a short note on soil biodiversity has been prepared and attached to the State of the Environment Report 2005. The State of the Environment Report (SOER) - 2005 provides indictors on: - soil organic matter, - concentration of heavy metals in soils - risk of soil erosionState of the Environment Indicators reported in 2006 (SOEI) for soils included:- soil organic matter,- lead concentrations in soil,- soil salinity.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: SOER 2005 - Soil indicatorshttp://www.mepa.org.mt/soer2005-soil SOER 2005 Soil Chapter: Short Note on Soil Biodiversityhttp://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1156 SOEI developed in 2006http://www.mepa.org.mt/soe2006-soil ','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 50 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats in Malta have an unfavourable conservation status, the remaining 50 per cent has an unknown status.     ','','Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Malta.Status of freshwater habitatsMediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2101050%0%50%0%U11  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','No information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Malta.According to European Environment Agency data, concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 58.8 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 54.6 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2002. ','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Malta had a total number of 82 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 94.3 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, over the time period reported the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values steadily increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, the colour of the water, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Malta provided no reporting on the development of biological assessments methods for rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters.According to reporting by the Member State, Malta is not designating any rivers, lakes and transitional waters under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) as it is scientifically not possible to apply the WFD methodology to the small inland water systems of Malta. Malta has developed an assessment method for Posidonia oceanica during the first intercalibration cycle. However, this needs to be revised within the second intercalibration cycle (2008-2011). No methods for other Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) have been developed yet.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no reporting of the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was provided for Malta.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, at the beginning of 2010, Malta had a total number of 8 IPPC installations and issued 6 permits. 2 permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Malta’s nitrogen oxides and sulphur emissions exceeded the ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) were already below. According to its reporting, by taking into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures, Malta will be able to meet its NEC targets for ammonia and NMVOCs, but will exceed those for sulphur oxides emissions and nitrogen oxides in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data,no information on the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and of eutrophication based on EEA core set indicators is available for Malta.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, the first comprehensive survey on the calculation of the Gross Nutrient Balance in Malta and Gozo covers the agricultural year from September 2006 to August in 2007. ','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=2364,  ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','No data on Austria exists as regards the index on trends in common farmland bird species by the European Census Council and Birdlife International. According to reporting by the Member State, a Farmland Bird Index has been developed in 2008. It included bird species from established European lists, together with other bird species, appearing mainly in a local context.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the existing Mediterranean grassland habitat in Malta has an unfavourable conservation status. 50 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, 17 per cent have an unknown status and the remaining 33 per cent was unreported. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','There are no heath and scrub habitats in Malta (only sclerophyllus Scrubs) or peat land habitats.  Mediterranean is the only biogeographical region in Malta.Status of grassland habitatsMediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U11  U20       Status of forest habitatsMediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6301250%0%17%33%U13  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','19/2/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_1','','Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The First Article 17 Report for Malta found that of the five marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (20%) and the other four had an ‘Unknown’ status (80%). There were seven coastal habitats assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region of Malta. One of these had a ‘Favourable’ status (14%), three had an ‘Inadequate status’ (43%), and the remaining three had a ‘Bad’ status (43%).Malta has 22 species to assess—including reptiles, fishes, mammals, plants, and invertebrates. All of these had an ‘Unknown’ status in the First Article 17 report.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats120%00%00%480%00%5MediterraneanCoastal habitats114%343%343%00%00%7Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%6100%00%6Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%00%12100%00%12Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%00%00%22100%00%22The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Malta has been developing a monitoring programme and a programme of measures for management action in coastal areas as required by the WFD. The monitoring programme and programme of measures are part of the 1st Water Catchment Management Plan (WCMP) that is due to be published in 2010. Malta reported that the monitoring programme will cover all coastal water bodies as designated by Malta under the WFD. Monitoring parameters will include all biological, supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. Priority substances and other pollutants will be monitored in the relevant water bodies. The Programme of Measures (PoM) will include measures for controlling point source and diffuse sources of pollution in coastal waters, as well as to regulate activities and development that have a potential impact on the good ecological and chemical status of the water body.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','05/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_1_5','','Malta submitted its official Report on the Implementation of the Recommendation forIntegrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe to the European Commission on 27 March 2006. Malta\'s ICZM Strategy is embodied in the Coastal Strategy Topic Paper prepared by MEPA as part of the Structure Plan Review. This Strategy was formulated as part of the revision of the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands and was prepared prior to Malta’s accession to EU membership. The aim is that this Strategy is integrated in the spatial planning process. ICZM is the remit of a number of agencies; however, the Malta Environment & Planning Authority has the leading role in order to ensure that ICZM issues are considered in development planning mechanisms.','','','Reference or title: Coastal Strategy Topic PaperWeblink: http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpg-structureplanreview#coastal','19/2/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_2','','Malta has 87 coastal bathing areas. The majority of these reached mandatory standards on water quality in 2008 (98.9%) and only one bathing water was non-compliant due to the presence of surface-active substances. In 2007 four bathing areas were non-compliant. The proportion of bathing areas reaching the stricter guideline standards has increased from 83.9% in 2006 to 94.3% in 2008. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as Malta has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years.','','-','','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_4','','Malta’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €2,900,000and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity particularly for migratory stocks such as blue fin tuna and swordfish. It also allows for improving gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€2,347,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and better coastal landscape management. Axis 3 (€5,460,105) promotes the protection of aquatic flora and fauna. There is no funding or activities under Axis 4.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/801&type=HTMLhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','19/2/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Malta had 1,412 vessels but there were no serious infringements reported. As for 2007, national data states that Malta detected 2 (two) serious infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy, but no penalties were imposed.','','','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_5_2','','These diadromous species are not recorded in Malta; hence this section is not applicable. ','','-','-','19/2/2010','','','11/5//2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Maltese fishing capacity remained relatively stable from 2004 – 2007, but then reduced slightly in 2008. Between 2004 and 2008 fishing vessels have reduced from 1,312 to 1,148 (13% reduction): tonnage from 15,115 to 10,807 tons (29% reduction) and power from 94,073 to 85,227kW (9% reduction). The fleet is now composed mainly of small-scale vessels under 12m in length which represent 99% of the fleet. There is no indication of any major future changes in fleet capacity. ','','2008 data: 1148 vessels; 10807 tons; 85227 kW. ','Member state data. These data are different to the data presented in the EC record on fleet capacity (http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en) because during these years recreational vessels registered with the Fisheries Department, were erroneously included in the assessment of the Maltese Fishing Fleet.','19/2/2010','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Malta had 1,413 active vessels but no type D infringements were reported. In 2007 Malta had 1,385 active vessels and one type D infringement was reported – fishing in an unauthorised area. Malta works to reduce by-catch through vessel inspections carried out by the Malta armed forces and market inspections by VRFCC (Veterinary Regulation Fisheries Conservation and Control).','','-','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Monitoring of marine biodiversity is being carried out both in the form of a series projects and in the form of compliance monitoring as per regulatory requirements.Sharks:The Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences (MCFS), the national institution responsible for scientific monitoring and research related to capture and culture fisheries in Malta, is actively participating in the Mediterranean International Bottom Trawl Survey (MEDITS Trawl Survey), which has been collecting information on the status of a number of species in the Mediterranean Sea. The MEDITS survey is performed in order to collect data on abundance and biological aspects of benthic and demersal species. The MCFS is also involved in another initiative known as MedLEM. MedLEM is a monitoring programme on the capture and sightings of the large cartilaginous fishes occurring in the Mediterranean Sea. This initiative contributes to the knowledge and conservation of the sharks by following a common protocol to collect data in the Mediterranean Basin. Due to the fact that this survey is carried out on a regular basis it is deemed as monitoring.Moreover, Malta (through the MCFS) has been collecting data under the Data Collection Regulation (DCR; EC 1639/01) now superseded, by the Data Collection Framework (DCF; EC 949/08), since 2005. In the new DCF period (i.e. 2011-2013), sharks have been included with other species and hence data will be collected under this framework. However, detailed data on sharks and rays began in 2007 during the MEDITS trawl survey (which is also part of the DCR/DCF). Seabirds: Malta holds approximately 10% of the world’s Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) population, the largest breeding population of European Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) in the Mediterranean and significant colonies of Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis). BirdLife Malta carries out an annual monitoring of the breeding colonies of these seabird populations.  This work is undertaken at key breeding sites on Malta, such as Rdum tal-Madonna and Gozo.  Other research carried out includes the Comino Bird Ringing Project, and ringing activities in nature reserves at Ghadira, Is-Simar and on the island of Filfla, a Bird Sanctuary designated for its breeding colony of European Storm-petrels.Another type of monitoring activity carried out in Malta is bird ringing which has been ongoing since 1965. Bird ringing is an important conservation tool to investigate aspects of bird ecology and biology such as survival rates, population age structure, breeding success rates and migration.  Understanding migration patterns is particularly important in terms of international conservation, as an understanding of migratory routes provides crucial information for the planning of integrated systems of protected areas.  Through the ongoing LIFE funded project “Monitoring and Conservation of Shearwaters and Petrels in the Maltese Islands (GARNIJA-MALTIJA)” a study was carried out with the aim of assessing the perceptions of fishers on seabird by-catch and to undertake a preliminary evaluation – using a questionnaire – of the impact of the Maltese fishing fleet on incidental by-catches of birds. ','','',' http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/profiles/mt.pdf','19/2/2010','','','11//5/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','-','-','19/2/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Malta has four marine Natura 2000 sites based on the method outlined below. However, there are different ways of defining marine Natura2000 sites and Maltese sources suggest there is only 1 marine Natura 2000 site within territorial waters, MT 101 \'Il-Bahar bejn Rdum Majjiesa u Ras ir-Raheb\', as stated in the Commission Decision 2008/335/EC. The method used to define this site as a marine Natura 2000 site is given in the clarifications below.  There have been no specific fisheries management measures adopted for this site, but this will be tackled once the management plan for the marine site is approved and implemented.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusThe criteria used by Malta to identify the one marine site is given below: Presence of the following: Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1170: Reef• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesPlants:• Posidonia oceanica• Cymodocea nodosa• Cystoseira compressa• Cystoseira ercegovicii• Cystoseira spinosa var. spinosa• Cystoseira spinosa var. tenuior• Cystoseira squarrosa• Cystoseira ercegovicii var. lateram• Sargassum acinarium• Sargassum vulgareInvertebrates:• Pinna nobilis• Spondylus gaederopus• Aplysina aerophoba• Astroides calycularis• Centrostephanus longispinus• Ophidiaster ophidianus• Lithophaga lithophaga• Dendropoma petraeum• Erosaria spurca• Luria lurida• Tonna galea• Maja squinado• Scyllarides latusData source: Standard Data Form for the MT 101 \'Bahar bejn Rdum il-Majjiesa to Ras ir-Raheb\'http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2kIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data:Marine sites within territorial waters: 1Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Lastly, another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf).','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.http://www.mepa.org.mt/impnatareas-pas-int-n2k','19/2/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Malta has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Through the Malta Centre for Fisheries Sciences (MCFS), Malta has been collecting data under the DCR and then DCF since 2005. The results obtained are used in national and regional fisheries management processes. An assessment of priority habitats and species present on Maltese territory is underway following which action Plans will be developed. The National Programme Proposal for 2009-2010 indicates that the data requirements to calculate the ecosystem indicators 1-4 in Appendix XII will be derived from the Mediterranean International Trawl Survey (MEDITS). VMS data will be used for indicators 5-7. Indicator 8 on the rate of discarding will be estimated from on-board observation data for the fleets Malta will survey and the transversal data (e.g. capacity and effort data). Indicator 9 on fuel efficiency will be calculated from data collected through the economic survey and transversal data.   ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' National Data Collection Programme: Malta 2009-2010 National Programme Proposal:https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_tabs1=folders&_20_folderId=95004&_20_cur1=1&_20_delta=20&_20_keywords=&_20_advancedSearch=false&_20_andOperator=true&cur2=2 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','19/2/2010','','','','09/03/10'),
	('Malta','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Malta was 3.31 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.95 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.71 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective4','A4_3','','Malta does not yet formally operate through a spatial planning context although a number of policies in the current policy framework do have a spatial planning nature. However this is contemplated in the current  MEPA reform process. Again, the current planning framework does not formally contemplate ecological networks but there were ad hoc instances where ecological networks were taken into account (eg. Scheduling of coastal cliffs, scheduling of some valleys, protection of Ghadira Isthmus etc). In Malta it is rather difficult to have continuous and large scale ecological networks in view of the small scale of the territory and the highly heterogenous and fragmented land use patterns.','','','','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective4','A4_4_1','','Whilst noting that the CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism have not yet been implemented in the national context, Malta has produced a National Tourism Policy for 2007 – 2011.Sustainable Tourism Development within the context of the National Tourism Policy is related to proper planning, development and performance of the tourism industry and reflects a management perspective which constantly relates and prioritises the economic importance of tourism without underestimating the tourism impacts on the cultural, social and environmental pillars of the Maltese Islands. The National Tourism Policy highly relates to the natural and built environment of the Maltese Islands and aims to tackle various objectives, including:1. to manage tourism in Malta and Gozo under the principles of sustainable development;2. to maintain and conserve environmental and socio-cultural resources, being the key elements of the Maltese Islands’ tourism product;3. to manage and balance economic, social and environmental impacts seeking the national interest, but not at the expense of degrading environmental and socio-cultural resourcesWhen focusing on tourism’s role in achieving these measures, the document states that in order to be competitive our tourism sector must operate within a clean and healthy environment and one which invests in innovation to secure the creative responses to competition and globalisation. On the whole, the National Tourism Policy is committed to support the implementation of projects to valorise on Malta’s unique environmental and cultural assets. ','','','Malta National Tourism Policy for 2007 – 2011 (www.ppcd.gov.mt/file.aspx?f=519','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Maltese direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 25.1 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','19/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Regulation 28 in Part V (Introduction and Reintroduction of species) of the Maltese Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations (2006) addresses several issues related to invasive alien species (IAS) including import, possession, introduction, control and eradication. With regards to specific legislation, various pieces of subsidiary legislation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) Chapter 435, Act XX of 2001 (as amended) contain provisions for addressing the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. Schedules and Regulations under the Trees and Woodland Protection Regulations 2001 (LN 12 of 2001) address import and trade of IAS. The import/export and possession of any species of fauna or flora that would endanger the biological identity of any Maltese ecosystem or species of fauna or flora is prohibited under Trade in Species of Fauna and Flora Regulations 2004 (LN 236 of 2004). Another set of regulations that can be applied to the import of non-native species of animals are Importation Control Regulations (2004). ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','According to the EEA, of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 17 are present in Malta. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2 (as last updated i30 June 2009)According to a comparative information provided by the Member State (Feb 2010) the number of worst invasive alien species in Malta would be 23.  These species include: Oryctolagus cuniculus, Rattus norvegicus, Carassius auratas, Fistularia commersonii, Gambusia affinis, Siganus luridus, Sphoeroides pachygaster, Rhyncophorus ferrugineus, Percnon gibbesi, Crepidula fornicate, Pinctada radiate, Acacia saligna, Ailanthus altissima, Carpobrotus edulis, Cortaderia selloana, Halophila stipulacea, Helianthus tuberosus, Opuntia ficus – indica, Oxalis pes-caprae, Robinia pseudoacacia, Asparagopsis armata, Caulerpa racemosa, Womersleyella setacea. However, it should be noted that the number of invasive alien species in Malta is much larger since a number of alien species present in Malta considered to be invasive are not included in the EEA list of “the worst invasive alien species”. This is also because the island ecosystems are more threatened by alien invasions than the continental Europe.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_1_2','','The Sustainable Development Strategy for the Maltese Islands (2006-2016) identifies the need for a national policy on the introduction and eradication of IAS as a main component of the policy sub-theme ‘Nature and Biodiversity’. A national IAS strategy is under development.The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) for Malta is currently being developed. The NBSAP will address IAS as one of the key threats to national biological diversity.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Malta has not yet ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','19/2/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, nationally two studies have been commissioned by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) to develop lists of alien flora and fauna already present in the islands. The aim of these studies is to identify IAS in Malta, e.g. establish their current range and invasiveness and assess the threats posed to local biodiversity. In addition, the current use of these species will be assessed. In the end, recommendations will be provided on the management of these species. The collected data will help to build a national database on alien species. No early warning and information system for IAS is under development yet.','',' The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, besides having ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Malta has adopted relevant EU Regulations and Directives including Regulation 1946/2003 on transboundary movements, which implements the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety into EU law. No legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming has yet been adopted. Malta does not impose any bans on GMO cultivation and no GMOs are yet cultivated in Malta.According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Malta.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','19/2/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective6','A6_1_1','','While the 4th National Report has not been submitted to the CBD, the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is under development. Malta had paid her annual contribution to CBD, CMS and Ramsar Convention, but not to the World Heritage Convention. Malta is not a party to AEWA and has hence not made a financial contribution to the Agreement.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Malta for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure on Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Malta for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','19/2/2010','','','07/01/201006/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Malta has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Malta’s EIA and SEA procedures reflect the requirements of the relevant EU directives as well as national legislation, particularly the ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2007’ (LN 114 of 2007) and ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, 2005’ (LN 418 of 2005 as amended by LN 327 of 2008).These regulations require carrying out the assessments of the projects and programmes listed in their respective schedules. As such, these involve the carrying out of environment impact assessments (EIA) for development projects that may have significant impacts on natural and human populations, and the undertaking of strategic environment assessments (SEA) for plans or programmes that may result in significant effects on the environment prior to the implementation of the actual project.The environmental assessment of EU funded projects is carried out for their relevant activities of parts thereof that fall under the categories listed in the Schedules of the EIA and SEA regulations.','','','Reference or title: Weblink:EIA Legislation:http://www.mepa.org.mt/lpgdocuments/LNs/LN114%20english.pdfSEA Legislation:http://www.mepa.org.mt/LpDocumentDetails?syskey= 894 ','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective8','A8_1','','While Malta has not provided funds to the CBD Access & Benefit-sharing Working Group and does not have specific legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on ABS, she has incorporated the provisions on ABS of the CBD text into national legislation. The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources has been signed but not yet ratified. Information on national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available. Malta has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied; a small number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The ABS requirements of the CBD text have been incorporated in national legislation via the \'Convention on Biological Diversity (Incorporation) Regulations, 2002\' (Legal Notice 160 of 2002). This Legal Notice entered into force through Legal Notice 173 of 2002. In 2006, the \'Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006\' (Legal Notice 311 of 2006, as amended by Legal Notice 426 of 2007 and Legal Notice 162 of 2009) entered into force. The aim of these Regulations is to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity in the territory of the Member States of the European Community through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the Maltese Islands. Moreover, these Regulations provide the provisions required for the implementation in Malta of a variety of European Directives and Regional Agreements.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Convention on Biological Diversity (Incorporation) Regulations, 2002 http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1507Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=1211','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Malta did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','19/2/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources has been signed but not yet ratified.','','','','19/2/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective8','A8_1_4','','Information on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available.','','','','19/2/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 122, 36 and 1, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. Malta made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens. In 2007 3 seizures were carried and in 2008 8 seizures were made, amounting to 2% and 5% respectively. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and technical assistance to Staff of enforcement authorities, traders, NGOs and the public Oral and written advice/guidance, training and financial assistance was also provided to the Scientific Authority. Malta has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Malta has paid its contributions to the CITES Trust Fund for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 in full in October 2009.','','The information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined as provided in the Biennial Report 2007/2008 as submitted to the EC.','','19/2/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Malta','Objective9','','','','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Malta has not yet produced a National Biomass Action Plan. On the other hand Malta has produced its forecast document as required in Article 4(3) of the Directive 2009/28/EC \'On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC\'. This document is foreseen to be an essential component of the NREAP for Malta.Key mechanisms in implementing sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids and requirements addressing the impact of biomass for cooling, heating and electricity on biodiversity are not yet being developed in Malta. This is due to the fact that the relevant requirements have not yet been transposed nationally. ','','','http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/doc/malta_forecast_english.pdf','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','19/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Malta','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Within the context of SAP-BIO, Malta had produced a ‘National Overview on vulnerability and impacts related to Climate Change on Mediterranean marine and coastal biodiversity’. This report provides a brief overview of the information available on climate change impacts, as well as an expert opinion on the vulnerability of Maltese biodiversity to such impacts. Based on this overview, Malta acknowledges that research related to climate change is still in its preliminary phases and there are significant gaps in information and knowledge on local trends in climate parameters, climate change impacts and the vulnerability of the Maltese Islands to such impacts.','','','','19/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','MandE','C1_2','','The Netherlands apply 20 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, while having nationally adapted further 4 of the indicators. The only SEBI indicators not applied are Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms, and Patent applications based on genetic resources. The national nature balance report lists some 6 additional biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','15/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','MandE','C1_2_1','','The Netherlands apply 20 of the 26 SEBI indicators directly, while having nationally adapted further 4 of the indicators. The only SEBI indicators not applied are Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms, and Patent applications based on genetic resources. The national nature balance report lists some 6 additional biodiversity indicators.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/HaltingBiodiversityLossInTheNetherlands.pdf      ','09/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','MandE','C1_3_1','','The Netherlands operate monitoring schemes for all major habitat types and for the major species groups (birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates, plants).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','09/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Public resources for biodiversity include the following:The National budget, including the specific budgets of the ministries involved in biodiversity policy;Budgets of the provinces of the Netherlands (mainly financed by the National budget);Budgets of the municipalities of the Netherlands (only partly financed by the National budget);Budgets of the water boards in the Netherlands;EU resources.A mix of policies including financial support and incentives is developed and supplied in the Netherlands. The mayor ones include the following:Green funds: applied for a broad field of activities: e.g. nature conservation, sustainable forestry, etcAccelerated depreciation for investments: applied for a broad field of activities e.g. prevention of invasive species, fish migration facilities, and so on.A tax exemption is in place reducing the fiscal real estate value of historical estates (Natuurschoonwet). This measure provides essential support to the maintenance of privately owned nature areas. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, the Netherlands spent up to EUR7.938.526 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. The Netherlands spent up to EUR6.734.487 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites.  However, the Netherlands have provided the following figures for their expenditure for management and restoration:Expenditure management 2004: 60 mlnExpenditure restoration 2004: 15 mlnExpenditure management 2005: 70 mlnExpenditure restoration 2005: 13 mlnExpenditure management 2006: 80 mlnExpenditure restoration 2006: 23 mlnExpenditure management 2007: 85 mlnExpenditure restoration 2007: 60 mlnExpenditure management 2008: 83 mlnExpenditure restoration 2008: 72 mln','','The information on national programmes is taken from the Netherland’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the Netherlands’ contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','11/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Measure1','B1_1_4','','The Netherland’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR5.7m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR1.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR15.5m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','11/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Measure1','B1_1_8','','The Netherlands allocated EUR12,000,000 each year from 2006 to 2009 for European and national biodiversity research activities and programmes.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','11/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure2','B2_4','','Policy programme Biodiversity 2008 - 2011; Action plan Biodiversity 2008-2011; www.biodiversiteit.nl ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:biodiversiteit.nl','23/03/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','na','11/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Measure4','B4_1_1','','A communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level. The Netherlands reported that this campaign has been fully implemented.The Dutch communication strategy \'COMBIO\"(Communication Biodiversity) supported international communication between governmental bodies, NGOs and Businesses. In addition, educational programmes on biodiversity were supported through grants and by the publication of policy documents regarding Environmental Education (EE) and Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).','','Further information can be found on weblinks provided below. ','Reference or title: National Biodiversity Communication CampaignsWeblinks: www.biodiversiteit.nl www.nme.nl www.senternovem.nl/LvDO','15/03/2009','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) (11/10/2006), National Museum of Natural History Naturalis (04/09/2009), Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency (22/05/2007), Reconstructiecommissie Kempenland (25/04/2008), Staatsbosbeheer, Regio Zuid (19/01/2007), Waterschap Aa en Maas, Waterschap Brabantse Delta, Waterschap De Dommel and Waterschap Rivierenland (15/02/2007) all made declarations supporting the IUCN Countdown Initiative. Waterschap Aa en Maas communicated that it was committed to contributing to the improvement of water quality and to the implementation several nature recovery projects related to water management initiatives. Waterschap De Dommel communicated that it was starting up a working group on biodiversity in the waterboard in the Province of Noord Brabant in order to develop a Biodiversity Action Plan.Between 2006-2008, the Netherlands contributed a total sum of 218,000 euros to fund IUCN Countdown projects.','','In 2006 the Netherlands, contributed 150,000 euros to fund Local and Regional Authorities for Biodiversity 2010. In 2007, the Netherlands, contributed 15,000 to fund “Countdown 2010 National Activities (LNV)” and 53,000 euros to fund “Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Lounge, Belgrade Norway, Belgium”. This contribution of 53,000 euros was shared between the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium.','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedWeblinks:www.iucn.nl www.ecnc.nl ','15/03/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of 5 of 6 (83%) Pannonian rocky habitats is reported to be favourable. All sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in unfavourable-inadequate condition. 3 of 5 (60%) of both freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The only coastal and halophytic habitat (pannonic salt steppes and salt marshes), the only dune habitat, and both heath and scrub habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. There is a slight uncertainty with 1 of 12 (8%) of Pannonian grasslands reported as of unknown condition.','15/02/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%360%240%00%00%5Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%18%1083%18%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%360%240%00%00%5Rocky habitats583%117%00%00%00%6Forests00%00%13100%00%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Hungary has designated 467 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 13,973 km², totalling 15.0% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 55, with a total area of 13,512 km², totalling 14.5% of the country’s area. The total area of the overall Natura 2000 network (excluding overlaps) is 19,682 km².','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Hungary.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','15/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Management plans were prepared for 20 Natura 2000 sites in 2009 with the financial assistance of Transition Facility (A 2006/18/176.02.01). These Natura 2000 sites with management plans cover alltogether ~45,000 ha. Requirements concerning the contents of the management plans were laid down in the 275/2004 (X. 8.) govermental regulation. The plans were prepared by a consortium (members: Szent István University Gödöllő -Institute of Environmental and Landscape Management; VÁTI Hungarian Public Nonprofit Limited Liability Company for Regional Development and Town Planning; Hungarian Academy of Sciences - Institute of Ecology and Botany ) in close cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Water and national park directorates since the plans are supposed to serve as samples for the preparation of further management plans. It is important to emphasize that the Hungarian regulation prescribes a management plan for each protected area in form of an act of the minister responsible for nature protection. Consequently, in many Natura 2000 areas the main necessary management requirements have already been put in force in form of a management plan as well. This concerns an overlap with Natura 2000 on 53,684 ha, involving parts or complete 29 Natura 2000 sites (21 SCI, 8 SPA). Protected areas with a management plan in preparation cover 545,707 ha, and fully or partly overlap with 146 (118 SCI, 28 SPA) Natura 2000 sites. The figures of the table take into account the management plans that affect Natura 2000 and protected areas as well.In frame of LIFE projects management plans have been already prepared for 9 SPA, and the preparation of management plans for 4 SCI is in process. We also would like to highlight that Hungary has identified High Nature Value Farmland Areas (HNVFA) in order to maintain the favourable condition of those agricultural areas which can be considered as environmentally sensitive and also play a very important role in saving biological diversity. The feasibility studies of the HNVFAs contain the detailed review of the areas particularly focusing on the natural values and reasonable land use prescriptions. The 25 HNVFAs fully or partly overlap with 128 Natura 2000 sites (101 SCI and 27 SPA). It means that the most important requirements for farming have been identified on 50% (476,645 ha) of the utilized agricultural area of the Natura 2000 network, so that in effect these studies play the role of management plans for the overlapping Natura 2000 sites.Moreover, Hungary is in a special situation since a significant share of the protected - and in addition Natura 2000 – areas are state owned. More than 55% of this territory (154,000 ha) is managed by local farmers. The land use contracts between the national park directorates and farmers contain in every case the management commitments that have to be fulfilled in course of the farming activities. Obviously, the interests of Natura 2000 network are considered by the definition of land use prescriptions in first place.It is also of high importance that the approval of the MoEW is needed in case of each plan for forestry management. Meanwhile, the review of previously validated forest management plans on Natura 2000 sites is still in progress and will have been finished by 2010.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_2_3','','The main legal background of the National Ecological Network is ensured by the Act on Nature Conservation No. LIII of 1996. Prescriptions for the areas of the network have been built into the Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003. The Act and the database of the National Ecological Network were amended in 2008, when – as a major improvement - most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured on planning level. By the Act, the areas of the network must be supervised every 5 years.National Ecological Network (following the guidelines of the Pan-European Ecological Network)Area: 3 350000 haCore area: 1 782 000 ha (53%)Ecological corridor: 845 000 ha (25%)Buffer area: 720 000 ha (22%)Legally protected: 835 000 ha (23%)     (The network includes protected and non protected areas)Natura 2000 area (overlapping): 1 883 000 ha (56%)More than 95% of the protected nature conservation areas, and about 95% of the Natura 2000 areas belong to the National Ecological Network.The protection and maintenance of the values of the ecological network take place in the framework of one of the main strategic documents of the Hungarian nature conservation, in the National Environmental Programme, and in the National Nature Conservation Master Plan (appendix of the Programme).The latest National Environmental Programme covers the period 2009-2014 (NKP III.) and emphasizes coherence and ensurance of harmonised protection between the elements of the Natura 2000 network and other parts of the National Ecological Network, in line with Article 10 of the Habitats Directive.  Using EU Funds, such as LIFE and LIFE+ programmes as well as the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (since 2006) special attention has been paid to the protection, maintenance and development of nationally protected areas as well as Natura 2000 sites (including ecological corridors, landscape features as well), : -	Habitat restoration projects: aiming to restore damaged habitats and to create new habitats and ecological corridors, -	Technical adjustment of linear infrastructure to remove ecological barriers for migrating birds. See short description of “Accessible Sky programme, partly funded from the Environment and Energy Operational Programme (see under additional clarifications). Other tools to strengthen coherence, connectivity and support of biodiversity in the wider environment: -	Programme for establishing the transboundary Fertő-Hanság/Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel Ramsar Site between Hungary and Austria (2009)-	Establishing of the Croatian-Hungarian Transboundary Mura-Drava-Danube Biosphere Reserve (nomination with UNESCO MAB Programme, 2009)-	Transboundary eco-tourism development programmes, and establishment of study trails and promotional campaigns in the border region-	Joint transboundary monitoring (e.g. Natura 2000 monitoring) and habitat restauration programmes-	Common Geopark project (Nógrád Geopark)-	Programme to improve the co-operation activities along the River Drava in order to amend the protection of biodiversity-	Common water management development project (Hungary-Ukraine) -	Establishment of a common network for protected nature conservation areas in the West-Pannonian region (PANANAET program)','','Act on Nature Conservation no. LIII of 1996: The most important provisions for the ecological network (article 53, paragraph (2) sections a-b):„By the act the establishing, developing and supporting of the National Ecological Network must be an important task in the National Environmental Action Plan.” The Act  contains the definition of the ecological network and the ecological corridor.By the Act, the National Environmental Programme shall contain the long term and medium term aspects of the establishment and maintenance of the ecological network and ecological corridors.National Nature Conservation Master Plan II (2003-2008)  (Part of the National Environmental Programme, Parliament Resolution, No. 132/2003 (XII.11.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2003-2008):“The various natural and landscape assets of the country, outstanding in international comparison too, can be safeguarded by designating protected areas in all planning-statistical regions, as well as by way of ecological networks that include the protected areas, too”.The National Environmental Programme includes as an appendix the National Nature Conservation Master Plan, which is one of the most important tools for protecting biodiversity in Hungary.National Nature Conservation Master Plan III (2009-2014)(Part of the National Environmental Programme III, Parliament Resolution, No. 96/2009. (XII. 9.) OGY on the National Environmental Programme for 2009-2014).Act on National Spatial Plan No. XXVI. of 2003:By the Act the National Ecological Network must be one of the national spatial zones in the spatial plans, and the network must be a highlighted zone in regional spatial plans. Ecological networks included in 14 regional plans have been approved.The amended Act on the National Spatial Plan came into force in July 2008. The National Ecological Network (core area, ecological corridors, buffer zones) are determined by this plan. Most of the Natura 2000 sites were also classified into the zones of the National Ecological Network, so the protection of these sites has been assured at planning level.Accessible Sky agreement for  bird-friendly transformation of high, medium and low voltage power lines on a national scale:Timescale: 2008-2020. Aerial power lines pose a serious threat to wild bird populations due to electrocution and collision. For several endangered species, power lines are among the most important causes of mortality. An agreement was prepared and signed in February 2008 on collaboration among all distribution companies as well as the Ministry of Environment and Water and BirdLife Hungary to minimise bird mortality along power lines. Funding is provided mainly through the Structural Funds (Environment and Energy Operational Programme), LIFE Nature and LIFE+, but thanks to the improving co-operation, distribution companies also co-finance the projects. Most prominent recent examples are the burial of 80 km of medium-voltage power lines in the Hortobágy National Park (Structural Funds), the burial of 11 km of medium voltage power lines in the Borsodi Mezőség Landscape Protection Area (LIFE Nature) and the fitting of bird diverters on 45 km of medium and high voltage power lines in some of the most important Great Bustard sites in Hungary to avoid collision (LIFE Nature). Presently running projects include two LIFE Nature projects (focussing on Saker Falcon and Red-footed Falcon) aiming at the insulation of a total of 910 km of medium voltage power lines. There is an important, self-financed initiative by the Hungarian high-voltage electricity distribution company to fit high-voltage power lines with markers where there are conflicts with the most important bird habitats. Under the agreement, BirdLife Hungary, commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and Water, produced a conflict map in late 2008 to prioritise all power lines in Hungary as to the urgency of bird-friendly conversion. The total length of top priority power lines is 21,700 km. Based on this figure, the funding needed to convert all top priority power lines is in the order of 60 million euros. The plan is to eliminate most of this threat by 2020. Under the agreement, and based on regular consultations with all partners concerned, distribution companies have also prepared and constantly update BAT (best available technology) for the creation of bird-friendly power lines where new power lines are set up. The BAT documentation is available in Hungarian. BirdLife Hungary has set up a national database of all observed bird casualties and runs yearly surveys to monitor certain power lines. The Act on Nature Conservation No. 53 of 1996 was also amended in December 2008 to only allow bird-friendly technologies at new or fully renewed power lines. Locations of particular importance to birds are carefully considered in the planning phase, especially since Hungary’s accession to the European Union, as the requirement of an appropriate assessment is compulsory also in Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive. ',':www.kvvm.hu, www.termeszetvedelem.hu , www.tuzok.hu, http://www.falcoproject.hu/hu/content/show, http://www.sakerlife.mme.hu/en/content/show','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 284 regularly occurring bird species in Hungary, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 9 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Hungary, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 9 of 21 (43%) fish, 18 of the 74 (24%) invertebrates and 14 of the 43 (33%) mammals and 10 of the 44 (23%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 17 of the 26 (65%) amphibians and reptiles, 33 of 74 (45%) of invertebrates, 20 of the 43 (47%) mammals and 22 of the 44 (50%) plants was reported unfavourable-inadequate. 9 of the 74 (12%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 44 (25%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 6 of the 26 (23%) amphibians and reptiles, 6 of the 21 (29%) fish, 14 of the 74 (19%) invertebrates and 7 of the 43 (16%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported PannonianAmphibians and reptiles14%1765%28%623%00%26Fish943%629%00%629%00%21Invertebrates1824%3345%912%1419%00%74Mammals1433%2047%25%716%00%43Plants1023%2250%1125%12%00%44','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','15/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Hungary has the following completed species action plans: 2 for birds, 4 for mammals, 3 for amphibians and reptiles, 1 for fish, 10 for invertebrates and 20 for plants. In addition, there 2 are species action plans for mammals in preparation. A biodiversity indicator for agricultural habitats and a biodiversity indicator for forest habitats have been derived from the Monitoring of Our Common Birds Scheme. The species groupings follow the 2008 recommendations of the European Bird Census Council (EBCC). The Farmland Bird Index derived from this scheme is used by the European Commission as an indicator of sustainable development. A Red Data list is under preparation for birds by BirdLife Hungary. 57 bird, 34 mammal, 10 amphibian and reptile, 35 fish and 179 plant species have been listed on the Red Data list by OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Hungary 2008.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Hungary 2008.  ','15/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective10','A10_1','','The Netherlands is preparing new research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. Themes of this new national research program include ecosystem functions and services, dynamic nature, and spatial perspectives.','','','Reference or title:Weblink: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research: www.nwo.nl  ','25/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective10','A10_1_2','','The Netherlands has a national follow-up planned to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The MA approach is currently used by the national taskforce on biodiversity and valuation/accounting methods are used for the assessment of ecosystem services.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: www.taskforcebiodiversiteit.nl; www.alterra.wur.nl ','25/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The national biodiversity platform in the Netherlands is an independent, national network of researchers, funders, policymakers and users.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info NL Bioplatform: http://www.biodiversiteit.nl/samenwerking-voor-biodiversiteit/netwerken-nederland/nederlandse-biodiversiteitsplatform ','25/02/2010','','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective10','A10_1_9','','The Netherlands became voting Participants in GBIF in February 2001. The Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility (NLBIF) is the Dutch national node of the GBIF. The objectives of the Netherlands national GBIF node (NLBIF) are to: act as a national focal point for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF); form a national platform for the sharing of biodiversity data, information and know-how available in The Netherlands; provide access to biodiversity data, information and know-how in other countries, for users in The Netherlands; and stimulate the development and promote the use of ICT tools and methodologies to support data management, exchange, analysis and electronic dissemination of biodiversity information worldwide.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.Several Dutch organisations participate in ENBI. The University of Amsterdam Zoological Museum is the overall Co-ordinator of ENBI and are also the lead contractors on Work Package 1: Coordination and continuity. The NGO (in operational relations with UNESCO) Expert centre for Taxonomic Identification (ETI) are the lead contractors for Work Package 9: Interoperability and common access. The general objectives of this Work package are to: make an inventory of existing interoperability tools in the various domains of biodiversity databases and data collections, to enhance common protocols and approaches;  build a library of functions to support an overarching architecture for interoperability and common access based on elements and efforts existing in the biodiversity informatics community (Species2000, BioCASE, ALLSpecies, etc); and develop a design for a prototype to demonstrate the feasibility of an interoperable system with common access to selected databases and the Species 2000 europa project in collaboration with work package 8.Some of the Dutch organisations are involved as ‘members’ of other Work Packages. This includes the Centre for Genetic Resources, at Plant Research International B.V. who are members of Work Package 6: Collections and the National Herbarium of the Netherlands, who are members of Work Package 13: non European Data Globally Available.The Netherlands Biodiversity Information Facility (NLBIF), who are the national node for the Global  Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of several Work Packages, including WP2: ENBI Forums, WP5: Check lists and species banks, WP6: Collections, WP7: Observational data, WP12 Info services on European data and WP13: non European Data Globally Available. ','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','25/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other GAEC standards relate to minimum soil cover requirements, minimum land management measures reflecting site-specific conditions, the retention of terraces, arable stubble management and avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','08/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in the Netherlands total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 593.2 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 1121.34 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 183.37 million EUR, and 346.28 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 30.91 and 30.88 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in the Netherlands was 130.44 million EUR (246.34 with co-financing) and amounted to 21.99 per cent of the EAFRD (21.97 per cent with co-financing). There are no payments in the Netherlands for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)33.57385102.694Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State, a national strategy and action plan has been developed and adopted that specifically addresses the conservation of genetic resources. The national strategic goals are fully in line with the CBD, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and the Global Plan of Actions on plant genetic resources and Animal genetic resources. The key aims are further elaborated in the policy document \"Sources of Existence\' (Bronnen van Ons Bestaan (2002), which focuses on sustainable management of genetic resources.   The Member State does not provide information on specific in situ projects that aim to maintain genetic diversity, but notes that the action plans regarding ex-situ management of genetic resources and the coordination concerning in-situ management of genetic resources in the Netherlands on PGR, AnGR and Forestry GR has been entrusted to the Center for Genetic Resources, Netherlands at Wageningen. Further information is provided in the National Report on Animal Genetic Resources (2004) and the Second National Report on Plant Genetic Resources (2009).   ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','18/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in the Netherlands in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. However, no details have been provided.No planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are applied for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation operations. It remains unclear to what extent they are carried out for deforestation operations.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 the Netherlands had a total certified forest area of 181,538 hectares out of a total forest area of 365,000 hectares. All of the certified forest area in the Netherlands was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 49.74 per cent of the total forest area.According to reporting by the Member State, 151.516 ha (42%) of the forest area was FSC certified at the end of 2009. ','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC website; Kerngegevens Bos en Hout in Nederland van ProbosWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','24/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in the Netherlands amounted to 0.37 million ha, representing a share of 14.1 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, the following standards of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) have been implemented:•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.Other GAEC standards relate to minimum soil cover requirements, minimum land management measures reflecting site-specific conditions, the retention of terraces, arable stubble management and avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf','08/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'12/05/2010',NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to reporting by the Member State, monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (regional and national level).Tree species composition (regional and national level).','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','24/3/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 98 million € has been added to the Netherland’s Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, the Netherlands attributed € 23 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 23 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','24/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, monitoring is undertaken by the Soil Biological Indicator Programme (BOBI) to provide a national overview of soil ecosystems with different soil types and land use. Data is combined with practical data to show the relation between agricultural measures, soil management and sustainable soil use. However, it remains unclear to what extent parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory. Projects have been undertaken by the Member State to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity, but no details were submitted.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.kennisonline.wur.nl/KB/KB-01/001/019/    ','18/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all seven occurrences of Atlantic fresh water habitat in the Netherlands have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Atlantic is the only biogeographical region in the Netherlands.Status of freshwater habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U16  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ andhttp://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in the Netherlands ammonium data were only available until 2002, where it amounted to 0.58 mg N/l. Previous years showed a slight downward trend.  2002 values were higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a slight downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 3.16 mg N/l in 2002 to 3.13 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were below weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 21.1 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 22.2 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 28.5 mg NO3/l in 2003. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present a downward trend, decreasing from 0.135 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.105 mg P/l in 2005, but with 2005 values well above the weighted average of 0.058 mg P/l for Western Europe. No information on phosphorus concentrations in rivers was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 the Netherlands had a total number of 396 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 71.2 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values had increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the Netherlands developed all four biological assessment methods for lakes and rivers, including phytoplankton, macrophytes and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish fauna, as well as all four assessment methods for transitional  waters and all three for coastal waters, including phytoplankton, macro-algae and angiosperms, and benthic invertebrates.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by the Netherlands under the Water Framework Directive.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 the Netherlands had a total number of 2565 IPPC installations and issued 4065 permits. 472 permits were still outstanding.','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 the Netherlands’ emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and ammonia were still above relevant targets set by the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD). Emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOV) were already lower than the relevant ceilings. Projections for 2010 indicate that nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and NMVOC emissions will fall within national NECD ceilings. Ammonia will slightly exceed the target.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in the Netherlands the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 76 and 94 per cent respectively, considering an area of 6,968 km2 and 4,447 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 71 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 60 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 88 per cent in 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 76 per cent of  natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, the Netherland’s gross nitrogen balance was 229 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 34 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, the Netherlands’ national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. By 2006 the indicator was at 74.7 per cent, a 25.3 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 15 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. ','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic grassland, forest, heath,scrub and peat land habitats in the Netherlands have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','Atlantic is the only bio geographical region in the Netherlands.Status of grassland habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage88000100%0%0%0%U12  U26       Status of forest habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U15  U22       Status of heath and scrub habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11  U21       Status of peat land habitatsATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U14  U23       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','24/3/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','','','10/12/2009',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for the Netherlands found that of the two Marine Atlantic marine habitats, one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%) and the other had a ‘Bad’ status (50%). There were five coastal habitats assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (60%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (40%).A total of 32 species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, comprising reptiles, fish and mammals. Of these 32, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (3%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (9%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (6%), one had an ‘Unknown’ status (3%), and the remaining 25 were ‘Not reported’ (78%).','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%150%150%00%00%2AtlanticCoastal habitats00%360%240%00%00%5Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%4100%4Marine AtlanticFish00%250%125%00%125%4Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals14%14%14%14%2083%24Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL13%39%26%13%2578%32The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_1_4','','The Netherlands reported that, in 2009, it had 26 surveillance stations and 16 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. The Netherlands has 15 coastal water bodies. Approximately 75% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has assessment methods developed for monitoring phytoplankton, for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm and for monitoring benthic invertebrates. No information was available concerning the status of the programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','11/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_2','','Netherlands has 86 coastal bathing waters and 100% of these have reached mandatory standards for water quality between 2006 and 2008. A high proportion of these have also reached the stricter guideline standards although this dropped from 90.7% in 2006 and 2007 to 88.4% in 2008. In terms of nutrient concentrations in coastal waters, sampling sites in the North Sea off Holland’s coast have shown no change in nitrogen concentrations between 1985 and 2005. However 21 out of 29 sites have seen a decrease in phosphate concentrations over the same time period. ','','-','','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_4','','Netherland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €45,613,233 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and encouraging investment in more sustainable fishing techniques. Axis 2 (€17,779,398) includes the aim to increase the sustainability of mollusc cultivation and to reduce discards and waste in processes. Axis 3 (€46,403,461) includes an aim to promote sustainable management of fish stocks and increase the share of environmentally certified fish. Axis 4 does not have any specific environmental measures.The Netherlands has chosen to use funding provided under the European Fisheries Fund in a very specific way focusing on innovation and collaboration. It was decided that after years of decommissioning schemes the time had come to shift away from expansion of fishing effort towards innovation and collaboration with the industry on more sustainable fishing techniques. This approach was built on principles of driving change from the industry itself, and through competition and collaboration as providing the best climate for innovation.The Netherlands therefore opted for tendering schemes which provide opportunities for all fishermen or groups to come up with and implement innovative plans. Over a two-year period (2008/2009) 150 innovation and collaboration plans and projects were submitted for approval. A selection was made of the best 50 and these were awarded with an EFF grant.','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htmhttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/24&type=HTML','01/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/12/2009',NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 the Netherlands had 831 vessels and 12% were involved in a serious infringement (96 vessels). A total of 15 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,005 and maximum fine of €2,500.','','2007 data is not currently available. The Netherlands commented that they would have preferred existing 2009 data to be used – however this was not provided by the Commission or by the Netherlands.  ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_5_2','','No information on restoration programmes for diadromous species was provided by the Netherlands','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Netherland’s fishing capacity has reduced consistently since 1999 until 2008. The number of vessels has reduced from 1,118 to 823 (26% reduction); tonnage from 191,792 to 146,921 (23% reduction) and power from 503,639 to 343,943kW (32% reduction). The Netherlands operational programme for fisheries 2007-2013 sets an objective of reducing overcapacity in the plaice and sole fisheries of the North Sea by 15% during 2007 and 2008. This has so far been achieved. However, the capacity of pelagic trawlers segment increased in 2007 by 7% in tonnage and 12% in power following the replacement of the capacity withdrawn during 2006.  ','','2008 data: 823 vessels; 146921 tons; 343943 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf ','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 the Netherlands had 831 active vessels. There were 35 type D breaches in this year and 10 penalties imposed with an average fine of €1,167. No information on actions taken to improve enforcement of CFP measures relating to unwanted by-catch and damage to the benthos was provided by the Netherlands.','','2007 data is not currently available ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_6_2','','No information on monitoring programmes for sharks or seabirds was provided by the Netherlands. ','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink: www.noordzeenatura2000.nl ','12/04/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','The Netherlands has 13 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). To date, no requests have been made to the Commission concerning fisheries measures within marine Natura2000 sites outside of territorial waters. However, there are three requests in preparation for Doggerbank, Clever Bank and Frisian Fron as part of the ICES-led FIMPAS project.Within territorial waters, there are three Marine Natura2000 sites for which specific fisheries measures are being considered (Voordelta, Vlakte van de Raan and the North Sea Coastal Zone) – collectively known as the Heijkoop process. Within one of these sites, the Voordelta area, the Commission has confirmed measures proposed by the Netherlands (Commission Decision of 11 June 2008) for the conservation of marine eco-systems (notified under document number C(2008) 2415 2008/915/EC). There have also been fisheries restrictions within Compensation Natura 2000 sites that were created following the extension of Rotterdam harbour. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 10Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.www.noordzeenatura2000.nl ','12/04/2010','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','A3_7_1','','The Netherlands has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. Indicators 1-3 listed in Appendix XIII require data on species abundance and length distribution by species from fishery independent research surveys. Such information is collected routinely in the Netherlands through established trawl surveys such as IBTS and BTS. The information is available for part of the marine region defined by the survey area on a haul by haul basis. Indicator 4 requires extended information on age, length, sex and maturity from fishery independent research surveys. From 2009 onwards, this information will be collected for the target species in the surveys. Indicators 4-7 require position registration data based on VMS. VMS data will be made available for research purpose under certain conditions, safeguarding the confidentiality of the identity of the vessel. The data are available in a resolution of one record every 2 hours and are stored in the central database VISSTAT. This database also contains logbook and selling slips data. The different data sources can be linked. The data collection through the LEI panel allows for the direct calculation fuel costs per quarter and métier for some segments. Estimation of the total costs for fuel  (indicator 9) in these métiers will be based on total effort from logbooks and fuel costs per sea day from panel data. For all other fleet segments, fuel costs per métier and quarter will be estimated, based on the quarterly effort by métier. The fuel costs per sea day is considered to be equal in different métiers and quarters. ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','National Programme 2009-2010-The Netherlands (the drawing-up of the programme of the Data Collection Regulation):https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94847Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','01/04/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for the Netherlands EEZ (not including Overseas Territories) was 3.06 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.08 since 1999, but an overall decrease of 0.08 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','Data above is for Netherlands EEZ, not including Overseas Territories.From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective4','A4_3','','Dutch Spatial Plan\'s provide for the establishment of a national Ecological Network (EHS, ecologische hoofdstructuur) by 2018. Part of this EHS will be or already is part of Natura 2000. The most recent evaluation of progress is the \'Rapportgae groot project EHS 2008\' (september 2009, in Dutch). In February or March 2009 a new report will be published, but as yet this is not publicly available. ','','','http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640321&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=42364','22/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective4','A4_4_1','','In the Netherlands regulation of tourism activities is part of the general legislation regarding nature and landscape protection (protection of biodiversity). Separate policies for the tourism sector are not developed. The yearly reports of the National Planning Agency (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving) do not show that there are specific problems regarding the development of the tourism sector in the Netherlands. ','','','','22/02/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Dutch direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 22.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','22/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','04/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The Netherlands has both general and specific legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). Article 124 of the Flora and Fauna Act (1998) prohibits the release of animal species into the wild and also the planting or sowing of certain plant species without permission. Additionally, two species are currently restricted in terms of possession, trade, import and/or export. Article 67 provides for the control of species for reasons of safety, to prevent economic damage or to prevent damage to native flora and fauna. With regards to specific legislation, certain alien species of mammals and birds can be controlled under Regulations adopted in 1995 under the Hunting Act (1954). Furthermore, the provinces have had, since 1986 the responsibility for controlling the muskrat populations in the Netherlands. ','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 49 are present in the Netherlands. This equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_1_2','','No strategy or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) has been developed in the Netherlands. However, according to reporting by the Member State, in 2007 a National IAS Policy (Beleidsnota Invasieve Exoten) was adopted by the Dutch parliament. This policy focuses on IAS threatening biodiversity. Amongst other things, the policy has resulted in the establishment of an Invasive Alien Species Team. This team co-ordinates the development and execution of IAS monitoring activities and the developments regarding early warning, risk assessments and communication. This team also advices the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the risks of IAS and possible management options. The annual budget for this team and the associated projects is 1 million EUR.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_1_3','','The Netherlands has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','19/02/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, the Netherlands has implemented a national database and early warning initiative for IAS. The website Dutch Species Catalogue (hosted by Naturalis and co-financed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) contains a specific database on alien species that are present in The Netherlands for at least 10 years. Currently 925 alien species are registered in this database. The Invasive Alien Species Team has set up an initiative for an early warning system for (new) alien species in The Netherlands involving more than 10 organisations with several thousands of volunteers. The aim is to establish a long-term IAS early warning network at the national level. Furthermore, the Invasive Alien Species Team participates in a large (informal) network of experts on IAS. No formal procedure regarding rapid response mechanism is yet in place. However, in case of observations of new alien species, the Invasive Alien Species Team reacts promptly by carrying out risk assessments or other necessary actions.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.nederlandsesoorten.nl/exoten ','19/02/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective5','A5_2_2','','The Netherlands has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is the HPA Regulation on the coexistence of crops of the Commodity Board for Arable Farming. JBA. No 322.   According to the “GMO free Europe” initiative, the local government of Culemborg declared itself GMO-free. The municipality may not use GMO-crops and ban exists on the use of genetically manipulated crops and animals in agricultural areas.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming.“GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming; Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National report to the CBD was submitted to the CBD secretariat in April 2010.The “Biodiversity Policy Programme of the Netherlands 2008-2011” was published in 2008.The annual contributions to CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention were paid. ','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','22/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, the Netherlands spent EUR0.08m in 2006 for biodiversity-related multilateral aid, which amounts to nearly 0.00% of the total multilateral aid budget. The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by the Netherlands for 2007. However, the Netherlands have provided the following information:The data and narrative summary are not correct. Total biodiversity related multilateral aid in 2006: 3 m Euro. Percentage biodiversity related multilateral aid of total multilateral aid in 2006 0.3 % (total 931 m Euro).Total biodiversity related multilateral aid in 2007: 11.6 m Euro. Percentage of total multilateral aid in 2007 is 1 % (total multilateral ODA 1154 m Euro).Total biodiversity related multilateral aid in 2008: 8.4 m Euro; percentage of total multilateral aid in 2008:   0.68 % (total multilateral ODA 1243 m Euro).Part of the multilateral aid is attributed as it is included in partnerships (a.o. Netherlands World Bank Partnership Program - BNPP).','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, the Netherlands spent EUR6.4m for bilateral biodiversity-related aid in 2006, which amounts to 0.001% of the total bilateral aid budget. The OECD marker does not show any bilateral biodiversity-related aid spending by the Netherlands for 2007. However, the Netherlands have provided the following information: The data are not correct. Annual spending on biodiversity related bilateral aid: In 2006: 107.4 million Euro.  Percentage of total annual bilateral aid in 2006 2.86 % (of 3760 m Euro). In 2007: 65.8 million Euro is 1.79 % of total annual bilateral aid (3681 m Euro). In 2008: 64.9 million Euro or 1.71 % of the annual total bilateral aid (3805 m Euro). In the past few years more bilateral aid is allocated in the form of sectoral budget support. One third of sectoral budget support environment is attributed to biodiversity related activities.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009, 12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Netherlands contributed EUR80.42 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 3.3 % of the total replenishment. Netherlands contributed EUR89.38 million to the 4th replenishment which is 4.18 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','26/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_1_6','','','','','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Although no official SEA or EIA is mandatory, environmental impacts of all programmes and projects are assessed in the appraisal documents. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','26/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective7','A7_2_5','','','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective8','A8_1','','The Netherlands has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing.  Legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing or on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources does not exist nor have activities raising awareness of these two issues taken place. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is estimated at 13% for 2006 and 30% for 2008. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied; many items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The Netherlands does not have national legislation on implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. The Netherlands has not implemented any national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','16/03/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','The Netherlands provided financial support to the 6th meeting of the ABS Working Group in 2008.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','16/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The Netherlands does not have does national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. The Netherlands has not implemented any national activities that raise awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. ','','The Netherlands uses the SMTA for all PGRFA requested from the genebank.','Reference or title:Weblink:','16/03/2010','','','','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is estimated at 13% for 2006 and 30% for 2008. The monitoring cycle is every 3 years. Next monitoring will be in 2011.It only addresses FSC and PEFC certified timber.Please note that our public procurement policy accepts FSC International, PEFC Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Finland and Germany as sustainably produced timber at the moment (March 2010).','','The figures for 2006 and 2008 are approximate and verifiable.','Reference or title:Weblink:','15/04/2010','','','12/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 4139, 991 and 979, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 was 257, 53 and 29, respectively. The Netherlands made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens – 847 for 2007 and 761 for 2008, representing net decrease in the number of seizures of 86. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical and financial assistance and to Staff of the Management and Scientific Authorities and Staff of enforcement authorities, as well as traders and the public . The Netherlands has provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES as follows : to Argentina (financial support for the preparation of a species proposal (Bulnesia sarmeintoi) for CoP15, Malaysia (financial support for the workshop conservation of tree species in Kuala Lumpur, 2007), Georgia (financial support for the survey of Galanthus woronowii, 2008) and Croatia (Enforcement training and assistance for the MA in terms of legislation, policy and ICT). The Netherlands paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. In the context of being the host country to the fourteenth meeting of the Conference to the Parties to CITES the Netherlands paid half of the required budget for the sponsored delegates programme. This significant contribution, 0.5 million euros approximately, ensured participation of at least two representatives from developing countries to the CoP in The Hague.  Furthermore, the Netherlands has pledged the amount of USD 100,000 for the African Elephant Fund.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','07/01/2010','12/05/2010'),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','','','The importance of adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the Netherlands is acknowlegded on the national level and on the regional level. National and provincial adaptation strategies and action plans as well as the National Biodiversity Program however deal with adaptation of biodiversity, mostly in an integrated manner. The national  plans concern only main policy issues and state-supported regional pilots. Also there is investment in enlarging the knowledgebase of adaptation biodiversity to climate change. There is a broad concensus that the national nature policy, which focuses on strengthening ecological networks and improving the resilience of ecosystems by enlarging and connecting nature areas and reducing environmental stresses on nature areas, is a sound policy in view of the need of supporting adaptation to climate change and needs strengthening.   ','','','','19/03/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_4_1','','The importance of adaptation of biodiversity to climate change in the Netherlands is acknowlegded on the national level and on the regional level. National and provincial adaptation strategies and action plans as well as the National Biodiversity Program however deal with adaptation of biodiversity, mostly in an integrated manner. The national  plans concern only main policy issues and state-supported regional pilots. Also there is investment in enlarging the knowledgebase of adaptation biodiversity to climate change. There is a broad concensus that the national nature policy, which focuses on strengthening ecological networks and improving the resilience of ecosystems by enlarging and connecting nature areas and reducing environmental stresses on nature areas, is a sound policy in view of the need of supporting adaptation to climate change and needs strengthening.   ',NULL,NULL,NULL,'19/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'04/05/2010',NULL),
	('Netherlands','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Studies have been undertaken to assess in what way species and conditions that are of vital importance for specific habitats or ecosystems are vulnerable to climate change in the Netherlands. The impacts of spatial fragmentation to migration patterns are also taken into account. These ecosystems and habitats especially vulnerable have been identified as well as the possible adaptation strategies to mitigate the risks. In these scientific studies, the vulnerability is often assessed relating to the relative amount of species with high respons to changing temperatures, the change of vital environmental conditions and the spatial fragmentation.Some ecosystems identified as most vulnerable are (high) moor peats, marshland, (small)brooks and brookforests. Finally, there is an ever growing database with species and their properties that are important to asses their respons to climate change. This database is especially used for the above mentioned assements.','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','19/03/2010','','','04/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','MandE','C1_2','','Poland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 3 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Poland in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','07/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','MandE','C1_2_1','','Poland applies 7 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 3 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Poland in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented.',' Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','07/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','MandE','C1_3_1','','As part of the National Environmental Monitoring, Poland is implementing a range of monitoring schemes for the major habitat types and species groups.','','','','07/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Measure1','B1_1_1','','The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej - NFOŚiGW) is a pillar of the Polish environmental protection funding system. The key objective of the NFOŚiGW lately has been effective and efficient use of funding from the European Union allocated for development and modernization of environmental protection infrastructure in Poland. Nature and landscape protection and support given to forestry are its priorities. Other significant funding sources are the EcoFund Foundation and the Rural Development programme as well as cooperation programmes with Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Poland spent up to EUR1.364.277 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Poland spent up to EUR1.136.223 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. According to data passed by Beneficiaries of LIFE+, the support of the European Commission within LIFE projects in particular years was as follows: 2004 	0.00 EUR 2005 	272,432.00 EUR 2006 	2,272,765.50 EUR 2007 	204,324.00 EUR 2008 	200,493.00 EUR The whole amount of LIFE support from 2004 to 2008 is 2,950,014.50 EUR These data are based on transfer money into Beneficiaries\' accounts, not on expenditures per year. Additionally to the data presented above the NFOSiGW, from its funds, financed nature protection projects located mainly at NATURA 2000 sites, with the following amounts: 2004 – 17,208,000 PLN – 3,659,019 EUR*; 2005 – 19,277,000 PLN – 4,727,768 EUR*, 2006 – 15,502,000 PLN – 4,209,640 EUR*, 2007 – 18,732,000 PLN – 5,537,261 EUR*, 2008 – 21,553,000 PLN – 6,015,350 EUR*. The above funding was spent mainly on conservation activities and capacity building of institutions involved in managing of nature protection in Poland. *  amounts converted into Euro using exchange rate applied by the European Central Bank on the first working day in which the payment was done.More activities concern developing management systems for Natura 2000, developing a Monitoring Scheme for Conservation Status of species and habitats on Natura 2000 sites as well as outside the Natura 2000 network.','','The information on national programmes is taken from Poland’s 4th National Report to the CBD. The information on LIFE project refers to Poland’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','30/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Poland’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR135.1m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR72.7m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR98.6m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','07/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Measure1','B1_1_8','','Information is not available','','','','07/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure2','B2_4','','Poland updated its existing National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity, Action Plan 2007 -2013 in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','30/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure3','','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','07/04/10','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships.','','Local development strategies implemented by local action groups are carried out under targets of Axis 3. Therefore there is no support for partnerships set on biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity under the Polish Rural Development Programme for 2007-2013. ','','','','','05/05/10',''),
	('Poland','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Poland recongised in its Fourth CBD National Report that nature protection requirements were being insufficiently included in the spatial planning system.  The Act on Spatial Planning and Development of 27 March 2003 is the main policy document. Poland does not currently have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: Poland CBD 4th National ReportWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','07/04/10','','','11/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up to encourage business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','07/04/10','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','07/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds. ','','','','07/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.','','','','07/04/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Poland has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions have been made from Poland between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','07/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) sclerophyllous scrub habitats, 8 of the 11 (73%) forest habitats, 2 of the 3 (67%) heath and scrub habitats and 4 of the 7 (57%) rocky habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. All freshwater and bog, mire and fen habitats are in inadequate condition. Half of grassland habitats are also reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, 2 of the 3 (67%) and 1 of the 3 (33%) coastal habitats are reported to be in favourable and unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively.In the Continental biogeographical region, half or more of all habitats with the exception of grasslands are reported to be in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. The condition of 1 of the 5 (20%) heath and scrub is favourable, 2 of the 2 (40%) is unfavourable-inadequate and the remaining 2 of the 5 (40) are in an unfavourable-bad. The condition of all sclerophyllous scrub habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 6 of the 11 (55%) grassland habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition.There is a slight uncertainty as the condition of 1 of the 7 (14%) rocky habitats in the Alpine biogeographical region, and 1 of the 9 (11%) Continental dunes habitats is unknown. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','07/04/2010','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Poland has designated 364 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 28,884 km², totalling 8.1% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 6 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 3600 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 141 with a total area of 55.118 km², totalling 15.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 4, with a marine area of 3,600 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update and further update from Poland)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Until the end of 2009 there were 38 management plans in preparation or prepared but the procedure of their establisment was not completed. Another circa 400 plans will be prepared between 2010 and 2013. ','','Currently, 100% of designated Natura 2000 sites have management bodies. Regarding to other planning instruments, until the end of 2009 there were also 55 \"plans of local cooperation\" concerning Natura 2000 sites (they will be used to prepare management plans for Natura 2000 sites in 2010). There are also management plans for other nature conservation forms such as national parks, nature reserves, etc. that correspond with the same nature conservation goals as lining up Natura 2000 sites but particular data is not available. ','','26/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_2_3','','A system of ecological corridors is being developed.','','',':','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 291 regularly occurring bird species in Poland, 9 are globally Near-threatened and 6 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Poland, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 17 of the 33 (52%) mammals and 10 of the 20 (50%) plants was reported to be favourable. 9 of the 31 (29%) invertebrates and 6 of the 20 (30%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition while3 of the 12 (25%) fish and 2 of the 20 (10%) plants were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 8 of the 14 (57%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 12 (33%) fish, 15 of 31 (48%) of invertebrates and 7 of the 33 (21%) mammals is unknown. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, all mammals were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Continental biogeographical region, 11 of the 23 (48% fish and 15 of the 37 (41%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 4 of the 23 (17%) of fish and 12 of the 37 (32%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 9 of the 17 (53%) amphibians and reptiles, 23 of the 50 (46%) invertebrates and 21 of the 42 (50%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 5 of the 23 (21%) fish, 12 of the 50 (24%) invertebrates and 14 of the 42 (33%) of plants is regarded as unfavourable-bad. The condition of 6 of the 17 (35%) amphibians and reptiles and 7 of the 37 (19%) mammals is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: : Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 427%17%17%857%00%14Fish 433%18%325%433%00%12Invertebrates310%929%413%1548%.00%31Mammals1752%824%13%721%00%33Plants 1050%630%210%210%00%20Marine BalticAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Continental Amphibians and reptiles 16%953%16%635%00%17Fish 1148%417%521%313%00%23Invertebrates1020%2346%1224%510%00%50Mammals1541%1232%38%719%00%37Plants 614%2150%1433%12%00%42','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Poland has one completed species action plan for mammals. In addition, the following action plans are in preparation: 2 for birds, 5 for mammals, 1 for amphibians and reptiles, 2 for invertebrates and 5 for plants. The level of bird populations or population trends serve as an indicator for Conservation Status. Red Data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','These are the national action plans: - action plan for Bison bonasus (2007)- projects of action plans for 10 animal species: Castor fiber, Tetrao tetrix, Tetrao urogallus, Phocoena phocoena, Rosalia alpina, Rhinolophus hipposideros, Euphydryas aurinia, Spermophilus citellus,  Triturus cristatus, Lutra lutra; and for 5 plant species: Adenophora liliifolia, Cypripedium calceolus, Pulsatilla patens, Serratula lycopifolia, Asplenium adulterinum','http://www.iop.krakow.pl/pckz/default.asp','26.02.2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective10','A10_1','','Poland does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. Biodiversity research is not incorporated into other national programmes. ','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Poland is not currently planning a follow up to the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or as part of a wider programme such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Poland does not currently have a national biodiversity platform. ','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','07/04/2010','','','na','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Poland has been an Associate Member of GBIF since March 2001. The national ‘Participant node’ for Poland is the Polish Biodiversity Information Network (PolBIN). PolBIN was founded in 2003 in order to initiate cooperation of Polish research institutions with GBIF. Currently, PolBIN is the largest organisation collection biodiversity in Poland—with over 1.5million records containing information on biodiversity in Poland and globally. The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Museum and Institute of Zoology at the Polish Academy of Sciences participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 10:Generic analysis tools and data mining. The Faculty of Biology at the University of Warsaw participate as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.There are additional standards for minimum soil cover, minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), arable stubble management, standards for crop rotations, appropriate machinery use, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and compliance with authorisation procedures where water is used for irrigation. ','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Poland total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 13398.93 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 17405.47 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 4446.8 million EUR, and 5557.11 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 33.19 and 31.93 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Poland was 1853 million EUR (2315.67 with co-financing) and amounted to 13.83 per cent of the EAFRD (13.3 with co-financing). There are no payments in Poland for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)154.3223192.9029Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, the in situ conservation of crop varieties, livestock breeds and commercial tree species is promoted in the national biodiversity strategy and action plan. No further details are provided on measures to conserve genetic biodiversity. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','','25.02.2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Poland in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, the following instruments are applied as guidance for afforestation operations:Law on nature conservation- prohibition of alien species growing, breeding and introduction without proper permissions,- creation of list of plants, animals and fungi, which might be dangerous for native species when released to environment,-penalties for not exerting provisions.Law on forests:- includes notation of maintaining sustainable forestry with special regard to preservation of natural biodiversity   Regulation on forest reproduction material – determines the usage of several tree species in afforestation.Regulation on detailed conditions and procedures for granting financial assistance for the afforestation of agricultural land covered by plan for rural development – which permits financial assistance only for afforestation with native tree species. Decree on improvement of forest management on ecological grounds – which includes provisions about maintaining natural forest biodiversity and preserving and restoring the compatibility of forest biota, through inter alia maintaining natural species stand composition.National strategy for protection and moderate use of biological diversity – which defines the vision of nature conservation in Poland, and includes action plan that inter alia lists specific tasks for prevention, elimination, containment and control the spread of alien species in forests. State environmental policy in 2009-2012 – which points adaptation of stands species composition to natural state as one of the most important action in mentioned period. In addition, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. EIA  and SEA are limited to an area of equal or more than 20 ha for afforestation and 1 ha for deforestation.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Poland had a total certified forest area of approximately 7.0 million hectares out of a total forest area of 9.19 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Poland was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 76.11 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Poland amounted to 4.81 million ha, representing a share of 23.8 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','','','','',''),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.There are additional standards for minimum soil cover, minimum land management (reflecting site-specific conditions), arable stubble management, standards for crop rotations, appropriate machinery use, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and compliance with authorisation procedures where water is used for irrigation. ',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Poland has 1870 trained advisers for agri-environment programmes, 474 forest advisers and 55 advisers that support the Leader Programme. Systematic training is also provided (mainly at provincial centres) for farmers on agri-environmental programmes.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_8','','The only mandatory biodiversity related indicator that is currently monitored is farmland bird population trends. A monitoring scheme is being set up for HNV farming (to be started in 2011). No monitoring is currently carried out or being developed for HNV forestry or tree species composition.According to reporting by the Member State, for the period 2000 and 2008, Poland\'s national farmland indicator has shown a general decrease until 2004 when it reached 89 per cent , an 11 per cent decrease according to the 2000 baseline. In 2006 it reached 93 per cent. By 2008 the indicator had reached a level of 101 percent, an 1 per sent increase from the 2000 baseline. The Common Breeding Bird Monitoring Scheme organized by the Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP) began in 2000 and finished in 2006. Since 2006 it has been carried out by OTOP ordered by the Chief Inspectorate of Environment Protection (CIEP). ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 169 million € has been added to Poland’s national Rural Development Programme The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Poland attributed € 10 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting 6 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all five occurrences of the alpine freshwater habitats in Poland have an unfavourable conservation status. 63 per cent of the continental freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status, the status of the remaining 37 per cent is favourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131030077%23%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U15  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U14   U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Poland oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 4.34 mg O3/l in 2002 to 3.95 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.46 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.56 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 2.00 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.86 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were slightly below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 10.9 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 8.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2002. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.126 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.140 mg P/l in 2005. Values were above the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Poland had a total number of 103 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 44.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values increased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Poland, more or less all biological assessment methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). No information was available or no method was implemented for phytoplankton assessment in rivers and macro-algae and angiosperm assessment in transitional waters.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 514 in Poland.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Poland had a total number of 2673 IPPC installations and issued 2366 permits. 307 permits were still outstanding. There were no permits that that were considered but not updated given they already complied with the conditions of the IPPC Directive.','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Poland already met its allocated ceilings under the NEC Directive for sulphur, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) and ammonia emissions. Compared to the previous year, NMVOC emissions have slightly increased. According to 2010 projections NMVOC emissions will also increase, but the country will be able to meet its 2010 NMVOC ceilings. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Poland the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 77 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 90,330 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 61 and 50 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 3 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction in 2010 and a reduction to 99 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 68 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Poland’s gross nitrogen balance was 48 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 2 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 2000 and 2006, Poland’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease up to 2004 where it reached 82.1 per cent, a 17.9 per cent decrease from the 2000 baseline. By 2006 the indicator had increased to 89 per cent, an 11 per cent decrease from the 2000 baseline. 23 species were assessed. No data are available on Poland’s national farmland bird indicators before the year 2000.For further information on the national farmland bird index, please consult A2.1.8.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage191720089%11%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8620075%25%0%0%U14  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1111000100%0%0%0%U15 U26       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage251690064%36%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11380027%73%0%0%U13  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage141310093%7%0%0%U18   U25       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3120033%67%0%0%U11  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5410080%20%0%0%U12   U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12000100%0%0%0%12            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U15  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U14   U23       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content     ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Poland found that of the three marine habitats assessed from the Marine Baltic region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (67%) and one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%). Seven coastal habitats were assessed in the Continental biogeographic region. Four of these had an ‘Inadequate’ status (57%), and three had a ‘Bad’ status (43%).Four marine species were assessed in the Marine Baltic region, all mammals. All four had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticMarine habitats267%133%00%00%00%3ContinentalCoastal habitats00%457%343%00%00%7Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%00%4100%00%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Poland reported that, in 2009, it had 16 surveillance stations and 7 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Poland has 11 coastal water bodies. Approximately 90% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It was developing methods for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates as well as assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae or angiosperm. ','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf   annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework ','01.03.2010','','','13/01/10','20/03/10'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_1_5','','An ICZM plan/strategy is being developed and will be included in a document entitled \"Guidelines for Maritime Policy 2020\" (being prepared by the Ministry of Infrastructure) that will integrate all relevant EU maritime plans and strategies ensuring coherence. In March 2010, the document was in its early stages and not further details were available.','','','','04/03/2010','','','20/03/10',''),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_2','','In Poland, 91% of the total coastal bathing waters (81) met the mandatory standards for water quality in 2008. This is an increase of 10.1% compared to the previous year. The proportion of these waters reaching the stricter guideline standards for water quality has been relatively low in the past (38.6% in 2006 and 33.7% in 2007), but this increased to just over half (57.3%) in 2008. In terms of nutrient on concentrations in coastal waters off Poland there was no change found in recorded nitrogen or phosphate concentrations between 1985 and 2005. ','','-','','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_4','','Poland’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €225,121,723 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity particularly in the cod sector and improving both gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€195,758,020) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and promotes environmental certification and organic production as well as the protection of N2000 sites. Axis 3 (€195,758,020) includes an aim to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources, and Axis 4 (€313,212,832) promotes eco-tourism and the protection of the coastal environment. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_73_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','07/04/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content     ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Poland had 884 vessels and 15% were involved in a serious infringement (129 vessels). A total of 129 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €688 and maximum fine of €6,410.','','2007 data not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','07/04/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_5_2','','The Polish Eel Management Plan (PEMP) will be implemented in two management units referred to as Eel Management Units (EMU). These are units delineated by the borders of the international basins of the Oder and Vistula rivers, which include the transboundary tributaries designated in the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC). Oder Eel Management Unit (EMU) covers: • the transboundary Oder River basin within Poland; • the Szczecin Lagoon with nearby Polish waters; • the coastal zone (to 12 miles) of ICES Sub-division 24 (Pomeranian Bay); • the coastal zone (to 12 miles) of ICES Sub-division 25; • the transboundary Elbe and Űcker river basins within Polish borders. Vistula Eel Management Unit (EMU) covers: • the Vistula River basin; • the transboundary Vistula River basin within Poland; • the inner Gulf of Gdańsk; • the coastal zone (to 12 miles) of ICES Sub-division 26; • the transboundary Jarft, Nemen, Pregoła, and Świeża river basins within Polish borders.Within these different units there are actions for the restoration of Eel populations:  1) Within the Vistula EMU there is an objective to improve passability of migration routes by 34%. The recommended stocking intensity for the Vistula EMU is 7 million individuals (2.33 tons).  2) Within the Oder EMU, the objective is to improve passability of migration routes by 29%. Recommended stocking is 6 million individuals (2 tons). Re-stocking of eel is therefore taking place within the Vistula and Oder EMU using farmed elvers measuring not more than 20 cm. Supplementary stocking is also likely to take place in other waters that are free of migratory barriers, including protected areas. Within the governmental program, Ministry of Agriculture also carries out stocking activities of such fish species as: sea trout, salmon, sturgeon and vimba, although these do not have specific restoration plans. There are a number of wider activities to support the recovery of eel populations. These include: Establishing closed seasons. According to the calculations, in order to reduce fishing mortality by 25% it is necessary to set a month-long closed season from 15.06 to 15.07 that applies to all Polish surface waters (marine and inland).Unifying minimum length. The minimum length for all catches of eel will be 50.0 cm.Improving fishing gear selectivity. Increasing the selectivity of the most common trap gear in use by installing selective sieves or increasing the mesh size in the last chamber to 20 mm (mesh size).Catch limits on recreational fishing to 2 eel per day. National regulations do not take into consideration daily recreational catches. This will counteract increasing mortality caused by recreational fishing that is above the level used in the population model.Limiting predatory pressure of black cormorants. Implementing a plan for protecting the eel through increasing the intensity and effectiveness of stocking and limiting actions that can lead to changes in feeding preferences of cormorants or an increase of predatory pressure on eel.Limiting illegal, undocumented, and unregulated catches. This will be accomplished through stricter monitoring.','','','http://bip.minrol.gov.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabOrgId=1772&LangId=0','07/04/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Polish fishing capacity has shown a general decreasing trend from 2004 to 2008, although there was a very slight increase in fishing power between 2007 and 2008. However, overall the number of vessels has reduced from 1248 in 2004 to 832 in 2008 (33% reduction). Over the same period tonnage has reduced from 45,559 tons to 41,001 tons (10% reduction) and power from 147,081kW to 98,961kW (33% reduction). Following a very big reduction in the Baltic fleet during 2005 and 2006, a further but much smaller reduction took place in 2007; 24 vessels amounting to 700 GT and 2 600 kW were permanently withdrawn from this fleet with public aid.','','2008 data: 832 vessels; 41001 tons; 98961 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','07/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Poland had 884 active vessels. There were 55 type D breaches in this year and 55 penalties imposed with an average fine of €665. There have been some limited activities to reduce by catch for example in autumn 2008 the government purchased deterrent devices in order to minimise by-catch of harbour porpoise.','','2007 data is not currently available','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf  ','07/04/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_6_2','','The programme for monitoring of wintering seabirds is planned to start in 2011. The responsible unit will be Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection within the framework of the State Environmental Monitoring System.    ','','The University of Gdańsk has had a program for monitoring of wintering seabirds in the Gulf of Gdańsk since 1984.','','05.03.2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','04/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','If marine sites are calculated using the presence of the following habitats and species (see list below within clarifications), the total number of marine Natura 2000 sites is 30. However the EC/ETC-BD does not now consider habitat 1160 (Large shallow inlets and bays) to be ‘marine’ so the number of ‘marine sites’ is in fact less than this (12 according to national sources in Poland).  Poland has not specified any fisheries management measures for any of the sites within territorial waters or requested measures from the CFP on the site outside of territorial waters. Within the territorial waters, there is a need to discuss the details and proposals of management measures with the fisheries sector and all relevant stakeholders and (BS RAC), EC and other MS and in particular determine if the measures will apply to all vessels (including small vessels). Possible modification of fisheries management outside of territorial waters needs to be discussed more widely by the EU and Member States. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusTo quote national sources: ‘The number of Poland\'s marine SCIs [is] 9 (including 1 that is also a SPA). The EC insists that there are 4 marine SPAs in Poland and so the total number of Polish marine Natura 2000 sites is 12.’It is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 9Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 1 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','04/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Poland has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. For the Appendix XIII ecosystem  indicators from 1-4, data collected during research surveys conducted in Baltic Sea in 2009 and 2010 will be used, specifically:  BITS1q, BIAS, and BITS4q. Indicators 5-7 will be summarised from VMS data, provided that the Sea Fisheries Institute has access to this data.  Discard indicators will use the biological sampling data from the segmented commercial fleet. Outside the DCF, Poland indicated that they have carried out monitoring of incidental catches of sea mammals during fishing operations according to the requirements of the Council Regulation (WE) 812/2004 since 2006. Since 2006, one grey seal and no small cetaceans were products of bycatch from vessels including in this monitoring programme. Pingers were purchased for fishermen to reduce by-catch of small cetaceans in ICES Zone 24. Additionally, some initial data collection was made for seabird products of bycatch in fishing nets (mainly set nets). This data was collected by Poland in 2007 and 2009, during the Program of Monitoring of accidental by-catch of marine mammals, according to Council Regulation (WE) 812/2004.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Data source: Polish National Programme for the Collection of Fisheries Data 2009-2010Weblink: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94846 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','30/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for Polish EEZ in 2004 was 3.27. This represents a decrease of 0.02 since 1999 and a decrease of 0.43 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down. ','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','30/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','19/03/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Polish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 306.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','30/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The Nature Conservation Act (2004) regulates for the introduction of all alien species except fish species. Introduction and import of alien species that are potentially dangerous to native species has to be authorised by the Minister responsible for the environment. The Nature Conservation Act is currently under revision and is likely to include a legal basis for prohibiting the possession and trade of alien species that have the potential to pose a threat to native species. The Inland Fisheries Act of (1985) regulates for the introduction of alien fish species into freshwater. The Fisheries Act (2004) regulates for the introduction of alien species into seas; if a species is dangerous for the marine environment then permission will not be granted for its introduction from the Ministry of Agriculture. The Hunting Law Act contains provisions for the introduction of some alien species such as pheasant, an introduced game species. The Ordinance of the Minister of the Environment on the list of game species and close seasons for those animals (2001, as amended 2005) contains provisions for the control of alien game species already introduced and established in Poland. There is also a comprehensive organisational-legal system for phyto-sanitary and veterinary protection in Poland, reducing the adverse effects of alien species on native biodiversity.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  Member State to clarify whether the Nature Conservation Act is still under revision.     ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 58 are present in Poland. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_1_2','','IAS are addressed in the National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity with the Action Plan for 2007-2013. The Action Plan provides for the implementation of the CBD Guiding Principles. The Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the Ministry of Environment in 2005 to develop a code of conduct for alien species in Poland. The code of conduct may form the basis for a future Polish Strategy on IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Poland has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, no inventory/database of alien species other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects, and no early warning and information system for IAS is in place. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is under development. According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, 16 Polish regions have passed declaration as GMO free.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','01.03.2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in April 2009. The 2nd version of the “National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity” (no date of publication given) was posted on the CBD website in June 2009.Poland has paid her annual contribution to the CBD, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. In 2008, there were still arrears of EUR25.378 for the contribution to the CMS Trust Fund for 2007, while the annual contribution for 2008 was paid. Poland is not a party to AEWA; hence no contribution has been made to the Agreement.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','25.02.2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Poland for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure on Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','07/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Poland for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW ','07/04/2010','','','07/01/201007/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Poland has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','30/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects are mandatory','','','','07/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective8','A8_1','','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing has been adopted nor have activities raising awareness of the Guidelines been undertaken.  While there is no national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, in the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute workshops on the ITPGR and MTA for interested experts and plant genetic resources collection curators were conducted. Data on the percentage of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources are not available. Poland has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no information on the number of applications denied; a number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','No national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing has been adopted nor have activities raising awareness of the Guidelines been undertaken.  ','','','','24/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Poland did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','30/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','There is national legislation implementing the SMTA. In the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute some workshops on the ITPGR and MTA for interested experts and plant genetic resources collection curators were conducted.','','','','24/02/2010','','','','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective8','A8_1_4','','Data not available; there is no information on the total national consumption of wood products derived from CITES timber species.','','','','25/02/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 757, 42 and 20, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008was not available. Poland made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens – 230 for 2007 and 183 for 2008, representing net decrease in the number of seizures of 47. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance and training to Staff of enforcement authorities and the Management Authority. Poland has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Poland paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','07/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','07/05/2010'),
	('Poland','Objective9','','','In Polish national forests, some projects on future forest tree composition in relation to various climate change scenarios are commencing.','','','','24/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_3_2','','','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_4_1','','In Polish national forests, some projects on future forest tree composition in relation to various climate change scenarios are commencing.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'24/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Poland','Objective9','A9_4_3','','','','','','07/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','MandE','C1_2','','Esta resposta deve substituir o texto da Comissão. O trabalho de consolidação da bateria de indicadores foi iniciado, de forma coordenada, no último trimestre de 2009. Apesar de Portugal ter vindo a contribuir com informação para diferentes indicadores, no âmbito de diferentes processos, não se encontra ainda consolidada uma bateria nacional de indicadores de biodiversidade, estando em curso trabalho nesse sentido. É ainda de referir que individualmente alguns dos indicadores incluidos na bateria SEBI 2010, ou semelhantes, são actualmente utilizados em Portugal.','','Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: Weblink:','22/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','MandE','C1_2_1','','No Projecto DesertWatch, promovido pela Agência Espacial Europeia (ESA), as cartas Land Cover são uma das camadas intermédias mais relevantes usadas na cadeia de processamento. Foi gerada através de um procedimento semi-automático que explora a informação EO Landsat  e o Corine Land Cover como fonte de calibragem da informação. Um estado preliminar é a definição da legenda da ocupação do solo. Tomando em consideração a filosofia do projecto, é necessário definir uma legenda que equilibre os seguintes pontos:•	A legenda deve ser suficientemente detalhada para representar todas as classes de ocupação do solo necessárias para as análises subsequentes;•	A função de processamento do land cover deve ser tão automática quanto possível e requer um input mínimo de informação EO data (i.e. 2 Landsat frames ao ano) e dados de campo de confirmação;•	A precisão temática do mapa final deve estar entre os 80 e 90 %.Da carta da ocupação do solo vários indicadores são avaliados por extracção directa da classe de ocupação do solo:•	Áreas florestais (simplesmente agregando as classes de vegetação de interesse, i.e. Floresta Caduca, Floresta de Coníferas)•	Impermeabilização do solo (igual à classe de Áreas Artificializadas)•	Terras de regadio (igual à classe de Área Irrigada)Outros indicadors são avaliados através de análise espacial específica:•	Fragmentação da Floresta (definida em Hurd et al., 2002): estima a qualidade da floresta numa area que é geralmente coincidente com um limite administrativo, em termos de densidade florestal (quantidade de área florestal sobre a área total) e continuidade (número de mosaicos/pixels adjacentes a um área florestada).•	Áreas Re-naturalizadas: estima a alteração de ocupação do solo de agricultura a classes de vegetação natural e relaciona-a com as alterações demográficas. Onde ocorre uma alteração de agricultura a vegetação natural numa dada area em simultâneo a uma redução da população (estimada por informação auxiliar, como censos), a área sofre uma re-naturalização.Na Região Autónoma dos Açores são também utilizados os seguintes indicadores:•	Estado Trófico das Lagoas (Concentração de Fósforo Total; Média anual da concentração de clorofila; Penetração da Luz)•	Qualidade das massas de água (concentração de CBO5; Fósforo e Azoto). Indicadores efectuados pela Direcção Regional do Ordenamento do Território e dos Recursos Hídricos•	Análise ao solo obrigatória (Fósforo, Potássio, pH, Matéria Orgânica) e apresentadas pelos agricultores à Direcção Regional do Desenvolvimento Agrário no âmbito das medidas agro-ambientais•	Área natural preservada (hectares) ao abrigo de projectos elegíveis no Âmbito da aplicação de medidas agro-ambientais•	Número médio de participantes em acções de participação pública (Rede Regional de Áreas Protegidas; Planos de Gestão de áreas Rede Natura 2000).','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: ACS, EEZA, ENEA, NRD, RIKS & UTRIER (2008) – DesertWatch Final Report, Rep. / ESA EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/ http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/life/index.html  http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/ogamp.html  http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/index.htm','22/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','MandE','C1_3_1','','Não foram ainda desenvolvidos esquemas de monitorização integrada relativamente aos tipos de habitats e espécies da flora e fauna protegidas pelas Directivas Aves e Habitats. A autoridade nacional para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade (ICNB) encontra-se neste momento a desenvolver uma metodologia-tipo tendo em vista a monitorização integrada dos valores protegidos pelas Directivas Aves e Habitats da Região Norte de Portugal, que será posta em prática, a título experimental, durante o ano de 2010, no sentido de afinar eventuais detalhes de modo a estender a referida metodologia, com as devidas adaptações, a todo o território continental.Têm vindo no entanto a ser monitorizadas regularmente a nível nacional algumas espécies da fauna, com um peso maior sobre o grupo avifaunístico. Os morcegos cavernícolas estão entre as espécies de morcegos mais ameaçadas em Portugal continental. A fragilidade destas espécies torna-as vulneráveis à possibilidade de um rápido declínio que deverá ser identificado e revertido atempadamente. Acompanhar a tendência destas espécies é assim o principal objectivo do Programa de Monitorização dos Abrigos Subterrâneos mais importantes. Este Programa permite, no entanto, também identificar factores que podem condicionar o uso da cavidade subterrânea como abrigo de morcegos (p. ex. obstrução de acessos pela vegetação ou derrocadas, excesso de visitação ou acumulação de lixo).O Programa de Monitorização de Abrigos Subterrâneos foi iniciado formalmente no Verão de 1987, tendo tido continuidade até à data. Consiste na visitação dos abrigos nas épocas mais críticas para os morcegos – hibernação (Janeiro e Fevereiro) e criação (Abril e Maio para Myotis myotis e Junho e Julho para as restantes espécies cavernícolas). Em cada visita é obtida uma estimativa do nº de indivíduos de cada espécie presente no abrigo, seja por contagem directa, estimativa da área da colónia ou, a posteriori, através da análise de fotografias das colónias.Apesar das limitações inerentes a este tipo de monitorização (p. ex. a irregularidade na utilização dos abrigos em anos distintos ou a pouca precisão de algumas das estimativas), o acompanhamento contínuo de um número elevado de abrigos durante um longo período de anos permite já a definição da evolução e tendência das populações de muitas das espécies cavernícolas. Esta informação tem sido fundamental para a definição de estatutos e de estratégias para a conservação destas espécies.A Abetarda (Otis tarda) é uma espécie dependente dos meios agrícolas que devido ao estatuto de conservação desfavorável e elevada vulnerabilidade a alterações do habitat é considerada como uma espécie prioritária em termos de conservação na Europa. Apesar das pseudo-estepes ou estepes cerealíferas constituírem uma das paisagens dominantes do nosso país, é considerado um dos ecossistemas mais ameaçados, devido à rapidez com que o homem os transforma e destrói. Tratando-se de sistemas agrícolas economicamente marginais, verifica-se, por um lado, a intensificação agrícola nos solos mais produtivos e, por outro, o abandono ou a florestação nos menos produtivos. O Programa de Monitorização da Abetarda foi iniciado na primavera de 1980, tendo tido continuidade até à data. Para além da monitorização anual, de cinco em cinco anos são prospectadas as áreas onde há registos anteriores de reprodução mas cujos núcleos entretanto se extinguiram. Este trabalho, tendo como objectivo detectar casos de reocupação, está previsto ser efectuado em 2010. A monitorização consiste na visitação das áreas de parada nupcial na altura em que o maior número de fêmeas está reunida aos machos e antes destas, após a cópula, se dispersarem para os locais de nidificação. Este período, de cerca de quinze dias, pode variar entre a última década de Março e a primeira quinzena de Abril, mediante as condições atmosféricas, nomeadamente temperatura, pluviosidade, vento e luminosidade. As áreas são percorridas em veículo todo-o-terreno de forma sistemática com paragens para observação de forma a cobrir visualmente todo a extensão e evitando duplicação de contagens. Nestas contagens directas é feita a distinção entre machos e fêmeas e ainda registadas as crias macho do ano anterior. O acompanhamento contínuo da área de distribuição da Abetarda em Portugal durante um longo período de anos permite a definição da evolução e tendência da população, tendo sido fundamental para a definição de estatuto e de estratégias para a conservação desta espécie, bem como para a escolha de áreas designadas como Zonas de Protecção Especial.Outro esquema de monitorização, desenvolvido no âmbito do “Memorando de entendimento entre o Ministério do Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território (MAOT) e o Ministério da Agricultura, Pescas e Florestas (MAPF) da República Portuguesa e o Ministério do Meio Ambiente do Reino de Espanha para a cooperação sobre a águia-imperial e o lince”, processo coordenado pelo ICNB e pela Dirección General para la Biodiversidad do Ministério del Medio Ambiente foi muito recentemente desencadeado, incidindo sobre toda a actual área de distribuição de águia-imperial. Efectuam-se anualmente desde 1976 censos de aves aquáticas em Portugal continental. Actualmente as contagens são realizadas no âmbito do Programa Nacional de Monitorização de Aves Aquáticas Invernantes, coordenado pelo ICNB e realizadas regularmente nas zonas húmidas mais importantes para estas espécies, em particular estuários, pauis, açudes e albufeiras. Este programa inclui ainda contagens de Anseriformes e Gruiformes no período entre Outubro e Março de cada ano.Acções de monitorização de passeriformes em Portugal continental são realizadas no âmbito do Projecto de Estações de Esforço Constante (PEEC), que tem como principal objectivo a obtenção de informação que possibilite analisar as alterações verificadas nas populações destas aves, através de um programa de capturas regulares durante a época de reprodução, em locais e habitats específicos. Actualmente encontram-se em funcionamento 17 estações no continente. Esta acção insere-se no projecto à escala europeia EURO-CES “Constant effort ringing in Europe” promovido pela EURING, baseado no método CES (Constant Effort Sites), e tem como objectivo principal monitorizar as populações das espécies de aves mais comuns, fornecendo ainda informação adicional para outros projectos, quer a nível internacional quer nacional, tais como atlas das Aves Nidificantes, actualização do Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados e gestão da Rede Natura 2000.O Índice de Aves Comuns (IAC) fornece informação sobre as variações populacionais da generalidade das espécies de aves nidificantes em Portugal, indicando a variação da abundância relativamente ao ano inicial do censo, 2004 (este programa é coordenado pela Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves e contribui anualmente para o Esquema Pan-Europeu de Monitorização de Aves Comuns (PECBMS) coordenado pela BirdLife International e pelo European Bird Census Council).Com incidência geográfica variada mas circunscrita a territórios muito localizados, têm vindo a ser monitorizados outros valores da avifauna conforme referido na tabela acima, alguns deles com o envolvimento estreito de diversas entidades. Estes esquemas de monitorização, alguns deles iniciados muito recentemente, abrangem variadas espécies, desde aves marinhas, estepárias, rupícolas e necrófagas a passeriformes florestais e paludícolas.Outros esquemas de monitorização que se encontram actualmente em curso, mas não desenhados de forma a responderem com rigor às necessidades de informação relativa à avaliação do estado de conservação do património natural protegido, virão mais tarde a incluir necessariamente um programa global de monitorização integrada dos valores das Directivas Aves e Habitats.A título de exemplo, identificam-se adiante projectos de monitorização da responsabilidade da autoridade florestal nacional cujos resultados poderão vir a contribuir de uma forma significativa para a avaliação global do estado de conservação dos valores naturais.I – Esquemas de monitorização - Peixes:(i)	Projecto AquariportAo abrigo deste projecto foram desenvolvidos uma rede de monitorização a nível nacional com 320 estações de amostragem e um índice de avaliação de qualidade ecológica com base em mananciais de peixe. A filosofia do projecto e as metodologias desenvolvidas estão descritas no livro:Oliveira, J.M. (coord.), J.M. Santos, A. Teixeira, M.T. Ferreira, P.J. Pinheiro, A. Geraldes e J. Bochechas (2007) Projecto Aquariport: Programa Nacional de Monitorização de Recursos Piscícolas e de Avaliação da Qualidade Ecológica de Rios, Ed. Direcção Geral dos Recursos Florestais, Lisboa, 96 pp.O livro está disponível para descarga em http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/gestao-de-recursos-aquicolas/proj-aquariportDurante 2010 será publicado um novo livro com a descrição do índice desenvolvido e sua implementação.(ii)	Carta Piscícola Nacional (CPN)A CPN é produzida pela Autoridade Florestal Nacional (AFN). O principla objectivo deste website é disponibilizar ao público toda a informação científica sobre os peixes de água doce de Portugal. A informação apresentada foi mantida inalterada em relação ao conteúdo de cerca de 700 referências bibliográficas (maioritariamente artigos científicos e relatórios técnicos). Informação sobre a biologia de cada espécie de peixe pode ser encontrada sob o campo “Espécies” e pode ser localizada pelo nome científico ou comum. Sob o campo “localidades” podem procurar-se as espécies que ocorrem em determinado curso de água e verificar o seu grau de abundância nessa comunidade, com base na informação publicada. O campo “Referências” dá acesso à referência bibliográfica completa e também à localização (biblioteca) onde pode ser consultada uma cópia em papel. A CPN deve ser citada como: Ribeiro, F., Beldade, R., Dix, M. & Bochechas, J. 2007 Carta Piscícola Nacional, Ed. Direcção Geral dos Recursos Florestais - Fluviatilis, Lda. Electronic publication (version 11/2008).A CPN também inclui informação sobre os progamas da AFN de monitorização de peixes e mostra a distribuição das espécies de peixe no país, incluindo, quando possível, a sua abundância relativa por espécie em cada localidade.Disponível em: http://www.cartapiscicola.org ou http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/carta-piscicola-nacional(iii)	Projecto Ecosurvey O desenvolvimento de eco-survey como um método para a caracterização de populações de peixes em lagos e albufeiras estratificadas monomíticas do centro e sul quentes de Portugal, permitirá um acréscimo significativo na capacidade actual de monitorização de populações de peixes destas massas de águas. Esta monitorização é essencial para a implementação e avaliação de projectos e medidas para melhoria da qualidade ecológica destas massas de águas, em particular no querespeita à protecção das espécies autóctones (barbo-comum e boga-comum), que aí desenvolvem parte do seu ciclo de vida, especialmente quando adultos. Relatório ainda não disponível.O teste, desenvolvimento e avaliação de método hidro-acústico decorre em 3 albufeiras: Montargil Maranhão e Monte Novo, representando albufeiras monomíticas do centro e sul quentes de Portugal, tanto com respeito a estas populações de peixe, como a outras características influentes no desempenho do método hidro-acústico. O teste em curso incluíu echo-sounding vertical e horizontal, de dia e de noite e num corpo estratificado ou não, para além da intersecção da informação hidro-acústica com a caracterização da poluação de peixe obtida através da deposição de redes.IV – Esquemas de monitorização - Invertebrados:Em Portugal ocorria apenas uma espécie europeia, o lagostim-de-patas-brancas, Austropotamobius pallipes. Durante as últimas décadas, deu-se uma acentuada regressão destas populações e presentemente é considerado extinto em Portugal.Vindas de Espanha, duas espécies americanas invadiram os cursos de água de Portugal. O lagostim vermelho da Louisiana, Procambarus clarkii, uma espécie sub-tropical, extremente resistente a condições climáticas severas, ocorre actualmente em quase todas as águas interiores. O lagostim-sinal, Pacifastacus leniusculus, um lagostim de água fria, chegado recentemente aos cursos de água do nordeste de Portugal.Desde 2000 estas duas espécies exóticas são amostradas anualmente para a avaliar a sua progressão no Rio Maçãs. Os lagostins são colectados através de armadilhas iscadas com peixe.II – Esquemas de monitorização / Aves e Mamíferos:Decorrem em 4370 zonas de caça e estão orientados para espécies cinegéticas:Aves: Alectoris rufa, Phasianus colchicus, Columba livia, Garrulus glandarius, Pica pica, Corvus corone, Turdus merula, Anas platyrhynchos, Anas strepera, Anas crecca, Anas clypeata, Anas querquedula, Anas acuta, Anas penelope, Aythya ferina, Aythya fuligula, Gallinula chloropus, Fulica atra, Pluvialis apricaria, Scolopax rusticola, Streptopelia turtur, Cotornix coturnix, Columba oenas, Columba palumbus, Turdus pilaris, Turdus philomelos, Turdus iliacus, turdus viscivorus, Sturnus vulgaris, Gallinago gallinago, Lymnocryptes minimusMamíferos: Oryctolagus cuniculus, Lepus granatesis, Vulpes vulpes, Herpestes ichneumon, Sus scrofa, Cervus dama, Cervus elaphus, Capreolus capreolus, Ovis ammonAs áreas com esquemas de monitorização ocupam cerca de 7.081.760 ha, o que representa 79,6% da área de Portugal continental com aptidão cinegética.Os resultados anuais da exploração de espécies cinegéticas são relatados pelos gestores de cada zona de caça.Foram desenvolvidas diversas acções preparatórias e estruturantes necessárias ao desenvolvimento e prossecução de um programa para a monitorização do estado de conservação das espécies e habitats com estatuto de protecção: - Publicados os Atlas dos Anfíbios e Répteis, dos Bivalves Dulciaquícolas, das Aves Nidificantes em Portugal tendo ainda sido dado Início aos trabalhos preparatórios para a elaboração da Lista Vermelha da Flora;- Elaboração do documento de referência “Manual de Interpretação dos Habitats naturais e semi-naturais”, que uniformiza as interpretações nacionais das definições constantes do Manual de Interpretação do Anexo I da Directiva Habitats e das eventuais variantes regionais desses tipos de habitat, identificando ameaças, objectivos de conservação e orientações para a sua gestão- Elaboração do documento de referência “Fichas de caracterização ecológica e de gestão de todas as espécies do anexo B-II da Directiva Habitats”, à excepção dos briófitos, identificando ameaças, objectivos de conservação e orientações para a sua gestão- Implementação do sistema de monitorização de lobos mortos (com vista à obtenção de um melhor conhecimento das causas de morte e patologias e à recolha de material para estudos de genética) - Avaliação do número e localização de prejuízos causados pelo lobo- Análise dos arrojamentos de mamíferos marinhos ao longo da costa continental portuguesa- Análise clínica e epidemiológica das populações de coelho-bravo em território nacional (com especial relevo nas áreas prioritárias para o lince-ibérico) e montantes envolvidos','','','Ribeiro, F., Beldade, R., Dix, M. & Bochechas, J. – The Portuguese freshwater fish database, an example of sucess for fisheries management and outreach. XII European Congress of Ichthyology, Catvat, Croatia, 9 -13 September 2007; “Freshwater crayfish in Portugal: a new Astacidae, Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana), and less perspectives for the rehabilitation of the native Austropotamobius pallipes”. Actas do 2º Congresso Nacional de Conservação da Natureza - “Conservação e utilização sustentável da diversidade biológica”. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. Lisboa, 2 a 5 de Outubro de 2001. “Progressão de dois lagostins exóticos no Nordeste de Portugal: Pacifastacus leniusculus e Procambarus clarkii”. V  Congreso Ibérico de Limnologia. XIII Congreso de la Asociación Española de Limnologia. Barcelona, 2 a 7 de Julho de 2006. Colonization of Rio Maçãs (North Portugal) by two exotic crayfish, Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii”. World Conference on Biological Invasions and Ecosystem Functioning (BIOLIEF). Porto, 27 a 30 de Outubro de 2009. NFI 1995-98: http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ifn/ifn-acesso-aos-dados-de-base-de-1995-98; NFI 2005-2006; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ifn/ifn-apresentacao-de-resultados; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/ifn/manual-de-campo-inventario-florestal-nacional; http://www.esac.pt/cernas/cfn5/docs/T2-53.pdf; FRA 2010: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/gestao-de-recursos-aquicolas/proj-aquariport; http://www.cartapiscicola.org; http://www.icnb.pt/reldhabitats/','22/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Beyond the Governmental Budget there are programmes financed by the EU, such as the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Fund for Fisheries, and the Financial Instrument for the Environment. Some fiscal exemptions exist for the inhabitants of the National Park of Peneda-Gerês as a compensatory measure for the existence of the protected area. Other tax exemptions are being studied to encourage financial support to biodiversity. In the preparation of the financial framework of EU 2007-2013, Portugal is reviewing her monetary policies, namely CAP, CFP and Cohesion Policy, to increase support for the financing of the Natura 2000 network.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Portugal spent up to EUR2,065,565 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Portugal’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Portugal’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Portugal’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR47m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR119.5m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR48.3m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','06/05/2010','','','07/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Measure1','B1_1_8','','The information is not available since the accountability is not oriented to biodiversity alone. A Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) é a principal agência de financiamento orientado para a investigação. FCT é um instituto público autónomo sob a égide do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. FCT cobre todas as áreas científicas, desde as ciências naturais às humanísticas, contribuindo para o melhoramento das capacidades e para a excelência na investigação. O programa de investigação da FCT apoia actividades de investigação competitivas que, para fins de avaliação e gestão, se encontram sub-agrupados em áreas temáticas. A investigação em Biodiversidade é considerada no âmbito dos sub-programas “Ciências e Tecnologias do Mar”, “Ambiente e Alterações Climáticas”, “Biodiversidade, Ecologia e Conservação” e “Agricultura e Ambiente”. Como não existe um orçamento específico para a investigação em Biodiversidade foi considerado o valor concedido aos projectos de investigação. YearAmount (EUR)20065.872.6622007290.42020083.654.859200950.000Na Região Autónoma dos Açores, os apoios da Direcção Regional da Ciência, Tecnologia e Comunicações, no âmbito do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) aprovado pela Resolução nº41/2008, de 3 de Abril, são os seguintes: YearAmount (EUR)200627697.502007207 827.752008242 058.002009202 248.75Ainda no âmbito do Plano de Investimentos da Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar através do programa 40.21-Gestão e Conservação da Natureza, Project 4 - Conservação da Natureza, Acção A -  Conservação da Natureza e Biodiversidade:YearAmount (EUR)2006368 000.002007540 769.002008661 685.002009833 329.00','','','','06/05/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure2','B2_4','','Portugal has created a new strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The Decree-Law No. 142/2008 of 24 July, establishes the legal regime of nature conservation and biodiversity and the effect creates a Fundamental Network of Nature Conservation (RFCN), which consists of the core areas nature conservation and biodiversity integrated in the National System of areas rated (SNAC) and the areas of national ecological reserve, reserve and national agricultural and public water areas while continuing to provide or safeguard the connection and exchange of genetic populations wildlife between the different core areas of conservation, contributing to the adequate protection of natural resources and the promotion of spatial continuity of the ecological coherence of hazardous and connectivity of components of biodiversity throughout the country as well as for proper integration and development of human activities.This present Decree-Law defines strategic guidelines and its own instruments, targeting the following objectives:i) ensure the conservation of natural values and promote their recovery and sustainable use;ii) promoting nature conservation and biodiversity as a fundamental dimension of sustainable development, particularly through the integration of the policy of nature conservation and biodiversity in policy planning and the various sectoral policies;iii) include criteria for nature conservation and biodiversity in social systems, business and economics;iv) define and delimit a basic infrastructure for nature conservation, the aforesaid RFCN;v) Contribute to the achievement of the objectives of international cooperation in conservation of nature, particularly those defined in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted in Rio de Janeiro on June 5, 1992;vi) to promote scientific research and knowledge about the natural heritage as well as monitoring species, habitats, ecosystems and geosites;vii) Promote education and training of civil society in nature conservation and biodiversity and provide information, awareness and public participation by encouraging visitation, communication, contact between the public interest and with nature;viii) To promote recognition by society of its assets, inter-generational, economic and social components of biodiversity and geological heritage.A new economic regime and financial conservation of nature and biodiversity has also been created, which is an essential component of this Decree given the importance that this scheme takes for reversing the cycle of deterioration and lack of investment in nature conservation and biodiversity in recent years. The establishment of the Fund for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity is designed to support nature conservation, particularly in the areas that comprise the RFCN, by allocating resources to projects and investments needed and appropriate management of basic infrastructure needed.It should also be noted that on 11 October 2001, the Resolution of Council of Ministers No. 152/2001 National Strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ENCNB) was adopted. The ENCNB is a strategic tool of the utmost relevance at the national level, notably to achieve the commitment by 2010 to stop biodiversity loss. This strategy is in force between 2001 and 2010 and is due for review in the near future, based on an evaluation process and public discussion.','','Original text: O Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho, estabelece o regime jurídico da conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade e para o efeito cria a Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza (RFCN), a qual é composta pelas áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade integradas no Sistema Nacional de áreas Classificadas (SNAC) e pelas áreas de reserva ecológica nacional, de reserva agrícola nacional e do domínio público hídrico enquanto áreas de continuidade que estabelecem ou salvaguardam a ligação e o intercâmbio genético de populações de espécies selvagens entre as diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, contribuindo para uma adequada protecção dos recursos naturais e para a promoção da continuidade espacial, da coerência ecológica das áreas classificadas e da conectividade das componentes da biodiversidade em todo o território, bem como para uma adequada integração e desenvolvimento das actividades humanas.Estrutura ainda o SNAC, constituído pela Rede Nacional de áreas Protegidas (RNAP), pelas áreas classificadas que integram a Rede Natura 2000 e pelas demais áreas classificadas ao abrigo de compromissos internacionais assumidos pelo Estado Português, assegurando a integração e a regulamentação harmoniosa dessas áreas já sujeitas a estatutos ambientais de protecção. Ao nível da RNAP, com o objectivo de clarificar e actualizar o regime actual, o presente Decreto-Lei dispõe sobre as categorias e tipologias de áreas protegidas — prevendo no nosso ordenamento jurídico, expressamente, a possibilidade da existência de parques nacionais nas Regiões Autónomas —, os respectivos regimes de gestão e estrutura orgânica e ainda sobre os objectivos e os procedimentos conducentes à sua classificação.Por outro lado, com o objectivo de simplificar e adaptar o regime vigente às características específicas das reservas naturais, das paisagens protegidas e dos monumentos naturais de âmbito nacional, bem como das áreas protegidas de âmbito regional ou local, é introduzida, com carácter inovatório, a ponderação casuística da necessidade de existência de planos de ordenamento para as duas primeiras tipologias — aquando da respectiva classificação — e a dispensa de elaboração de tais instrumentos de gestão territorial no caso dos monumentos naturais e das áreas protegidas de âmbito regional ou local.Quanto às áreas classificadas ao abrigo de compromissos internacionais assumidos pelo Estado Português, destaca -se a criação da figura dos espaços naturais protegidos de carácter transfronteiriço, designados «áreas protegidas transfronteiriças», e a consagração legal das áreas abrangidas por designações de conservação de carácter supranacional.Ao nível da organização da informação, destaca-se a consagração do Sistema de Informação sobre o Património Natural (SIPNAT) e a criação do Cadastro Nacional dos Valores Naturais Classificados. Resumidamente, o SIPNAT é constituído pelo inventário da biodiversidade e dos geossítios presentes no território nacional e nas águas sob jurisdição nacional, enquanto que o Cadastro Nacional dos Valores Naturais Classificados — instrumento mais operacional —, é um arquivo de informação sobre os valores naturais classificados ou considerados sob ameaça pela autoridade nacional.Face aos compromissos assumidos internacionalmente pelo Estado Português, são reforçados os mecanismos que permitam a Portugal cumprir as obrigações assumidas quer no âmbito da União Europeia quer no âmbito da Organização das Nações Unidas — suster a perda de biodiversidade até 2010 e para além —, de acordo com um conceito dinâmico de conservação da biodiversidade, na relação desta última com as alterações climáticas, no combate à desertificação e erradicação da pobreza, no seu papel transversal ao desenvolvimento sustentável, na necessidade de alargar o reconhecimento público da biodiversidade, integrando -a no sistema económico e empresarial, e no reconhecimento de cada cidadão como directa e simultaneamente beneficiário e implicado na gestão da biodiversidade.Na verdade, com uma dimensão e complexidade crescentes nas sociedades modernas, a política de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade enfrenta o desafio de se assumir como um serviço público que garanta a gestão ambiental do território, num quadro de valorização do património natural e de adequado usufruto do espaço e dos recursos. Por outro lado, a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade constitui também um motor de desenvolvimento local e regional, associado à identificação de caracteres próprios e distintivos que urge valorizar, através de uma actividade de gestão e aproveitamento sustentável dos recursos naturais, com o envolvimento e participação de toda a sociedade, numa lógica de benefício comum.Neste contexto, o presente Decreto-Lei define orientações estratégicas e instrumentos próprios, visando os seguintes objectivos essenciais:i) Garantir a conservação dos valores naturais e promover a sua valorização e uso sustentável;ii) Promover a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade como dimensão fundamental do desenvolvimento sustentável, nomeadamente pela integração da política de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade na política de ordenamento do território e nas diferentes políticas sectoriais;iii) Integrar critérios de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade nos sistemas sociais,  empresariais e económicos;iv) Definir e delimitar uma infra -estrutura básica de conservação da natureza, a citada RFCN;v) Contribuir para a prossecução dos objectivos fixados no âmbito da cooperação internacional na área da conservação da natureza, em especial os definidos na Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre a Diversidade Biológica, adoptada no Rio de Janeiro em 5 de Junho de 1992;vi) Promover a investigação científica e o conhecimento sobre o património natural, bem como a monitorização de espécies, habitats, ecossistemas e geossítios;vii) Promover a educação e a formação da sociedade civil em matéria de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade e assegurar a informação, sensibilização e participação do público, incentivando a visitação, a comunicação, o interesse e o contacto dos cidadãos com a natureza;viii) Promover o reconhecimento pela sociedade do valor patrimonial, intergeracional, económico e social da biodiversidade e do património geológico.Especial destaque merece o novo regime económico e financeiro da conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, que constitui uma componente essencial do presente Decreto-Lei, dada a importância que tal regime reveste para a inversão do ciclo de degradação e desinvestimento na política de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade verificado nos últimos anos. Assim, a este nível, cumpre assinalar a constituição do Fundo para a Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, que terá como objectivo apoiar, através da afectação de recursos a projectos e investimentos necessários e adequados, a gestão da infra -estrutura básica de suporte à conservação da natureza, designadamente das áreas que compõem a RFCN.É ainda de referir que a 11 de Outubro de 2001, foi adoptada pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 152/2001, a Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (ENCNB), a qual é uma ferramenta estratégica da maior relevância, a nível nacional, nomeadamente para se alcançar o compromisso de, até 2010, parar a perda da biodiversidade. Esta Estratégia vigora entre 2001 e 2010, estando prevista a sua revisão, no futuro próximo, com base num processo de avaliação e discussão pública.','Regime Jurídico da conservação da natureza - Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/14200/0459604611.pdf Estratégia Nacional da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade - Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 152/2001, de 11 de Outubro http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2001/10/236B00/64256451.pdf Fundo para a Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade.- Decreto-Lei 171/2009 de 3 de Agosto http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2009/08/14800/0499104993.pdf','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure3','','','The \"Business & Biodiversity\" initiative encourages the relationship between business and biodiversity, through long-term voluntary agreements, with the integration of biodiversity into business strategies and policies. By January 2010, 49 companies (28 in 2007, 17 in 2008 and four in 2009) of different sizes, sectors (some with great impact in the environmental area because of the nature of their business) and business areas had joined the Initiative. The first one to join was in May 2007. In addition to the international conference held during the Portuguese EU presidency (12-13, November 2007), Portugal organised five meetings in order to disseminate the \"Business & Biodiversity\"  Initiative  and discuss particular aspects of it, \"the commitment to biodiversity\" (May 21 2008, \"linear infrastructure\" (November 27, 2008), \"tourism\" (January 22, 2009),  \"outcomes and expections\" - May 27, 2009) and \"sharing experiences & finding solutions\" (September 25, 2009). Information was available through the portal for ICNB (Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity) publications as well as through memoranda, briefs, power point presentations, processing and compilation of information. Two brochures and a leaflet were published and several texts were added to various national and international reports. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Iniciativa \"Business & Biodiversity\"http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Iniciativa+Business+and++Biodiversity/','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','07/05/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No forums or similar platform/frameworks have been set up for biodiversity and planning partnerships at  the local, regional or national levels','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','22/04/2010','','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Measure3','B3_1_6','','The \"Business & Biodiversity\" initiative encourages the relationship between business and biodiversity, through long-term voluntary agreements, with the integration of biodiversity into business strategies and policies. By January 2010, 49 companies (28 in 2007, 17 in 2008 and four in 2009) of different sizes, sectors (some with great impact in the environmental area because of the nature of their business) and business areas had joined the Initiative. The first one to join was in May 2007. In addition to the international conference held during the Portuguese EU presidency (12-13, November 2007), Portugal organised five meetings in order to disseminate the \"Business & Biodiversity\"  Initiative  and discuss particular aspects of it, \"the commitment to biodiversity\" (May 21 2008, \"linear infrastructure\" (November 27, 2008), \"tourism\" (January 22, 2009),  \"outcomes and expections\" - May 27, 2009) and \"sharing experiences & finding solutions\" (September 25, 2009). Information was available through the portal for ICNB (Institute for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity) publications as well as through memoranda, briefs, power point presentations, processing and compilation of information. Two brochures and a leaflet were published and several texts were added to various national and international reports. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Iniciativa \"Business & Biodiversity\"http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Iniciativa+Business+and++Biodiversity/','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure3','B3_1_7','','The Business & Biodiversity Initiative (see Action B.3.1.6) enhances the relationship between companies (which include the financial sector) and biodiversity issues. Long-term voluntary agreements are used to promote integration of biodiversity needs into the strategies and policies of these companies. By January 2010, one company in the financial sector had joined the Business & Biodiversity Initiative (in May 2007). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Iniciativa \"Business & Biodiversity\"http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Iniciativa+Business+and++Biodiversity/','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure3','B3_1_8','','Although the \"Akwe-Kon Guidelines\" are not specifically applied, the general objectives contained within the CBD guidelines are generally adhered to by the Ajuda Pública ao Desenvolvimento (the Portuguese Development Agency). ','','','www.ipad.mne.gov.pt','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No national communications campaign has been specifically developed concerning the EU Biodiversity Action Plan.However, the website of the Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (redesigned in November 2007) has served to support the dissemination of information concerning many of the BAP objectives, targets and actions and products related to biodiversity which are integrated into the Action Plan: briefing Natura 2000 network, Business and Biodiversity, Ecotourism, Environmental Education, etc.','','','http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/Homepage.htm','22/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Portuguese Ministry for the Environment  \"Ministerio do Ambiente, Ordenamento do Territorio e Desenvolvimento Regional\" (01/10/2005) and the National Park \"Parque Biologico de Gaia\" (26/12/2006)  both made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initiative. Some activities they have committed to include promoting Countdown 2010 in the Parque Biologico de Gaia journal. No funding contributions appear to have been made between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','Portugal tem mais 26 parceiros na rede Countdown 20101.	AmBioDIV2.	Bio3 - Estudos e Projectos em Biologia e Valorização dos Recursos Naturais, LDA3.	Biodesign4.	Cascais Natura5.	Finagra, SA - Herdade do Esporão6.	Herdade da Barroca7.	Herdade de Cadoucos8.	Novadelta, Comércio e Indústria9.	Planeta Vivo - Centro de Investigação Ambiental, Lda.10.	Portucel Soporcel Grupo11.	Quinta do Valle do Riacho, Sociedade AgroTurística, Lda.12.	Silvatec Portugal13.	Sociedade Agricola do Freixo do Meio14.	Sotão Das Artes 15.	Terra e Tudo- Consultoria e Gestão de Recursos Naturais16.	Thing Pink17.	A Rocha - Portugal18.	Associação Pedro Bernardo19.	Associação de Defesa do Património de Mértola20.	Federação dos Produtores Florestais de Portugal – Conselho Nacional da Floresta21.	Forum Florestal22.	Liga para a Protecao da Natureza23.	Portuguese Society for the Development of Environmental Education and Eco-Tourism (SETA)24.	Quercus25.	Sociedade Portuguesa de Ecologia (SPECO)26.	Clube da Cienca da Escola E.B. 2/3 Maria Lamashttp://www.countdown2010.net/partners','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','22/04/2010','','','11/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.The condition of all coastal and rocky habitats in the Marine Atlantic is unknown.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 50% or more of all habitat types with the exception of rocky habitats are in an unfavourable- inadequate condition. The condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) rocky habitats is reported to be in favourable condition. 50% of Atlantic bog, mire and fen habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. In the Macaronesian 14 of the 4 (100%) rocky habitats, and 2 of the 4 (50%) freshwater habitats and heath and scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. All sclerophyllous scrub and grassland habitats are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 50% of freshwater habitats, heath and scrub habitats, forest habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats is also reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 1 of of 1 (100%) and 2 of the 4(50%) dune habitats and forests are in unfavourable-bad condition respectivelyIn the Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 1 (100%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) rocky habitats and coastal habitats are in favourable condition respectively. The condition of the remaining 31 of the 3(3%) coastal habitats is unknown.In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 3 of the 3 (60%) heath and scrub habitats, and 4 of the 8 (50%) of sclerophyllous scrub habitats, grassland habitats and rocky habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. Half or more of coastal habitats (8 of the 13 or 62%), dune habitats (9 of the 11 or 82%), sclerophyllous scrub habitats (50%), grassland habitats (4 of the 8 or 50%), and bog, mire and fen habitats (5 of the 10 or 50%) are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The remaining 1 of the 2 or 50% of bog, mire and fen habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats00%00%00%3100%00%3Rocky habitats00%00%00%1100%00%1 Coastal habitats00%788%00%113%00%8 Dunes habitats00%675%225%00%00%8AtlanticFreshwater habitats125%250%00%125%00%4Heath & scrub133%267%00%00%00%3Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands240%360%00%00%00%5Bogs, mires & fens00%150%150%00%00%2Rocky habitats267%00%00%133%00%3Forests240%360%00%00%00%5MacaronesianCoastal habitats229%229%229%114%00%7Dunes habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1Freshwater habitats250%250%00%00%00%4Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%1100%00%00%00%1Bogs, mires & fens125%250%125%00%00%4Rocky habitats4100%00%00%00%00%4Forests00%250%250%00%00%4Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats267%00%00%133%00%3Rocky habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1MediterraneanCoastal habitats323%862%215%00%00%13Dunes habitats00%982%218%00%00%11Freshwater habitats542%433%18%217%00%12Heath & scrub360%240%00%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub450%450%00%00%00%8Grasslands550%550%00%00%00%10Bogs, mires & fens00%150%150%00%00%2Rocky habitats350%233%00%117%00%6Forests319%1169%00%213%00%16','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Portugal has designated 96 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 16.788 km², totalling 17.4% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 30 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 1173 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 59 with a total area of 10.475 km², totalling 10.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 10, with a marine area of 762 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','21/04/2010',' ','','07/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','51% of Natura 2000 sites have management plans completed, 3% of sites with have management plans and in preparation and 49% sites have no management plan completed or in preparation. Os valores de percentagens identificados na tabela acima têm em consideração o conjunto das áreas designadas no âmbito das Directivas Aves e Habitats, ou seja, um total de 155 áreas classificadas. No que respeita à gestão dos SIC e ZPE na área continental de Portugal, o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 (PSRN2000), aprovado pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008, de 21 de Julho, identifica um conjunto de linhas estratégicas a adoptar, conforme a seguir se enunciam: (1) Integração dos objectivos de conservação dos valores naturais nos instrumentos de gestão territorial, compatibilizando estes objectivos com um leque alargado de actividades, incluindo a urbanização, o turismo, a indústria extractiva, as infra-estruturas, as acessibilidades, o recreio e o lazer. Em conformidade com esta linha estratégica, os Planos de Ordenamento das Áreas Protegidas que incidem sobre cerca de 680 000 ha de área classificada no âmbito da Rede Natura, regulamentam os usos e ocupações de solo em função das exigências ecológicas dos diferentes valores naturais da área por eles abrangida, acautelando ao nível do ordenamento espacial e gestão os eventuais impactes desfavoráveis que os actos, acções e ou actividades possam gerar sobre o património natural. Desta forma, nos SIC ou ZPE coincidentes, no seu todo ou em parte, com os limites de áreas protegidas classificadas no âmbito da Rede Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (RNAP), os objectivos de conservação e de gestão identificados pelo PSRN2000 são proporcionalmente assegurados através dos planos de ordenamento das áreas protegidas, correspondendo a 34% dos 1 980 253 ha classificados como Rede Natura 2000 em Portugal continental, sob gestão directa do Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (ICNB)). Apesar do âmbito geográfico destes planos não abranger a totalidade das áreas classificadas como SIC ou ZPE mas apenas as áreas que são cumulativamente classificadas no âmbito da RNAP e Rede Natura 2000, existem outros mecanismos legais (por exemplo avaliação de impacte ambiental e avaliação ambiental estratégica), e de planeamento e ordenamento orientados para prevenir a destruição, degradação ou perturbação dos valores naturais. No remanescente do território classificado como Rede Natura 2000, não abrangido por áreas protegidas, os Planos Directores Municipais assumem um papel fundamental ao nível do ordenamento do território. A revisão destes planos, a efectivar até 2014 face às orientações estratégicas determinadas pelo PSRN2000, tem vindo a ser acompanhada pelo ICNB, no sentido de garantir a adopção das melhores opções de ordenamento com vista ao objectivo global de proteger ou manter num estado de conservação favorável os valores naturais protegidos que motivaram a classificação dos territórios por eles abrangidos. Interessa ainda referir a integração do PSRN2000 nas diferentes políticas sectoriais, já efectivada, designadamente, nas políticas de desenvolvimento regional, florestal e também na política de ordenamento do litoral. Os Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal constituem um primeiro passo para a concretização dessa política, tendo a sua elaboração considerado as orientações estratégicas determinadas pelo PSRN2000 para as áreas da Rede Natura 2000. A totalidade da Rede Natura 2000 é abrangida por estes planos regionais, que traçam o quadro de referência do desenvolvimento florestal, a operacionalizar através dos planos de gestão florestal a desenvolver a uma escala mais detalhada. Quando em áreas classificadas incluem um programa de gestão da biodiversidade, conforme estabelecido pelo regime jurídico dos instrumentos de gestão florestal. Ao nível do litoral encontram-se concluídos os planos de ordenamento da orla costeira para a totalidade do território alvo, constituindo-se como o principal instrumento operacional para o ordenamento do espaço (onde se inclui uma faixa marítima de protecção) na prossecução dos objectivos de protecção da integridade biofísica das áreas abrangidas, de valorização dos recursos existentes e de conservação dos valores ambientais e paisagísticos. (2) Promoção de uma gestão activa para a conservação dos SIC e ZPE, assente maioritariamente no estabelecimento de parcerias nos sectores agrícola, florestal e de pastorícia, na medida em que a manutenção num estado favorável de conservação de grande parte dos valores naturais que estão na origem da designação da Rede Natura 2000, são estreitamente dependentes deste tipo de actividades. Identifica-se como medida fundamental a disponibilização dos meios necessários à sua execução, integrando os objectivos de conservação da biodiversidade nas políticas agrícola e de desenvolvimento rural e das pescas. Deste modo, em SIC e ZPE cujos objectivos de conservação estão dependentes de uma gestão orientada para a manutenção ou fomento de determinadas práticas de natureza florestal, agrícola e pecuária, a elaboração de Intervenções Territoriais Integradas (ITI), no contexto do Plano de Desenvolvimento Rural – Continente (2008-2013), constitui a solução mais adequada e estruturante, assente num conjunto de medidas de natureza agro- e silvo-ambiental. Foi com o objectivo de identificar as possibilidades de integração de medidas necessárias à gestão das áreas classificadas da Rede Natura 2000 (Portugal continental) na programação da política de desenvolvimento rural a consubstanciar no PRODER, que o ICNB apresentou o relatório “Estudo sobre a Integração da Gestão da Rede Natura 2000 na Estratégia Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural 2007-2013”, de carácter estratégico, para a gestão agrícola e florestal na Rede Natura 2000, a implementar no contexto da programação da política de desenvolvimento rural, que se encontra agora em plena fase de execução. É demonstrada a relevância e dependência da gestão agrícola e florestal para o sucesso da Rede Natura 2000, sendo que em 90% da superfície total da Rede existe um elevado grau de associação entre os valores naturais a conservar e o tipo de gestão agrícola e florestal praticada. Deste modo, em 2008 o Regulamento de Aplicação das Componentes Agro-Ambientais e Silvo-Ambientais da Medida n.º 2.4 «Intervenções Territoriais Integradas», do Subprograma n.º 2 do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural do Continente (PRODER) aprovado pela Portaria nº 232-A/2008, constitui assim a 1ª Fase de ITI, que abrange 8 Intervenções Territoriais Integradas abrangendo 37% da área de Rede Natura 2000: (ITI) Peneda-Gerês, ITI Montesinho-Nogueira, ITI Douro Internacional, ITI Serra da Estrela, ITI Tejo Internacional, ITI Serras de Aire e Candeeiros, ITI Castro Verde e ITI Costa Sudoeste, abrangendo já.  Tendo por base o desenvolvimento conceptual anterior, foi concluída pelo ICNB em 2008 a preparação de um conjunto de Medidas de Gestão Agrícola e Florestal para as áreas classificadas da Rede Natura 2000 a incluir numa 2ª Fase de ITI, conforme previsto na programação da política de desenvolvimento rural para o período 2007-13.Tendo em conta os valores naturais, os principais factores de ameaça e as orientações de gestão relacionadas com a actividade agrícola e florestal identificados no PSRN2000 e fontes bibliográficas complementares, definiu-se o universo dos objectivos de conservação a atingir através das medidas a incluir nas ITI. Estes objectivos foram definidos tomando também em consideração os impactos potenciais da evolução agrícola e florestal de acordo com as principais tendências identificadas nos territórios em análise no horizonte temporal até 2013.Os objectivos de conservação identificados para cada ITI conjugados com os resultados das dinâmicas agro-florestais destes territórios, permitiram conceber as medidas necessárias à gestão dos valores naturais que estão na base da designação das áreas classificadas abrangidas por estas ITI (incluindo condições de acesso, compromissos e níveis de pagamento).O desenvolvimento destas medidas envolveu a aferição da sua aceitação e adequação às características e condições concretas das explorações agrícolas/florestais a que se dirigem, junto de agricultores e outros potenciais beneficiários. Procurou-se, deste modo, assegurar uma boa adesão às medidas, factor essencial para que os objectivos de conservação pretendidos possam ser, de facto, alcançados.Os resultados deste estudo são uma base técnica sólida para o desenvolvimento das ITI em referência, em articulação com a Autoridade de Gestão do PRODER, as entidades relevantes do Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas e com os parceiros relevantes, em particular as associações representativas dos agricultores, produtores florestais, entidades gestoras da caça, proprietários e organizações não governamentais de ambiente. O processo encontra-se actualmente em discussão e negociação tendo em vista o estabelecimento do novo pacote de ITI (2ª fase) em 2010. O reforço dos apoios destinados à Rede Natura 2000 previsto no PRODER será assim utilizado para assegurar o alargamento do instrumento ITI a todas as demais áreas classificadas para cujos objectivos de conservação é relevante uma gestão agro-florestal dirigida.(3) Enquadrar e promover a gestão dos valores associados às linhas de água e aos sistemas húmidos em estreita articulação entre as autoridades de conservação da biodiversidade e as entidades de tutela da gestão da água, designadamente através da implementação da Lei Quadro da Água, numa lógica de gestão integrada da bacia hidrográfica. Encontra-se assim prevista a intervenção das autoridades de conservação da biodiversidade na elaboração dos planos de bacia, e de ordenamento dos estuários, lagoas e albufeiras;(4) Elaborar planos de gestão que definam as medidas e acções de conservação, visando a compatibilização da conservação dos valores naturais com as actividades praticadas em Rede Natura 2000,se necessário, em face de uma avaliação dos instrumentos e mecanismos já existentes .A nível da integração da biodiversidade noutras políticas e actividades, merecem relevo os esforços dirigidos para o conhecimento e minimização dos impactes directos das infra-estruturas lineares nos valores naturais, sobretudo ao nível dos impactes na conectividade ecológica e na fragmentação que estas impõem ao território. Refiram-se a este propósito, os protocolos de colaboração estabelecidos entre as empresas de transporte e distribuição de energia eléctrica, o ICNB e ONGA, iniciados em 2003, e ao abrigo dos quais se desenvolveu um trabalho pioneiro de caracterização da situação actual dos impactes das linhas de transporte e de distribuição de energia eléctrica na avifauna e de compatibilização das linhas eléctricas com as protecção da avifauna, monitorizando a eficácia das medidas de correcção introduzidas, testando novas tipologias das estruturas minimizadoras dos impactos e de implementação de operações de correcção de linhas identificadas como perigosas para a avifauna. Foram ainda elaborados guias de análise de projectos, nomeadamente de projectos de instalação de linhas aéreas de distribuição e transporte de energia eléctrica, e de estradas e vias de comunicação, tendo em vista uniformizar as soluções propostas em sede de Avaliação de Incidências Ambientais ou em processos de licenciamento e garantir a eficácia destas soluções.Actividades passíveis de gerar impacte negativo sobre os SIC ou ZPE foram objecto de regulamentação e ou de legislação específica e de integração em outras políticas sectoriais:- Actividade cinegética: Como resultados mais relevantes ao nível deste sector, realça-se a promoção do ordenamento cinegético em todo o território nacional, implementando modelos de gestão sustentável para as espécies cinegéticas. Este objectivo, destinado a terminar com o regime cinegético não ordenado, foi bem sucedido, existindo actualmente nesta situação apenas cerca de 10% dos terrenos cinegéticos. Este novo regime permitiu ainda integrar na legislação cinegética procedimentos que contemplam a especificidade das áreas classificadas e respectivos valores naturais a preservar, designadamente ao nível da aprovação das zonas de caça e dos respectivos planos de ordenamento e gestão cinegética. Refira-se a título indicativo que a autoridade nacional de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade (ICNB) apoia e acompanha actualmente a gestão de cerca de 33% do total de Zonas de Caça existentes a nível nacional, correspondendo aproximadamente a 1300 Zonas de Caça. Ainda no mesmo âmbito, refira-se que os planos de ordenamento das áreas protegidas integram igualmente disposições destinadas a regular o exercício da caça nas mesmas.- Actividade florestal: Relativamente a esta actividade e constituindo igualmente um documento de carácter normativo, foi elaborado um “Manual de apoio à emissão de pareceres de âmbito florestal”, cujo conteúdo permite ainda orientar a elaboração de projectos florestais e a decisão face ao valor ecológico das áreas por eles abrangidas. - Pesca: A legislação que regulamenta esta actividade define, entre outros aspectos, para as espécies piscícolas os métodos de pesca interditos, a dimensão da malha no caso do uso de redes, os períodos de defeso, as dimensões mínimas dos espécimes a capturar, o método para a manutenção de exemplares vivos de qualquer dimensão durante uma competição, para devolução ao meio natural. - Observação de cetáceos: Foi regulamentada a actividade de observação de cetáceos nas águas de Portugal continental (Dec. Lei n.º 9/2006 de 6 de Janeiro). - Espécies não indígenas da fauna e flora: Encontra-se regulamentada desde 1999 a sua introdução na natureza (Dec. Lei n.º 565/99 de 21 de Dezembro), neste momento em fase de revisão.Na Região Autónoma da Madeira encontram-se já elaborados e publicados Planos e Programas de Medidas que abrangem a totalidade de SIC desta Região e as ZPE, na medida em que os limites por elas abrangidos são idênticos aos SIC correspondentes, sendo que a totalidade dos SIC e ZPE designados na Região Autónoma dos Açores se encontram munidos de planos de gestão desde 2004. ','','O ordenamento do território é reconhecidamente um instrumento fundamental para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, na medida em que disciplina a ocupação do espaço atendendo à distribuição geográfica dos valores naturais de modo a compatibilizar a sua salvaguarda, bem como a protecção da paisagem. A integração dos princípios de conservação e utilização sustentável da natureza e da biodiversidade nas políticas de ordenamento do território é efectivada, em particular, através de Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (IGT).Os instrumentos de gestão territorial aplicáveis aos SIC e ZPE devem assim garantir a conservação dos habitats e das populações das espécies em função dos quais as referidas zonas foram classificadas. No sentido de concretizar estes objectivos, o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 (PSRN2000), instrumento de concretização da política nacional de conservação da diversidade biológica, visa a salvaguarda e valorização integrada de áreas classificadas como SIC e ZPE, bem como a manutenção das espécies e habitats num estado de conservação favorável nestas áreas, identificando um conjunto de orientações de gestão estratégicas por área classificada a integrar nos instrumentos de gestão territorial (planos municipais de ordenamento do território/PMOT e nos planos especiais de ordenamento do território /PEOT) aplicáveis ao território do continente, no prazo máximo de seis anos após a sua aprovação. Nesta medida, a aplicação das orientações de gestão e das outras normas programáticas estabelecidas no PSRN2000 são da responsabilidade da administração central e local, a garantir por diversos instrumentos e mecanismos, sejam eles pela (1) criação ou revisão do quadro legislativo, (2) revisão ou alteração de outros instrumentos de gestão territorial, nomeadamente planos municipais, planos especiais de ordenamento do território e planos de génese sectorial ou regional, (3) elaboração de Planos de Gestão territoriais, (4) elaboração de Planos de Acção orientados para espécies ou habitats, (5) integração e orientação de medidas programáticas ou de política sectorial tais como, e a título de exemplo, as enquadradas no Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural Continente (2008-2013), na política da água ou de transportes ou nas políticas costeira e marinha, (6) elaboração de acordos, parcerias ou medidas contratuais (com actores públicos ou privados) e ainda através do estabelecimento de medidas de carácter administrativo.Transitoriamente e enquanto não se concretiza, na totalidade, a integração do PSRN2000, seja através da elaboração e/ou revisão dos diversos instrumentos de gestão territorial, seja através da adopção de outros mecanismos por ele previstos, em áreas de SIC e ZPE e em face dos resultados de uma avaliação prévia dos eventuais impactes negativos que possam ser resultantes da sua concretização, são sujeitos a autorização prévia por parte do ICNB enquanto autoridade de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, as seguintes acções, actos e actividades: - A realização de obras de construção civil fora dos perímetros urbanos- A alteração do uso actual do solo que abranja áreas contínuas superiores a 5 ha- As modificações de coberto vegetal resultantes da alteração entre tipos de uso agrícola e florestal, em áreas contínuas superiores a 5 ha - As alterações à morfologia do solo, com excepção das decorrentes das normais actividades agrícolas e florestais- A alteração do uso actual dos terrenos das zonas húmidas ou marinhas- A deposição de sucatas e de resíduos sólidos e líquidos- A abertura de novas vias de comunicação - A instalação de infra-estruturas de electricidade, telefónicas, telecomunicações, transporte de gás natural ou de outros combustíveis, saneamento básico e aproveitamento de energias renováveis ou similares fora dos perímetros urbanos- A prática de actividades motorizadas organizadas e competições desportivas fora dos perímetros urbanos- A prática de alpinismo, de escalada e de montanhismo- A reintrodução de espécies indígenas da fauna e da flora selvagens Por outro lado, a decisão sobre acções, planos ou projectos não directamente relacionados com a gestão de um SIC ou de uma ZPE e não necessários para essa gestão, mas susceptíveis de afectar essa zona de forma significativa, individualmente ou em conjugação com outras acções, planos ou projectos, está dependente das conclusões de um processo de avaliação de incidências ambientais no que se refere aos objectivos de conservação da referida zona, avaliação essa que pode assumir a figura de AIA (Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental) ou AincA (Análise de Incidências Ambientais).A totalidade do número de sítios Rede Natura 2000 designados em Portugal continental encontra-se sob gestão do ICNB.São também aplicáveis outros instrumentos de gestão e ordenamento à totalidade de sítios Rede Natura 2000 do continente.','Reference or title:Weblink:Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 – Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008 de 21 de Julho  Estudo sobre a Integração da Gestão da Rede Natura 2000 na Estratégia Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural 2007-2013 http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Plano+Sectorial+da+Rede+Natura+2000/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Planos+de+Ordenamento+das+Áreas+Protegidas+%28POAP%29/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Planos+de+Ordenamento+da+Orla+Costeira+%28POOC%29/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Infra-estruturas+Lineares+-+Manuais+de+Apoio/http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Ordenamento+e+Gestão/Ordenamento+e+Gestão+Cinegética/http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/life/index.html http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/ogamp.html http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/index.html http://www.spea.pt/ms_priolo/pt/index.php?op=plano_gestao;http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/13901/0000200451.PDFhttp://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Rede+Natura+2000/Medidas+Rede+Natura+2000+PRODER.htm','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010','');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Portugal has tools in place to support ecological connectivity.O Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho, estabelece o regime jurídico da conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade. Consolida a natureza jurídica da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza (RFCN – estabelecida pela Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade em 2001), a qual é composta pelas áreas nucleares de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade integradas no Sistema Nacional de Áreas Classificadas (SNAC) e pelas áreas da Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN), da Reserva Agrícola Nacional (RAN) e do Domínio Público Hídrico (DPH), enquanto áreas que estabelecem ou salvaguardam a ligação e o intercâmbio genético de populações de espécies selvagens entre as diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, contribuindo para uma adequada protecção dos recursos naturais e para a promoção da continuidade espacial, da coerência ecológica das áreas classificadas e da conectividade das componentes da biodiversidade em todo o território, bem como para uma adequada integração e desenvolvimento das actividades humanas.O Decreto-Lei n.º 140/99, de 24 de Abril (transpõe para o direito interno as Directivas Aves e Habitats), republicado pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 49/05, de 24 de Fevereiro, preconiza que os instrumentos das políticas de ordenamento do território e de desenvolvimento devem manter e, se possível, desenvolver os elementos paisagísticos de importância fundamental para a fauna e flora selvagens, tendo em vista a melhoria da coerência ecológica da Rede Natura 2000, incluindo através de incentivos à sua gestão adequada, considerando-se elementos paisagísticos de importância fundamental para a fauna e a flora selvagens os elementos que, pela sua estrutura linear e contínua, como os rios, ribeiras e respectivas margens ou os sistemas tradicionais de delimitação dos campos, ou pelo seu papel de espaço de ligação, como os lagos, lagoas ou matas, são essenciais à migração, à distribuição geográfica e ao intercâmbio genético de espécies selvagens.O desenvolvimento e concretização destes objectivos, a promover nos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (IGT) de acordo com o Decreto-Lei nº. 46/2009, de 20 de Fevereiroatravés da identificação da estrutura ecológica (integrando as áreas, valores e sistemas fundamentais para a protecção e valorização ambiental dos espaços rurais e urbanos), foi já consubstanciada no Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território (PNPOT) e nosplanos regionais (através da definição da Estrutura Regional de Protecção e Valorização Ambiental (ERPVA) que inclui as áreas e as ligações ecológicas fundamentais ao nível das respectivas Regiões). Embora a escalas distintas, os planos intermunicipais de ordenamento do território e os planos sectoriais relevantes definirão os princípios, as directrizes e as medidas de forma a concretizar as orientações políticas relativas às áreas de protecção e valorização ambiental que garantam a salvaguarda dos ecossistemas e a intensificação dos processos biofísicos.Tendo por base o enquadramento acima, a autoridade de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade assegurou a sua representação no contexto da elaboração dos IGT (PROF, PROT e PDM), fornecendo a informação necessária à definição e salvaguarda de corredores ecológicos, com base, designadamente, nas orientações estratégicas constantes do PSRN2000.No caso particular dos territórios insulares, a Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA) atendendo à diversidade de situações resultantes da implementação da Rede Natura 2000 e à necessidade de adoptar um modelo assente em critérios de gestão que uniformizem a diversidade de designações das áreas classificadas como protegidas e concentrem competências numa unidade territorial de ilha enquanto unidade base de gestão, procedeu a uma reformulação do regime jurídico da classificação, gestão e administração das Áreas Protegidas (Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 15/2007/A, de 25 de Junho). Este Diploma contempla Áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza que correspondem às áreas mais importantes sob o ponto de vista da conservação e da biodiversidade de recursos e Áreas ecológicas complementares, que correspondem às principais estruturas biofísicas presentes no território que permitem assegurar a continuidade dos processos ecológicos entre as áreas nucleares e os territórios mais interiores e litorais, assumindo especial relevo o sistema hídrico nas suas componentes superficial e subterrânea;Os Parques Naturais de Ilha (actualmente 6 já publicados e 3 em fase de publicação) e o Parque Marinho do Arquipélago dos Açores, obrigatoriamente, dotados de um plano de ordenamento com a natureza de plano especial de ordenamento do território, constituem a unidade de gestão de base da Rede Regional de Áreas Protegidas da RAA. Por outro lado, tendo em vista a adequação legal da REN às especificidades desta Região, será criada e delimitada a Reserva Ecológica Regional (RER) contribuindo para o desenvolvimento sustentável dos seus valores e recursos endógenos.Na RAA, já após a fase de participação pública, encontra-se em 2010 na Assembleia Legislativa da Região Autónoma dos Açores a aguardar aprovação, a proposta do Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território para a Região (PROTA), onde, entre outras, estão contempladas as Áreas ecológicas complementares, que correspondem às principais estruturas biofísicas presentes no território que permitem assegurar a continuidade dos processos ecológicos entre as áreas nucleares e entre os territórios mais interiores e litorais.A Região Autónoma da Madeira, aquando do delineamento e criação das suas áreas protegidas, sejam elas Parque Natural da Madeira (PNM), Reservas Naturais Parciais e Integrais, ou ainda Sítios de Importância Comunitária, procurou que estes incluíssem todos os habitats, flora e fauna de importância biológica. Estas áreas protegidas encontram-se desde o litoral (englobando zonas com elevada densidade demográfica) até ao interior das ilhas (onde ocorrem as áreas de floresta Laurissilva e os maciços montanhosos). Os Parques e reservas criados possuem um papel importante na protecção da biodiversidade e dos ecossistemas, garantido a conectividade ecológica, uma vez que os 49.443 ha de área total protegida da RAM permitem o fluxo de fauna e flora através de corredores ecológicos que facilitam a ligação entre o litoral o interior das ilhas, contribuindo igualmente para a preservação de recursos naturais essenciais.','','Refira-se a Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN) que visa contribuir para a ocupação e o uso sustentáveis do território, constituindo um contributo fundamental para a conectividade e a coerência ecológica da RFCN e para a sua integração nos Planos Directores Municipais (PDM), na medida em que tratando-se de uma restrição de utilidade pública a que se aplica um regime territorial especial, estabelece condicionamentos à ocupação, uso e transformação do solo, identificando também os usos e as acções compatíveis com os objectivos desse regime para os vários tipos de áreas que a integram e que prevalece sobre os regimes de uso, ocupação e transformação do solo estabelecidos em Planos Municipais de Ordenamento do Território, que vinculam particulares. Ao nível sectorial importa destacar a figura dos Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal (PROF), que estabelecem um conceito de «Corredor ecológico» enquanto faixas que promovem a conexão entre áreas florestais dispersas, favorecendo o intercâmbio genético, essencial para a manutenção da biodiversidade. Estes corredores devem ser objecto de tratamento específico no âmbito dos Planos de Gestão Florestal (PGF), servindo para consubstanciar as diversas redes e estruturas ecológicas. Assim, cada PROF define a sua componente da rede nacional de corredores ecológicos florestais e um conjunto de orientações para a delimitação, em cada região e por cada plano de gestão florestal, a aplicar às unidades de gestão, das áreas destinadas à função de conservação de habitats, da fauna e da flora, ou seja a contribuição dos espaços florestais para a manutenção da diversidade biológica e genética. Englobam-se neste contexto as seguintes subfunções principais: a conservação de habitats classificados, a conservação de espécies da flora e da fauna protegida, a conservação de geomonumentos e a conservação dos recursos genéticos.    Considera-se em particular que: 1 - Os corredores ecológicos contribuem para a formação de meta-populações de comunidades da fauna e da flora, tendo como objectivo conectar populações, núcleos ou elementos isolados, e integram os principais eixos de conexão, delimitados na carta síntese de cada PROF, com a largura máxima de 3 km; 2 - As normas a aplicar no âmbito do planeamento florestal para os corredores ecológicos são as consideradas para as funções de protecção e de conservação, nomeadamente a subfunção de protecção da rede hidrográfica, com objectivos de gestão e intervenções florestais ao nível da condução e restauração de povoamentos nas galerias ripícolas, bem como a subfunção de conservação de recursos genéticos, com objectivos de gestão da manutenção da diversidade genética dos povoamentos florestais e manutenção e fomento dos próprios corredores ecológicos. 3 - Os corredores ecológicos devem contribuir para a definição da estrutura ecológica municipal no âmbito dos PMOT e ser objecto de tratamento específico no âmbito dos planos de gestão florestal aplicados às unidades de gestão, públicas ou privadas. 4 - Estes corredores devem ser compatibilizados com as redes regionais de defesa da floresta contra os incêndios, sendo estas de carácter prioritário.  A um nível de maior detalhe, destaca-se a implementação da figura de reservas de caça (locais onde não se caça) enquanto contributo para a concretização da conectividade ecológica, com vista à salvaguarda dos principais corredores migratórios de forma a permitir manter os fluxos populacionais das espécies, cinegéticas ou não, nas suas migrações. Acresce a interdição de caçar nos principais locais de concentração de efectivos migratórios, de modo a garantir a tranquilidade necessária ao sucesso desta estratégia comportamental.','Regime Jurídico da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade Regime Jurídico da Reserva Ecológica Nacional; Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal; http://www.dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/07/14200/0459604611.PDF; http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/08/16200/0586505884.PDF; http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/gestao-florestal/; http://www.azores.gov.pt/','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 308 regularly occurring bird species in Portugal, 13 are globally Near-threatened and 8 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Portugal, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 4 of the 16 (25%) amphibians and reptiles are in an unfavourable-favourable condition. 12 of the 16 (75%) amphibians and reptile, 4 of the 9 (44%) fish and 4 of the 7 (57%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 5 of the 9 (56%) fish were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 19 of the 25 (76%) mammals is unknown and the status of all plants was not reported. In the Macaronesian biogeographical region, 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles and 36 of the 84 (43%) plants are in a favourable condition. 28 of the 84 (33%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 13 (46%) invertebrates, 15 of the 84 (18%) plants and all mammals (4 of 4) of Community interest are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) amphibians and reptiles and 5 of the 13 (38%) invertebrates is unknown. 1 of the 3 (8%) and 4 of the 84 (5%) invertebrates and plants were not reported, respectively. Of the species in the Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 5 of the 5 (100%) amphibians and reptiles and 3 of the 29 (10%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 1 of 1 (100%) invertebrates and 23 of the 29 (79%) mammals and 1 of 1 (100%) invertebrates is unknown. 105 of mammals were not reported. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 4 of the 19 (21%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 14 (29%) invertebrates and 6 of the 36 (17%) mammals are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 15 of the 19 (79%) amphibians and reptiles, 7 of the 21 (33%) fish and 10 of the 36 (28%) mammals was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 14 of the 21 (67%) fish and 505 of invertebrates are in a bad condition. The conservation status of 10 of the 36 (28%) mammals is unknown. The conservation status of all plants was not reported. The following additional information has been provided by Portugal: ´ \"O Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal\" atribui o estatuto de ameaça das espécies de vertebrados (incluindo o grupo das aves), tendo por base o mais recente sistema da União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza (UICN) (categorias e critérios). Foram avaliadas 362 entidades (correspondendo a 334 espécies de aves que ocorrem regularmente em Portugal). Destas, 48% recaem na categoria LC (Least Concern), 8% na NT (Near Threatened) e 35% encontram-se ameaçadas´. Não consideramos que as classes de estatuto de ameaça da IUCN sejam directamente transponíveis para as classes verde, amarelo e vermelho similares às utilizadas no relatório do Artigo 17 da Directiva Habitats e consideramos abusiva a sua aplicação à avifauna e o seu uso no contexto da Directiva Aves.Decorrente dos comentários acima os valores da tabela correspondente devem ser eliminados e o texto constante da caixa \"Additional clarifications\" deve ser adaptado em conformidade com a informação que acima comunicamos.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%4100%00%4Fish 00%00%00%00%5100%5Invertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Mammals313%28%00%1979%00%24Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 425%1275%00%00%00%16Fish 00%444%556%00%00%9Invertebrates00%457%114%229%00%7Mammals14%520%00%1976%00%25Plants 00%00%00%00%26100%26MacaronesianAmphibians and reptiles 150%00%00%150%00%2Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%18%646%538%18%13Mammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Plants 3643%2833%1518%11%45%84Macaronesian/Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%5100%00%00%00%5Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Mammals00%310%00%2379%310%29Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 421%1579%00%00%00%19Fish 00%733%1467%00%00%21Invertebrates429%321%750%00%00%14Mammals617%1028%925%1028%13%36Plants 00%00%00%00%123100%123','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html; http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/Valores+Naturais/Livro+Vermelho+dos+Vertebrados/?res=800x600 ','21/04/2010','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','O Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal foi publicado em 2005 após uma avaliação de 551 entidades (espécies e populações particulares de aves e peixes). Esta avaliação cobriu o Continente e as Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira e utilizou os critérios IUCN para a classificação do risco de extinção e o programa RAMAS Red List. Os resultados em termos de taxa foram os seguintes:-	Mamíferos: 108 entidades avaliadas, 11 Criticamente em Perigo, 7 Em Perigo; 13 Vulnerável; 1 Quase Ameaçado; 42 Pouco Preocupante; 33 Informação Insuficiente; 1 Regionalmente Extinto-	Aves: 362 entidades avaliadas; 20 Criticamente em Perigo; 30 Em Perigo; 61 Vulnerável; 29 Quase Ameaçado; 174 Pouco Preocupante; 31 Informação Insuficiente; 17 Regionalmente Extinto-	Peixes Dulciaquícolas e Migradores: 35 entidades avaliadas; 8 Criticamente em Perigo; 10 Em Perigo; 4 Vulnerável; 2 Quase Ameaçado; 8 Pouco Preocupante; 2 Informação Insuficiente; 1 Regionalmente Extinto-	Répteis: 32 entidades avaliadas; 4 Em Perigo; 6 Vulnerável; 2 Quase Ameaçado; 20 Pouco Preocupante-	Anfíbios: 16 entidades avaliadas; 2 Vulnerável; 1 Quase Ameaçado; 13 Pouco PreocupanteEm relação à tabela acima, interessa referir que o livro vermelho para os peixes assinalado refere-se apenas a peixes dulciaquícolas e migradores e que para Portugal continental a lista vermelha de plantas é apenas referente aos briófitos.A lista de referência da flora de Portugal (Continente, Açores e Madeira) que servirá também como base para a avaliação do estatuto de ameaça das espécies da flora (excepto briófitos) de Portugal foi recentemente finalizada. As listas vermelhas de invertebrados são limitadas às Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da MadeiraPara além da consideração das Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira no Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal, interessa referir que estas Regiões no âmbito da elaboração do “TOP 100 - As cem espécies ameaçadas prioritárias em termos de gestão na região europeia biogeográfica da Macaronésia”, elaboraram a sua própria lista TOP 100.No caso da Região Autónoma dos Açores a maioria das espécies prioritárias para a conservação que integram a listagem Top 100 Açores é endémica do arquipélago. O número de espécies desta listagem está assim distribuído pelos grupos taxonómicos analisados: plantas vasculares incluem mais de um terço do total das espécies (37%), artrópodes cerca de um quarto (24%) e restantes grupos apresentam valores próximos dos 10%. A análise dos habitats ocupados por estas 100 espécies nos Açores evidencia que o habitat mais importante para a manutenção da maioria das espécies é a floresta natural.A Região Autónoma da Madeira, que designou igualmente as suas 100 espécies prioritárias ao nível da conservação, numa lista que integra plantas vasculares e não-vasculares, mamíferos, invertebrados e aves, efectou também, ao abrigo do Projecto Centinella, um levantamento das espécies endémicas ameaçadas de vertebrados e de flora vascular (Faria, B. et al. (2006)).','','Plano de Acção para a Conservação do Lince-ibérico (Lynx pardinus) em Portugal (Despacho n.º 12697/2008, de 6 de Maio), em implementação em articulação com Espanha, e no âmbito do  Memorando de Entendimento entre Portugal e Espanha de 2004  do Acordo de cooperação entre ambos os países relativo ao programa de reintrodução em cativeiro do lince-ibérico assinado em Agosto de 2007 Plano de Acção para a Salvaguarda e Monitorização da População de Roazes (Tursiops truncatus) do Estuário do Sado (Despacho n.º 21997/2009, de 2 de Outubro), em implementação. Está em preparação o Plano de Acção para o Saramugo (Anaecypris hispanica), Plano de acção para Rapa-saias-do-barrocal (Picris willkommii) (2009), encontrando-se em implementação algumas acções propostas. Para além destes planos até 2005 foram elaborados documentos estratégicos, visando as seguintes espécies:-	Aves estepárias (Grus grus, Otis tarda, Tetrax tetrax, Falco naumanni, Pterocles orientalis, pygargus)- Ciconia nigra- Ardea purpurea - Porphyrio porphyrio- Milvus milvus Em 2010 será concluída uma Estratégia Nacional para a Conservação das Aves Necrófagas. Estratégia ibérica para a águia-imperial (Aquila adalberti), em preparação no âmbito do memorando de entendimento estabelecido em 2004 entre Portugal e Espanha, havendo já a implementação de acções conjuntas de monitorização, vigilância e gestão. Estratégia de conservação do lobo-ibérico (Canis lupus), aprovada em 2000 Medidas de Conservação e Gestão de Asphodelus bento-rainhae (LIFE B4-3200/98/518)\"–.Plano de conservação de Asplenium hemionitis (LIFE04NAT/PT/000212) . Plano de Gestão da ZPE Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme (Região Autónoma dos Açores) para a conservação do Priolo (Pyrrula murina), e revisão do Plano de Acção para o Priolo (Pyrrula murina), que será em breve submetida a aprovação política e foi já comunicada à Unidade Natura 2000/Comissão Europeia.Na Região Autónoma da Madeira (RAM) foram estabelecidos os seguintes planos de acção:Aves:-	Freira da Madeira (Pterodroma madeira)-	Freira do Bugio (Pterodroma feae) Mamíferos:-	Foca Monge (Monachus monachus)-	Physeter macrocephalus, Globicephala macrorhynchus, Tursiops truncatus, Delphinus delphis e Stenella Nota: No âmbito do Projecto LIFE Natureza CETÁCEOS MADEIRA, foram revistos os estatutos de conservação das espécies de cetáceos, através de inventários, índices de abundância e de distribuição das espécies migradoras, tendo sido elaborada para o Governo Regional uma proposta de medidas de conservação para minimizar ou eliminar as ameaças identificadas e quantificadas. Determinou-se ainda o impacto qualitativo nas populações de cetáceos das actividades de “whale-watching” e “dolphin-watching” desenvolvidas pelas embarcações marítimo-turísticas e da pesca desportiva na RAM. Estabeleceu-se um plano de monitorização permanente, prático e viável a médio e longo prazo, das populações de cetáceos no arquipélago da Madeira, incluindo a monitorização das actividades de “whale-watching” e “dolphin-watching”. Foi efectuada uma proposta de regulamentação mandatória/plano de gestão para estas actividades, com base na experiência adquirida com o regulamento voluntário. Invertebrados:- Plano estratégico para a conservação- Plano de acção para os moluscos terrestres das ilhas Desertas, em preparação (Projecto SOST-MAC no âmbito PCT-MAC (2007-2013)). ','Cabral, M.J., Almeida, J., Almeida, P.R., Dellinger, T., Ferrand, N., Oliveria, M.E., Palmeirin, J.M., Queiroz, A.I., Rogado, L. & Santos-Reis, M. (eds.) (2005). Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. Lisboa. 660 pp. J. L Martín, M. Arechavaleta, P.A.V. Borges & B. Faria, (eds.) (2008). TOP 100 - As cem espécies ameaçadas prioritárias em termos de gestão na região europeia biogeográfica da Macaronésia. Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial, Gobierno de Canárias, 500 pp. Faria, B., Jardim, R., Madeira, A., Silva, N., Fernandes, F. & Carvalho, J.A. (2006). Fauna e Flora da Madeira: espécies endémicas ameaçadas vertebrados e flora vascular. Projecto Centinela, Governo Regional da Madeira, 144 pp. Sérgio C, Brugués M, Cros RM, Casas C & Garcia C (2006). The 2006 Red List and an updated checklist of bryophytes of the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal, Spain and Andorra). Lindbergia 31: 109-125. http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/Valores+Naturais/Livro+Vermelho+dos+Vertebrados/; http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/publicacoes.php?tipo=18','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective10','A10_1','','Portugal does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to biodiversity research; however, biodiversity research is incorporated into the research program of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) is the primary funding agency for research. FCT is an autonomous public institution under the aegis of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. FCT covers all areas of science, from the humanities, natural sciences, contributing to the improvement of capabilities and excellence in research. The research program of the FCT supports competitive research activities that, for assessment and management, are sub-grouped into thematic areas. Research on biodiversity is considered in the sub-programs \"Science and Technology of the Sea\", \"Environment and Climate Change”, “Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation” and “Agriculture and Environment\". In the Azores there is research support for biodiversity from the Regional Directorate for Science, Technology and Communications (DRCTC) under the Integrated Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (PICT) approved by Resolution No. 41/2008 of April 3, specifically in the following programs: Program 2 - ENCOURAGES - Support for projects of scientific and technological research of interest to the sustainable development of the Azores;Measure 2.1.2 - Proposed scientific and technological research in specific areas of the Integrated Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (PICT) - Legislative Order No. 64/2008 of 28 July; 3 FORMAC program - Support for advanced training Research grants competition resulting from the measures of PICT and developing studies in the area of biodiversity and / or the like. Program 5 - PRICE - Support for R & DI conducted in a business context: Measure 5.2.2 - Proposed RD & I in the business context, the Integrated Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (PICT) - Legislative Order No. 82/2008','','Original text provided: A Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) é a principal agência de financiamento orientado para a investigação. FCT é um instituto público autónomo sob a égide do Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior. FCT cobre todas as áreas científicas, desde as ciências naturais às humanísticas, contribuindo para o melhoramento das capacidades e para a excelência na investigação. O programa de investigação da FCT apoia actividades de investigação competitivas que, para fins de avaliação e gestão, se encontram sub-agrupados em áreas temáticas. A investigação em Biodiversidade é considerada no âmbito dos sub-programas “Ciências e Tecnologias do Mar”, “Ambiente e Alterações Climáticas”, “Biodiversidade, Ecologia e Conservação” e “Agricultura e Ambiente”.Na Região Autónoma dos Açores existem apoios da Direcção Regional da Ciência, Tecnologia e Comunicações (DRCTC), no âmbito do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) aprovado pela Resolução nº41/2008, de 3 de Abril, e especificamente nos programas:Programa 2 - INCITA - Apoio a projectos de investigação científica e tecnológica com interesse para o desenvolvimento sustentável dos AçoresMedida 2.1.2 - Projectos de investigação científica e tecnológica em domínios específicos, do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) - Despacho Normativo nº 64/2008, de 28 de Julho;Programa 3 FORMAC - Apoio à formação avançadaBolsas de investigação resultantes de concurso às medidas do PICTI e que desenvolvem estudos na área da Biodiversidade e/ou afins.Programa 5 - PRICE - Apoio a iniciativas de I&DI realizadas de contexto empresarial:Medida 5.2.2 - Projectos de ID&I em contexto empresarial, do Plano Integrado para a Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (PICTI) - Despacho Normativo nº 82/2008','Research program of the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT): http://alfa.fct.mctes.pt/apoios/projectos/index.phtml.en ','21/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Portugal has completed a follow up to the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The Portuguese Sub-Global Assessment was completed in 2009. A second assessment could be made if the MA has a second development. An economic evaluation of the value of ecosystem services in Portugal forest was conducted using a combination of several valuation techniques. The services evaluated include carbon sequestration, soil protection, and recreation (see the National Strategy for Forests, 2007, Lisbon, Directorate General of Forestry). Some other estimates of the economic value of ecosystem services in Portugal can be found in the final report of the Sub-Global Assessment for Portugal (Pereira, HM, T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença (Eds.). 2009. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Assessment for Portugal Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisbon, Portugal). The concept of ecosystem services is incorporated into the national legal system of biodiversity (Decree-Law No. 142/2008). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios have been considered and analyzed in the context of a new Land Use Plan of the Peneda-Geres.','','Original text provided: A Avaliação Sub-Global para Portugal foi concluída em 2009. Uma segunda avaliação poderá ter lugar se o MA 2 tiver desenvolvimento.Uma avaliação económica do valor dos serviços dos ecossistemas florestais em Portugal foi conduzida usando uma combinação de diversas técnicas de valoração. Os serviços avaliados incluem sequestro de carbono, protecção do solo, e lazer (see Estratégia Nacional para as Florestas, 2007, Lisboa, Direcção-Geral dos Recursos Florestais). Algumas outras estimativas do valor económico dos serviços dos ecossistemas em Portugal podem ser encontrados no relatório final da Avaliação Sub-Global para Portugal (Pereira, H. M., T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença (Eds.). 2009. Ecossistemas e Bem-Estar Humano: Avaliação para Portugal do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisboa, Portugal).    O conceito dos serviços dos ecosistemas está incorporado no regime jurídico nacional da biodiversidade (Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008). Os cenários do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment têm sido considerados e analisados no contexto de um novo Plano de Ordenamento do Parque Nacional da Peneda-Gerês.','Pereira, H. M., T. Domingos, L. Vicente, and V. Proença (Eds.). 2009. Ecossistemas e Bem-Estar Humano: Avaliação para Portugal do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Escolar Editora, Lisboa, Portugal; Estratégia Nacional para as Florestas, 2007, Lisboa, Direcção-Geral dos Recursos Florestais http://ecossistemas.org/','21/04/2010','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Portugal is represented in the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS), yet is still in the design phase of the installation of a national biodiversity platform for strategic planning of research in biodiversity. Several steps were taken towards the establishment of a Biodiversity Platform in Portuguese. A meeting was organized in 2001 in Porto with 60 researchers from around the country and representatives of the Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ICNB) Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. Other contacts were made with ICNB, Foundation for Science and Technology and various research centres to implement this platform in Portugal.In 2007, under the Portuguese Presidency of the European Union, CIIMAR organised a meeting of EPBRS under the theme: Life on the Blue Planet: Biodiversity Research and the new European Marine Policies. Over the past 10 years Portugal has participated in all meetings of EPBRS and conferences that preceded them.','','Original text: Portugal está representado na EPBRS, contudo ainda se encontra em fase de concepção a instalação de uma plataforma nacional orientada para a reflexão e planeamento estratégico da investigação em biodiversidade.Vários passos foram dados para o estabelecimento de uma Plataforma em Biodiversidade portuguesa. Foi organizado um encontro em 2001, no Porto (http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/event/show/5) com 60 investigadores de todo o país e representantes do Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (ICNB), do Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território. Outros contactos foram realizados com o ICNB, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia e vários centros de investigação para implementação desta plataforma em Portugal.Em 2007, no âmbito da Presidência Portuguesa da União Europeia, o CIIMAR organizou uma reunião da EPBRS sob o tema: Life on the Blue Planet: Biodiversity Research and the new European Marine Policies. Nos últimos 10 anos Portugal participou em todas as reuniões da EPBRS e nas conferências que as antecederam.  ','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ; http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/event/show/5 ','22/04/2010','','','na','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Portugal has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since June 2001. Portugal host over 26,000 records on national biodiversity on GBIF.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Guia Marine Laboratory, Institute of Marine Research (IMAR) in Portugal is a non-profit private organisation with the aim of contributing the scientific basis of policy support through research. IMAR is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 11: Multi-lingual access to European Biodiversity sites.','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','06/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in lines, in groups or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address requirements for minimum soil cover, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and arable stubble management. The national GAEC legislation also includes rules for reducing impacts on bird life, and recent measures on landscape elements and resource protection, particularly with regard to the maintenance of riparian galleries, thickets and trees.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Portugal total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 4035.02 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 5117.04 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1641.23 million EUR, and 2005.62 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 40.79 and 39.38 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Portugal was 433.23 million EUR (528.93 with co-financing) and amounted to 10.74 per cent of the EAFRD (10.34 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 1 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.02 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.18 million EUR of public expenditure (0.02 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 1.04 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.03 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.23 million EUR of public expenditure (0.02 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 11.68 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.29 per cent of EAFRD) and 14.33 million EUR of public expenditure (0.28 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)152.5621154.8944Forest environment payments (225)0.116380.11638','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. However, in situ conservation of crop varieties and livestock breeds is promoted in the national biodiversity strategy. In situ conservation projects are also underway, covering 3 crop varieties (with a value of 276486 Euro), 3 livestock breeds (380610 Euro) and 2 varieties of commercial tree (178198 Euro). Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Portugal approved 52 applications in this regard, amounting to € 8.98 million of EAFRD funding and total expenditure, representing respectively 5.88* and 5.75 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008. *NB. Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.Further details are provided in Portuguese but not English.A Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade determina o objectivo de prosseguir, sob a coordenação das autoridades nacionais de Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas, o desenvolvimento de acções de conservação in situ e ex situ dos recursos genéticos agrícolas e aquícolas, nomeadamente das espécies e variedades vegetais e das raças autóctones, bem como dos ecossistemas em que os mesmos se tenham desenvolvido.Em relação ao processo de selecção das espécies e dos povoamentos florestais a serem certificados para comercialização, as regras de produção com vista à comercialização e a comercialização de material de reprodução florestal na Comunidade estão estabelecidas pela Directiva 1999/105/EC, de 22 de Dezembro de 1999, que foi transposta para o direito nacional pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 205/2003, de 12 de Setembro. Apenas as espécies florestais com valor para florestação na Comunidade foram consideradas. A Autoridade Florestal Nacional mantém uma base de dados de árvores autóctones e não autóctones, escolhidas segundo os critérios da Directiva 1999/105/CE. Portugal é um importante reservatório de recursos genéticos animais, estando oficialmente reconhecidas 45 Raças Autóctones, sendo 15 raças da espécie Bovina, 15 raças de Ovinos, 5 raças de Caprinos, 3 raças de Suínos, 4 raças de Equídeos e 3 raças de Galináceos. O financiamento nacional visando o apoio às raças locais/autóctones, desenvolve-se em duas vertentes constantes do Plano de Desenvolvimento Rural (2007 - 2013) para o Continente: •	Financiamento directamente aos Agricultores, subvencionando a manutenção ”in-situ” dos efectivos autóctones (Acção 2.2.2. Protecção da Biodiversidade Doméstica);•	Financiamento às Associações de Criadores detentoras da gestão de Livros Genealógicos/Registos Zootécnicos, visando suportar os custos com o seu funcionamento (preservação) e os custos com as acções de melhoramento animal (Acção 2.2.3. Conservação e Melhoramento de Recursos Genéticos).Através destas medidas, no âmbito da manutenção e melhoramento genético de raças autóctones são apoiadas 34 Associações de criadores de Raças Autóctones. As estruturas apoiadas são detentoras dos Livros Genealógicos e são responsáveis pela operacionalização dum Programa de Conservação ou Melhoramento Genético plurianual.Com o objectivo de preservar a raça bovina Ramo Grande é autóctone da Região Autónoma dos Açores, e após definido o respectivo padrão, foi estabelecido em 1996 o seu Registo Zootécnico. No âmbito do PRORURAL foram criadas medidas visando a preservação do património genético animal e cultural através da manutenção da raça bovina autóctone Ramo Grande e das práticas culturais associadas.No âmbito do PRORURAL é ainda contemplada a Conservação de Pomares Tradicionais dos Açores com os seguintes objectivos: preservação do património genético vegetal, através da conservação de espécies tradicionais; Potenciação de actividades alternativas; Manutenção de paisagens rurais de elevado valor natural e Preservação da paisagem tradicional.Portugal participou no projecto “European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum” (2002-2005), financiado pelo Quinto Programa Quadro da UE. O projecto pretendeu estabelecer as condições necessárias à conservação a longo prazo e sensibilizar para a necessidade de incrementar a utilização dos recursos genéticos vegetais na Europa.No âmbito dos Regulamentos do Conselho Europeu (EC) Nº 1467/94 e Nº 870/2004, dirigidos para a conservação de recursos genéticos vegetais, Portugal participa em projectos de conservação de recursos genéticos de diversas espécies de interesse agrícola (meloeiro, videira, couve, milho e arroz), e ainda no projecto AEGRO que tem por objectivo o estabelecimento de princípios gerais de gestão in situ (nas reservas genéticas e no campo dos agricultores) dos recursos genéticos vegetais. A vinha é importante por todo o país, onde 340 variedades são oficialmente autorizadas para produção de vinho. Para além destas, outras 10 são importantes como uvas de mesa. Durante a década de 90 foi estabelecida uma colecção nacional orientada para a conservação das variedades. De forma a manter a variabilidade genética (variabilidade dos clones) foram estabelecidas no campo outras 70 colecções.A oliveira é cultivada em 9% da área agrícola (INE, 2008), incluindo várias variedades autóctones, caso da Galega e Cordovil de Serpa. Algumas grandes prorpiedades no Alentejo e no Ribatejo possuem programas de conservação das variedades tradicionais portuguesas.Existe ainda uma grande diversidade de variedades autóctones de maçãs e pêras, sobretudo nas áreas rurais do norte de Portugal, sendo as variedades mais protegidas as com alto valor comercial. Mais de uma centena de variedades tradicionais de fruteiras foram inventariadas, nomeadamente pereira, macieira, figueira, cerejeira, amendoeira, castanheiro e alfarrobeira.Têm vindo a ser realizados desenvolvidos inventários de variedades tradicionais, por exemplo de fruteiras, feijão, centeio e milho, e de plantas medicinais e aromáticas, incluindo conhecimento tradicional associado.Também nas Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira foi realizado um inventário das cultivares tradicionais. A ONG “Colher para Semear Rede Portuguesa de Variedades Tradicionais” criada em Março de 2006, está orientada opara a inventariação e conservação das cultivares tradicionais. Publica anualmente para os seus membros uma lista de 350 variedades de 22 espéciesProjectos científicos orientados para o conhecimento das espécies cultivares:- M. A Pinheiro de Carvalho, Universidade da Madeira - Projecto AEGRO que tem por objectivo o estabelecimento de princípios gerais de gestão in situ (nas reservas genéticas e no campo dos agricultores) dos recursos genéticos vegetais (2007-2010)- Teresa Maria Santana Barreto Soares David - Espécies lenhosas Mediterrânicas dos montados: sobrevivência à secura (POCI/AGR/59152/2004)- Eliseu Betencourt - Projecto PGR Forum - European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum (Quinto Programa Quadro da EU): estabelecer as condições necessárias à conservação a longo prazo e sensibilizar para a necessidade de incrementar a utilização dos recursos genéticos vegetais na Europa (2003-2005)- Helena Maria da Conceição Cotrim - Caracterização de genótipos das populações de Cynara cardunculus L. var. altilis DC usadas como cardo na produção de queijos DOP Portugueses (POCI/BIA-BDE/55681/2004)Durante os últimos 3 concursos abertos para financiamento ao abrigo do programa R&D da Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (2004, 2006 e 2008), foram aprovados os seguintes projectos relativos a conservação in-situ:Variedades cultivares1.	“The wild relatives of Beta: genetic diversity assessment and biochemical studies” 2.	“Genotype characterisation of populations of Cynara cardunculus L. var. altilis DC used as a milk clotting plant for Portuguese PDO cheese”3.	“Assessment of the variability of dye plants and comparative analysis of their natural compounds for industrial use”4.	“Molecular approaches in the identification local crop varieties and evaluation of their seed quality”Raças autóctones de gado1.	“Genetic Diversity, Conservation and Phylogenetic History of the African Wild Ass (Equus africanus): A Non-invasive molecular Approach.”2.	“Genome-wide approach to Detect Adaptative Molecular Variation in Domestic Ungulates” 3.	“How genetically different is a domestic pig from a wild boar? Detecting molecular signatures of differential selection in candidate genes involved in domestication process and molecular adaptation in domestic and wild pig.”Árvores para comercialização1.	 “The added value of non-matrix habitat fragments to the biodiversity of cork oak landscapes: conservation and management implications”2.	“Mediterranean woody species of montados: surviving the drought”3.	“Isolation and characterization of ESTs from Quercus Suber”','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 152/2001, de 11 de Outubro)http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Documentos+de+referência/Estratégia+Nacional+da+Conservação+da+Natureza+e+da+Biodiversidade/estrategia+conservacao++e+biodiv.htm  http://prorural.azores.gov.pt/ \"Second Portuguese National Report on Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture\" http://www.pgrfa.org/gpa/prt/Portugal2.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Portugal approved 52 applications in this regard, amounting to € 8.98 million of EAFRD funding and total expenditure, representing respectively 5.88 and 5.75 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_12','','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2010 in Portugal’s outermost regions total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 449.46 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 528.84 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 166.146 million EUR, and 195.464 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 36.96 and 36.96 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in France’s outermost regions was 54.74 million EUR (64.39 with co-financing) and amounted to 12.8 per cent of the EAFRD (12.18 with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 1 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.22 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.18 million EUR of public expenditure (0.22 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) amounted to 1.04 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.23 per cent of EAFRD) and 1.226 million EUR of public expenditure (0.23 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 0.18 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.04 per cent of EAFRD) and 0.212 million EUR of public expenditure (0.04 per cent of public expenditure).','','The amounts refer to the sum of the values contained in the Rural Development Programmes of the Azores and the Autonomous Region of Madeira.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://prorural.azores.gov.pt/  http://prorural.azores.gov.pt/documentacao/default.aspx?id=2 http://www.sra.pt/PRODERAM/ ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used for plans, programmes and projects related to deforestation and afforestation operations. In addition, biodiversity surveys are undertaken for deforestation operations, and Forest Management Plans covering hazardous areas are required to integrate a Management Programme for Biodiversity. This includes a set of silvi-cultural measures to ensure the sustainable use of habitats and protected species and, where possible, improve their conservation status.Further details are provided below, in Portuguese only.Afforestation- Estratégias Florestais para Portugal Continental e Região Autónoma dos Açores- Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000, que define orientações estratégicas e de gestão para Sítios de Importância Comunitária, Zonas de Protecção Especial, espécies e habitats protegidos no âmbito das Directivas Habitats e Aves, abordando as acções de florestação e desflorestação na perspectiva da conservação dos valores naturais classificados. Segundo a legislação em vigor, estas orientações estratégicas têm que ser obrigatoriamente vertidas nos instrumentos hierarquicamente inferiores, nomeadamente os Planos Directores Municipais, na parte regulamentável;- Legislação que regula a introdução na natureza de espécies não indígenas (1999, em revisão);- Legislação que condiciona a florestação e reflorestação com eucalipto;- Regulamentos dos Planos de Ordenamento das Áreas Protegidas que condicionam ou interditam as acções de florestação e reflorestação com espécies não indígenas.- Planos de Ordenamento das Albufeiras contemplam condicionamentos à alteração do coberto vegetal nalgumas áreas consideradas mais sensíveis do ponto de vista da conservação da natureza.- “Manual de apoio a análise de projectos de âmbito florestal” em áreas classificadas para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, que contempla um conjunto de orientações para garantir que as actividades de exploração florestal, nomeadamente as operações de florestação e reflorestação, minimizam os impactos sobre a fauna, a flora e os habitats, e contribuir para que constituam um factor positivo para a conservação da natureza.Deforestation:- Estratégias Florestais para Portugal Continental e Região Autónoma dos Açores- Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000, que define orientações estratégicas e de gestão para Sítios de Importância Comunitária, Zonas de Protecção Especial, espécies e habitats protegidos no âmbito das Directivas Habitats e Aves, abordando as acções de florestação e desflorestação na perspectiva da conservação dos valores naturais classificados. Segundo a legislação em vigor, estas orientações estratégicas têm que ser obrigatoriamente vertidas nos instrumentos hierarquicamente inferiores, nomeadamente os Planos Directores Municipais, na parte regulamentável;- Legislação que regula a introdução na natureza de espécies não indígenas (1999, em revisão);- Legislação que condiciona a florestação e reflorestação com eucalipto;- Regulamentos dos Planos de Ordenamento das Áreas Protegidas que condicionam ou interditam as acções de florestação e reflorestação com espécies não indígenas.- “Manual de apoio a análise de projectos de âmbito florestal” em áreas classificadas para a conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade, que contempla um conjunto de orientações para garantir que as actividades de exploração florestal, nomeadamente as operações de florestação e reflorestação, minimizam os impactos sobre a fauna, a flora e os habitats, e contribuir para que constituam um factor positivo para a conservação da natureza.- Legislação que proíbe o abate de povoamentos ou ou espécimes de sobreiro Quercus suber e azinheira Quercus ilex, a qual inclui medidas compensatórias para algumas situações. - Legislação que proíbe a corte ou arranque do azevinho Ilex aquifolium.- Planos de Ordenamento das Albufeiras contemplam condicionamentos à alteração do coberto vegetal nalgumas áreas consideradas mais sensíveis do ponto de vista da conservação da natureza.ToolsO regime de Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental (Decreto-Lei n. 69/2000, de 3 de Maio e Decreto-Lei n. 232/2007, de 15 de Junho) condiciona a florestação e reflorestação apenas para espécies de rápido crescimento. Condiciona também a desflorestação quando destinada à conversão para outro tipo de utilização das terras.Tipo de projectos:Florestação e reflorestação, desde que indique a substituição de espécies preexistentes, em áreas isoladas ou contínuas, com espécies de rápido crescimento e desflorestação destinada à conversão para outro tipo de utilização das terras.Caso geral:Florestação/ reflorestação com uma área ≥ 350 ha, ou 140 ha, se, em conjunto com povoamentos preexistentes das mesmas espécies, distando entre si menos de 1 km, der origem a uma área florestada superior a 350 ha. Desflorestação ≥ 50 ha.Áreas sensíveis:Florestação/ reflorestação com uma área ≥ 70 ha, ou 30 ha, se, em conjunto com povoamentos preexistentes das mesmas espécies, distando entre si menos de 1 km, der origem a uma área florestada superior a 70 ha. São consideradas Áreas sensíveis: i) Áreas Protegidas, classificadas ao abrigo do Decreto-Lei nº 19/93, de 23 de Janeiro, com as alterações introduzidas pelo Decreto-Lei nº 227/98, de 17 de Julho; ii) Áreas da Rede Natura 2000 classificadas nos termos do Decreto-Lei nº 140/99, de 24 de Abril, no âmbito das Directivas nº 79/409/CEE e 92/43/CEE; iii) Áreas de protecção dos monumentos nacionais e dos imóveis de interesse público definidas nos termos da Lei nº 13/85, de 6 de Julho;Os Planos de Gestão Florestal que abranjam áreas classificadas têm obrigatoriamente de integrar um Programa de Gestão da Biodiversidade, o qual “inclui um conjunto de medidas silvícolas que assegurem a perenidade dos habitats e espécies protegidas e, sempre que possível, melhorem o seu estado de conservação”.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Decreto-Lei n.º 69/2000. DR 102 SÉRIE I-A de 2000-05-03;Dec.-Lei n.º 175/88, de 17 de Maio, e legislação complementar), a que acresce ainda o regime de protecção ao relevo natural e ao revestimento vegetal (Dec.-Lei n.º 139/89, de 28 de Abril) - espécies de rápido crescimento (em revisão);Estatuto especial de protecção para algumas espécies – sobreiro, azinheira e azevinho espontâneo encontram-se protegidas por legislação própria (em revisão).Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008, de 21 de Julho (Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000)Dec.-Lei n.º 565/99, de 23 de Dezembro (em revisão) (Introdução de espécies não indígenas na Natureza)Dec.-Lei n.º 175/88, de 17 de Maio e Portaria nº 528/89, de 11 de Julho (arborização e rearborização com espécies de rápido crescimento)Dec.-Lei n.º 139/89, de 28 de Abril (regime de protecção ao relevo natural e ao revestimento vegetal)Decreto-Lei nº 169/2001, de 25 de Maio, com as alterações introduzidas pelo Decreto-Lei nº 155/2004, de 30 de Junho (protecção de sobro e azinho)Decreto-Lei nº 423/89, de 4 de Dezembro (protecção do azevinho)Links: www.dre.pt www.afn.min-agricultura.pt www.icnb.pt www.afn.min-agricultura.pt ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Portugal had a total certified forest area of 361,005 hectares out of a total forest area of 3.78 million hectares. 192,819 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 168,186 hectares were certified. In total, 9.54 per cent of the forest area in Portugal was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Portugal amounted to 2.90 million ha, representing a share of 57.6 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','Thus, the text referring to Action A.2.1.3., Inserted in the boxes above, must be eliminated.','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.According to the Member State, Portugal has not adopted the methodology proposed by the Joint Research Cnter (or alternative) for the definition of HNV farming and forestry. Within the framework of the Joint Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development, the European Commission proposed an alternative methodology for these indicators, which is still under development in Member States.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in lines, in groups or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures address requirements for minimum soil cover, avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land and arable stubble management. The national GAEC legislation also includes rules for reducing impacts on bird life, and recent measures on landscape elements and resource protection, particularly with regard to the maintenance of riparian galleries, thickets and trees.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','21/04/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Further details are provided in Portuguese below.O sistema de aconselhamento agrícola reconhece entidades que apresentem uma estratégia e capacidade técnica de apoio aos agricultores no âmbito da Condicionalidade (Requisitos legais de gestão (RQL) e Boas Condições Agrícolas e Ambientais (BCAA), de acordo com o Regulamento (CE) n.º 73/2009, de 19 de Janeiro) e no âmbito da Segurança no Trabalho. Um dos domínios dos RQL é o domínio ambiente que contempla, entre outras, a Directiva 79/409/CEE do Conselho relativa à conservação das aves selvagens e a Directiva 92/43/CEE do Conselho relativa à preservação dos habitats naturais e da fauna e da flora selvagens.O PRODER (Programa Desenvolvimento Rural para o Continente) promove o serviço de aconselhamento agrícola de duas formas:•	pelo lado da oferta, porque apoia as entidades que estão reconhecidas para efectuar o serviço de aconselhamento agrícola (acção 4.3.2 – Serviços de apoio às empresas);•	do lado da procura, porque comparticipa aos agricultores o custo de aquisição deste serviço (Acção 4.3.1- Serviços de aconselhamento agrícola).Por outro lado, o Decreto-Lei n.º 256/2009 estabelece o quadro regulamentar relativo à Produção Integrada e Modo de Produção Biológico enquanto Modos de Produção Agrícola. Um dos objectivos destes modos de produção é o fomento da biodiversidade através da escolha fundamentada de práticas de preservação dos recursos naturais, nomeadamente do solo, da água e da biodiversidade. Este Decreto-lei, atribui a competência de apoio técnico a agricultores, no âmbito destes modos de produção, a técnicos que estejam reconhecidos para esse efeito. A adesão de agricultores a estes Modos de Produção é promovida pelo PRODER (eixo II) no âmbito da acção 2.2.1- “Alteração dos Modo de Produção”O PRODER contempla ainda, no âmbito da medida 2.4 - Intervenções Territoriais Integradas, que constituem o principal instrumento financeiro para a gestão da Rede Natura 2000, a acção 2.4.1 – Apoio à Gestão das ITI. Esta acção destina-se a apoiar as Estruturas Locais de Apoio, que têm como funções a preparação de uma estratégia para sensibilização da população alvo da intervenção para o ambiente e objectivos da intervenção, a emissão de normas subsidiárias e de pareceres sobre os investimentos não produtivos a executar nos respectivos territórios de intervenção, a preparação de informação e documentação relevante à boa execução da operação, o acompanhamento técnico dos beneficiários e a monitorização de impactos da operação, no âmbito dos compromissos agro-silvo-ambientais contratados.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire,Weblink: http://www.proder.pt/PresentationLayer/conteudo.aspx?menuid=366   ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_8','','National / regional monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	Tree species composition.Indicators are also being developed for HNV farming and forestry.Further details are provided in Portuguese below.O Índice de Aves Comuns é um indicador adoptado por Portugal no âmbito do Sistema de Indicadores de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, integrado ainda como indicador de desempenho ambiental no Relatório Nacional do Estado do Ambiente. O Índice de Aves comuns de zonas agrícolas é um dos indicadores do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural 2007-2013, constituindo-se ainda como um dos indicadores agro-ambientais de avaliação de tendências das interacções mais significativas entre a agricultura e o meio ambiente”Para o indicador HNV agrícola e florestal Portugal não adoptou a metodologia proposta pelo JRC (ou outra alternativa). Este facto foi comunicado à Agência Europeia do Ambiente e ao JRC aquando da consolidação metodológica deste indicador. No âmbito do Quadro Comum de Acompanhamento e Avaliação do Desenvolvimento Rural a Comissão Europeia propôs uma metodologia alternativa para este indicador, que ainda se encontra em desenvolvimento.Estão já disponíveis indicadores adicionais de biodiversidade específicos das medidas agro-ambientais e silvo-ambientais integradas em algumas das Intervenções Territoriais Integradas (ITI) do PRODERc 2007-2013 (aves estepárias e aves rupícolas) e serão desenvolvidos indicadores complementares de biodiversidade específicos para todas as ITI.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:http://www.apambiente.pt/Instrumentos/sids/Paginas/default.aspx http://www.proder.pt/Handlers/FileHandler.ashx?id=23&menuid=366 http://www.apambiente.pt/divulgacao/Publicacoes/REA/Documents/REA%202008_Final.pdf http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes http://sigsraf.azores.gov.pt/ ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 102 million € has been added to the Portuguese national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Portugal attributed € 1 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 1 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.Table below provides an overview of resources generated for France’s ‘outermost regions’: Total million €Biodiversity million €PercentageAzores2000Madeira     No information on Madeira was available.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','21/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory. The National Forest Inventory (IFN) 1995/98 included information on the coverage of lichens and mosses, traces of grazing and litter for all plots sampled. IFN 2005/2006 considered the same parameters.Further details are available below, in Portuguese only.O Inventário Florestal Nacional (IFN) 1995/98 inclui informação sobre aspectos específicos sobre cada parcela amostrada referentes à existência (ou não) de cobertura de líquenes e musgos, vestígios de pastoreio e manta morta. O IFN 2005/2006 considera também os mesmos parâmetros para cada parcela amostrada. A percentagem de coberto da manta morta deve ser estimada para o conjunto da parcela, fazendo uso da \"ficha auxiliar para avaliação das percentagens de cobertura \". A profundidade da manta morta, medida com o auxílio de uma régua, deve resultar da média de cinco leituras ao acaso. No IFN 05/06 repetem-se as recolhas relativas a manta morta, desta vez abarcando a percentagem de coberto na parcela e a espessura, indistintamente da camada de folhada e da camada de decomposição.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Ferreira, Conceição, Josefa Carvalho & Manuela Baptista et al. (2009) Instruções para o trabalho de campo do Inventário Florestal – IFN 2005 / 2006, Ed. AFN, Lisboa.www.afn.min-agricultura ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 50 per cent of both the Atlantic and Macaronesian fresh water habitats in Portugal have an unfavourable status. 42 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have an unfavourable status. 25 per cent of the Atlantic fresh water habitats have a favourable conservation status, a further 25 per cent have an unknown status. 50 per cent of Macaronesian and 42 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have a favourable status. The remaining 17 per cent of the Mediterranean fresh water habitats have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage983045%40%15%0%20            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4211050%25%25%0%U12  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4220050%50%0%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12552042%42%17%0%U14  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Portugal.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2000 to 2003, amounting to 19.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 36.3 mg NO3/l in 2005, with the highest peak in 2005.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Portugal had a total number of 41 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 42.3 per cent of all inland bathing waters. There is no clear trend compared to previous years, as the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values has increased and decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive, in Portugal, all biological assessment methods for transitional and coastal waters were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). However, the country developed three out of four biological assessment methods for rivers, with only phytoplankton assessment missing. The latter was implemented for the biological assessment of lakes. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives.','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_4_1','','',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.       ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/pt/eu/ippc/envskoua/ippc-q2-template_PT1.xls/manage_document ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 ammonia, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides emissions in Portugal were below the 2010 ceilings set by the NEC Directive. Non-methane volatile organic compounds emissions were still above the 2010 ceilings, and Portugal does not expect to be able to bring NMVOC emissions below its ceiling level in 2010. It is expected that Portugal will comply with all other targets set by the NEC Directive in2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Portugal the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 8 and 97 per cent respectively, considering an area of 31,121 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 3 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 83 per cent in 2010 and 69 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 6 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Portugal’s gross nitrogen balance was 47 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 13 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 2004 and 2006, Portugal’s national farmland bird indicator has increased to 5.9 per cent from the 2004 baseline. 21 species were assessed. No data are available on Portugal’s national farmland bird indicators before the year 2004.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Macaronesian grassland habitats in Portugal have an unfavourable conservation status as do 60 per cent of the Atlantic grassland habitats and 50 per cent of the Mediterranean grassland habitats. The remaining Atlantic and Mediterranean grassland habitats have a favourable conservation status. All 4 occurrences of the Macaronesian forest habitat have an unfavourable conservation status as do 60 per cent of the Atlantic forest habitats and 69 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats. 40 per cent of the Atlantic and 19 per cent of the Mediterranean forest habitats have a favourable conservation status; the status of the remaining Atlantic and Mediterranean forest habitats is unknown. Of the heath and scrub habitats in Portugal, 33 per cent of the Atlantic, 50 per cent of the Macaronesian and 60 per cent of the Mediterranean habitats have a favourable conservation status; the remainder has an unfavourable status. All of the Atlantic and Mediterranean peat land habitats in Portugal have an unfavourable conservation status. 75 per cent of the Macaronesian peat land habitats have an unfavourable status; the remaining 25 per cent has a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','',' A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage16970056%44%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%U13  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U11  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10550050%50%0%0%U15  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1852072%20%8%0%25            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5320060%40%0%0%U13  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage44000100%0%0%0%U12  U22       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage161132069%19%13%0%U111  U20       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10550050%50%0%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage3210067%33%0%0%U12  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U12  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage710088%13%0%0%8            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11  U21       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4310075%25%0%0%U12  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11  U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Portugal showed that four out of four marine habitats in the Marine Atlantic region had an ‘Unknown’ status. Four marine habitats were also assessed in the Marine Atlantic/Macaronesian region—of these, three had a ‘Favourable’ status (75%)  and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%). Eight coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic biogeographic region—of these, seven had an ‘Inadequate’ status (88%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (12%). Seven coastal habitats were assessed in the Macaronesian biogeographic region—two had a ‘Favourable’ status (29%), two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (29%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (29%), and the remaining one had an ‘Unknown’ status (14%). Thirteen coastal habitats were assessed in the Mediterranean biogeographic region—three had a ‘Favourable’ status (23%), eight had an ‘Inadequate’ status (62%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (15%). A total of 34 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, including reptiles, fish, invertebrates and mammals. Of the e4, three had a ‘Favourable’ status (9%), two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (6%), 24 had an ‘Unknown’ status (71%) and five were ‘Not reported’ (21%). A total of 36 marine species were assessed in the Marine Macaronesian/Atlantic region—eight had an ‘Inadequate’ status (22%), 25 had an ‘Unknown’ status (69%) and three were ‘Not Reported’ (8%).','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine Atlantic/MacaronesianMarine habitats375%00%00%125%00%4AtlanticCoastal habitats00%787.5%00%112.5%00%8MacaronesianCoastal habitats228.6%228.6%228.6%114.3%00%7MediterraneanCoastal habitats323.1%861.5%215.4%00%00%13Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%4100%00%4Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%5100%5Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine AtlanticMammals313%28%00%1979%00%24Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL39%26%00%2471%521%34Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%5100%00%00%00%5Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticMammals00%310%00%2480%310%30Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine Macaronesian/AtlanticTOTAL00%822%00%2569%38%36The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','06/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Portugal reported that, in 2009, it had 49 surveillance stations and 3 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Portugal has 63 coastal water bodies. Approximately 22% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates and for monitoring macroalgae or angiosperm were under development. A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD was being developed.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','25/04/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_1_5','','The National Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy (ENGIZC) was adopted on September 8 2009 (by Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 82/2009), and is consistent with other strategies, policies and programmes. These include the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. No 109/2007 of 20 August), the National Planning Policy (Act No. 58/2007 of 4 September), the National Strategy for the Sea, the National Strategy for Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity, the National Strategy for Energy (the Council of Ministers Resolution No. 169/2005 of 24 October), the Guidelines for the maritime and port sectors (2006), the National Strategic Plan for Fisheries (2007 -2013), the National Strategic Plan for Tourism (Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 57/2007 of 4 April), the National Ecotourism Programme (Council of Ministers Resolution No. 112/98, of August 25), Perspectives on the Sustainability of the Azores, the Plan for Tourism in the Azores, the Plan for Tourism in Madeira and the Land Use Plans for the coast. The ENGIZC reaffirms the national objectives currently implemented in the present legal framework, reinforcing the need for integrated coastal zone management and the need for coordinated planning and management of maritime area and marine conservation. Fulfilling the EU guidelines, the ENGIZC sets out a vision for a period of 20 years, with the potential for re-evaluation and revision if required, ensuring a long term and strategic approach. The vision embraces principles defined in the document \"Principles for the integrated management of national coastal zone”, which incorporate the guidelines and values reflected in the national territorial management instruments: sustainability and intergenerational solidarity, cohesion and social equity, prevention and precaution; systemic approach, scientific and technical knowledge, subsidiarity, participation, shared responsibility, operability. Considering the framework adopted and the vision and principles laid down, a set of policy options was established, consistent with the results of strategic environmental assessment. In the Azores Autonomous Region there are six approved coastal plans. These focus on the coastal and inland waters, seabeds and banks, with boundaries set within each plan, specifically the \"terrestrial protection zone\", with a maximum width of 500m from the high tide level, and the \"maritime protection zone”, up to the 30m isobath. In the Autonomous Region of Madeira four coastal spatial plans are being drafted in Funchal - Ponta de S. Lawrence, Câmara de Lobos - Ponta do Pargo, North Coast and Porto Santo. ','','','http://www.inag.pt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202:engizc; http://www.azores.gov.pt/ 2006 ICZM evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ evaluation_iczm_report.pdf','21/04/2010','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_2','',' There are 436 coastal bathing areas in Portugal and the majority of these (98.6%) reached mandatory standards on water quality in 2008. One coastal bathing area had to be closed during the season compared to two bathing waters in 2007. Compliance with the stricter guideline standards has been consistently over 80% but has varied year on year: 90.3% in 2006; 86.7% in 2007 and 89.4% in 2008. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as Portugal has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years.','','','','23/4/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_4','','Portugal’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €66,966,211 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and improving selectivity of fishing gear. Axis 2 (€105,073,320) encourages the use of environmentally friendly and innovate aquaculture techniques as well as the use of marine spatial planning for site selection of aquaculture production. Axis 3 (€118,585,284) ensures the protection of aquatic flora and fauna and Axis 4 (€23,935,917) allows for the diversification of activity away from fishing. ','','There is a slight difference in numbers between the amounts of EC funds as reported within the text of the Operational Programme and the figures provided by DG Mare. Portugal advised that the data in the table should be updated according to Commission Decision CCI: 2007PT14 FPO 001, March 13, 2009. However it was not possible to find the details of this decision. Can the Commission provide this when verifying the profiles? For information, the figures of EFF allocations to Portugal provided by DG Mare are as follows: Axis 1: 62,865,134Axis 2: 74,187,067Axis 3: 83,407,876Axis 4: 17,403,406Total (Axis 1 – 4) = 237,863,483 Euros ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_04_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Portugal had 8,715 vessels and 16% were involved in a serious infringement (1,352 vessels). A total of 829 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €851 and maximum fine of €7,650.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','24/4/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_5_2','','There are no management plans for migratory species except eel, which has been submitted to the EC for approval. In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 of 18 September, Member states are required to develop eel management plans tailored to regional and local conditions. Portugal created aninterministerial working group to prepare the Eel Management Plan (EMP). The first version of the plan was provided at the request of the European Commission in May 2009 with a view to its consideration by ICES. It was then reviewed in October 2009, following the ICES assessment, and is currently pending the Commission\'s final decision. Following approval of the plan implementation of the plan will begin. The sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) was considered \"Regionally Extinct\" in Portugal and it has not been caught in the country since the early 1980s (Almaça & Elvira, 2000). In relation to actions to remove barriers to fish migration, a survey was carried out of these barriers with a detailed characterisation of the type of obstacles. A methodology for assessing the existing arrangements for fish passes was developed (Santo, M, 2005). In order to increase populations of migratory species, the following activities should be noted: • The ex-situ conservation of Lampetra fluviatilis, to provide a genetic repository for restocking areas;• Restocking of Petromyzon marinus under the recovery plan for the migratory fish community of the River Douro basin. Under the extension of Natura 2000 in the marine environment, the enlargement of already-designated Natura 2000 sites are planned, to include the mouths of several rivers (Minho, Lima, Vouga, Ancora, Mira and Guadiana). This will allow greater protection for diadromous fish species, through better management of barriers and the consequent increase in continuity needed for migration. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:•	Almaça C & Elvira B (2000) Past and present distribution of Acipenser sturio L., 1758 on the Iberian Peninsula. Boletín Instituto Español de Oceanografia 16 (1-4): 11-16.•	Santos, J.M., M.T.Ferreira, A. N. Pinheiro & J. Bochechas (2006) – Effects of small hydropower plants on fish assemblages in médium-sized streams of central and northern Portugal. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 373 – 388(2006).•	Bochechas, J. (2006) – Overview of fish passage and fish migration in Portugal. An analysis of the main problems concerning fish passage facilities. Simposium “From Sea to source” Program INTERREG IIIC, project “Community Rivers”, Groningen, Nederlands, 8 to 10 November 2006.•	Bochechas, J. (2006) – Overview of the situation of potential salmon habitats in Portugal. Conferência \"The actions of land managers and anglers in favour of the protection of the aquatic habitats in Europe\". Brussels, Belgium, 20 and 21 November.•	Bochechas, J. & M. Santo (2006) – Overview of fish pass facilities in Portugal. In Kroes M.J., Gough P., Schollema P.P. & Wanningen H., 2006. From sea to source. Practical guidance for the restoration of fish migration in European Rivers;•	Bochechas, J. & M. Santo (2007) – Overview of fish passage and fish migration in Portugal. An analysis of the main problems concerning fish passage facilities. 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, Christchurch, New Zealand, 18 – 23 February.•	Santos, J.M., P. J. Pinheiro, M. T. Ferreira & J. Bochechas (2007) – Monitoring fish passes using infrared beaming: a case study in an Iberian river. J.Appl.Ichthyol. (2007), 1-5.•	Oliveira, J.M., M. T. Ferreira, A. N. Pinheiro & J. Bochechas (2002) – Assessment of minimal flows required for spawning activities of sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus using the wetted usable area. EIFAC Symposium on Inland Fisheries and the Aquatic Environment. Windermere, UK, 11-15 June 2002.•	Santos, J.M., F. N. Godinho, M. T. Ferreira & J. Bochechas (2002) – Performance of Fish Lift Recently Built at the Touvedo Dam on the Lima River, Portugal.  J.Appl.Ichthyol. 18(2002), 118-123.•	Silva, A., T. Ferreira, J. Santos, A. Pinheiro, J. Melo & J. Bochechas (2004) – Development of a pool-type fishway facility for iberian cyprinids. 5th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics. Aquatic Habitats: Analysis & Restoration. Madrid, 12 to 17 September 2004. •	Santos, J.M., M. T. Ferreira, F. N Godinho & J. Bochechas (2005) - Efficacy of a nature-like bypass channel in portuguese lowland river. J.Appl.Ichthyol. 21(5), 381-388, 2005;•	Santo, Marta, Dispositivos de passagens para peixes em Portugal, DGRF, 2005.http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/pesca/passagens-para-peixes/dispositivos-de-passagens-para-peixes-em-portugalPLANO DE GESTÃO DA ENGUIA 2009-2012: Resposta do Estado Português ao Regulamento (CE) nº 1100/2007, de 18 de Setembro, Dezembro de 2008 (Revisão - Março 2010) Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas','21/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Portugal’s fishing capacity (in terms of number of vessels) reduced fairly rapidly to 2006 but has then remained relatively level between 2006 and 2008. Overall the number of fishing vessels has reduced from 10,807 in 1999 to 8,585 in 2008 (21% reduction). Tonnage reduced from 118,667 to 106,596 (10% reduction). However fishing power has only reduced by 2% 393,762 to 384,210kW. ','','2008 data: 8585 vessels; 106596 tons; 384210 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=en','24/4/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Portugal had 8,715 active vessels. There were 978 type D breaches in this year and 654 penalties imposed with an average fine of €862. Portugal has undertaken a number of actions to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos which has focussed on reducing the use of damaging fishing methods (e.g. deep water gears in the coastal zone; freezing number of bottom trawlers) and complying with NEAFC and NAFO no fishing zones to protect seamounts, corals and sponges. Madeira also produces a report on by-catch from its offshore fleet and recommendations to reduce this. ','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/4/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Portugal has monitoring programmes for both sharks and seabirds. Shark monitoring The monitoring program for deep-sea sharks has been in place since 2003 and since 2005 for surface sharks, based in the Department of Fisheries Resources, Institute of Fisheries and Marine Research (IPIMAR) and is expected to continue until 2013. Monthly sampling is carried out of landings of two of the most important species of deep sea shark: Centroscymnus coelolepis and Centrophorus squamosus. Data on the landings of the Portuguese commercial long-line vessels operating off Sesimbra (center of mainland Portugal) are routinely collected. The information collected for each specimen includes the total length (TL in cm), total weight (TW kg), gonad weight (GW g), sex and stage of sexual maturity. Additionally in females, information on the width of the uterus (mm), oviducal gland size (mm), and the number and diameter of mature, immature and degenerate oocytes are also collected. The amount and length of embryos, when present in the uterus, are also recorded. The same information is collected for surface sharks: Prionace glauca and Isurus oxyrhynchus. Additional information on discards is also collected, including other species in accordance with Decision 2010/93/UE. In the Autonomous Region of Madeira monitoring of sharks is partially carried out under the National Fisheries Data Collection programme. Data on fisheries by-catch – supplemented with those from surveys at auctions – allows a partial idea of the fitness of this group of fauna. Pelagic sharks are also monitored through a project to monitor the sport fishing fleet, which includes observers on fishing vessels. Related projects in Madeira include: Project: ‘Deepwater Fisheries Resources of the Eastern Central Atlantic (PESCPROF - 1 and 2)’ monitors communities of cartilaginous fish, particularly shark species in the archipelago of Madeira. Data from these projects can be found at http://www.pescprof.org/. Project: PCT ‘MARPROF: Basis for the Management and Market Acceptability of Deep-water Species of Macaronesia’, aims at understanding the biology of these species and monitors deep-sea sharks using research cruises. Project: ‘Visual Censuses of coastal fish in the Madeira Archipelago’ in collaboration with the APEC (Portuguese Association for the Study and Conservation of Elasmobranchs), monitors all cartilaginous fishes, including rays and sharks. Seabird monitoring For seabirds, the following projects for mainland Portugal are worth mentioning: - Marine Censuses I: since 2004, beginning within the project LIFE-Nature Marine IBAs, censuses have been conducted aboard marine vessels. Despite the end of the project in 2008, censuses have continued regularly, with one or two annual campaigns, lasting about one month each. - Coastal Censuses I: since September 2008 coastal monitoring has been conducted off the Portuguese coast, between Cape Carvoeiro (Peniche) and Sagres, once or twice a month, following the methodology used in RAM (Marine birds and mammals monitoring network held throughout the Iberian coast). - During the winter 2008/09, the project Arenaria also took place, which allowed for the first time a complete census of the birds wintering in the Portuguese continental coast. This project could be replicated in future winters to compare inter-annual data. - Census (marine and coastal) II. Monitoring of seabirds in the coastal area of central Portugal: Since 2002, the NGO Portuguese Society of Wildlife, in cooperation with the University of Minho and University of Aveiro, has maintained a monitoring program for seabirds. This monitoring program collects data through: censuses from coastal high points; censuses from vessels during the summer period; monitoring of coastal strandings (dead and alive). This project also involves the collection and rehabilitation of injured seabirds; storage of tissue in a tissue bank of marine animals; assessment of exposure to pollutants (heavy metals and POPs); assessment of parasite load, trophic ecology, and evaluation of incidental catches. The purpose of this interdisciplinary monitoring program is to gain an understanding of the factors that influence the distribution / abundance of seabirds, and relate this information with aspects of animal health. The Azores Autonomous Region signed a cooperation protocol between the Regional Secretariat for the Environment and the Sea and the Sea Institute (IMAR) for the ‘integrated monitoring of priority species of seabirds in the Azores – Moniaves’. Of importance is the project INTERREG MARMAC (2006-2008) (Knowledge, Promotion and Enhancement for Sustainable Use of Marine Protected Areas of Macaronesia), co-funded by INTERREG III-B/FEDER and the Department of Environment and Marine and coordinated by the Centre of IMAR / Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of the Azores. Within this project the pelagic ecology of cagarros in the Azores archipelago was studied through satellite telemetry, oceanographic characterization of the feeding areas and population census of seabirds that nest in the archipelago. Other important projects related to seabirds in Madeira include: Project LIFE-Nature ‘Conservation of Zino\'s Petrel Pterodroma madeira’ (2001-2006), enabled the recovery of the entire habitat of Zino\'s Petrel which is endemic to the island of Madeira and was previously threatened with extinction (see Annex I of Birds Directive and Annex II of the Bern Convention.) More information http://www.pnm.pt/ Project ‘LIFE - SOS Freira do Bugio ‘(Pterodroma feae), since 2006, which intends to monitor the status of Pterodroma feae populations, as well as restoring the entire ecosystem of Bugio Island. In 2007 and 2008 and under other projects (Project LIFE-Nature Marine IBAs), compass- and GPS-loggers were placed in Shearwater adults (Calonectris diomedea borealis), for later retrieval and analysis, from the colonies of the Desert Islands and Savage Islands. Monitoring and ringing also took place of Shearwater, Calonectris diomedea borealis, Bulwer\'s Petrel, Bulwer bulwerii, Chick, Puffinus assimilis, Roque-de-castro, Oceanodroma castro, Oceanodroma monorrhis and of colonies from Great Wild, Wild Islands (2007).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Ramirez I, P. Geraldes, A. Meirinho, P. Amorim e V. Paiva (2008). Áreas Marinhas  Importantes para as Aves em Portugal. Projecto LIFE 04NAT/PT/000213-SPEA.LisboaRibeiro AR, Eira C, Torres J, Mendes P, Miquel J, Soares AMVM and Vingada J (2009). Toxic element concentrations in the razorbill Alca torda (Charadriiformes, Alcidae) in Portugal. Arch Env Contam Toxicol, 56:588–595. doi: 10.1007/s00244-008-9215-5.Mendes P, Eira C, Torres J, Soares AM, Melo P, Vingada J. (2008). Toxic element concentration in the Atlantic gannet Morus bassanus (Pelecaniformes, Sulidae) in Portugal. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 55(3): 503-509. Doi: 10.1007/s00244-008-9134-5.Petronilho J, Vingada, J., Ferreira, M., Paulino, N., Eira, C., Costa, R. and Tenreiro, P. 2004. Seabird census along the Figueira da Foz-Aveiro coastline (Portugal) during August/September 2002. Airo 14: 94-100.http://lifeibasmarinhas.spea.pt/y-book/ibasmarinhas/http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/marmac.htmlhttp://www.pescprof.org/.http://www.pnm.pt/http://www.sosfreiradobugio.com','21/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','',' http://www.azores.gov.pt/','21/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Portugal has 60 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However there are different ways of defining marine sites, and according to national sources Portugal has designated 27 marine Natura 2000 sites in territorial waters (<12nm) and three Natura 2000 offshore sites, making the total number of sites 30.A number of fisheries measures have been adopted or modified within 12 marine Natura 2000 sites in territorial waters. In Portugal: Within the Arrábida / Espinhel SCI, fishing with dredges and other trawl gear is prohibited in order to protect the phanerogams grasslands (Habitat 1110). In marine areas subject to full protection, fishing is totally forbidden, and areas of partial protection are closed to commercial fishing except fishing with traps, angling with jigging lines at distances not less than 200m from shore and recreational fishing in all its forms. However, this exception does not apply to the area of partial protection Portinho Arrábida. In the SPA Berlengas Islands, the following fishing activities are prohibited: - Commercial fishing from unregistered boats; - Trawling, fishing with gill nets and fishing by traps, and retention on board of such gears; - Manual commercial fishing, including molluscs and crustaceans, except the manual capture of pilado (Polybius henslowi) and the exploitation of the barnacle (Pollicipes pollicipes) and grouper (Epinephelus marginatus), regulated by specific legislation; In marine areas subject to type I partial protection the following are still prohibited: - Angling by longline gear in excess of 200 hooks per unit or where the opening of hooks is less than 9 mm. - Angling with longline gear deployed less than 50m from land, regardless of overall length of vessels; - Commercial fishing with seines or traps; In marine areas subject to type II partial protection fishing with longline gear with over 200 hooks per unit or where the opening of hooks is less than 9 mm is forbidden. Commercial fishing is prohibited in a large percentage of the North Coast SCI for vessels fishing both inshore and offshore.In the Southwest Coast SCI recreational fishing is regulated, with prohibited zones corresponding to ecologically important rocky areas which constitute important areas for spawning and juvenile growth; refuge; protection from predators; and food for countless marine species. Within this area, recreational fishing is restricted to four days a week; there is a time limit on the catch, closed seasons and a list of species that can be harvested. There is also a system of positive discrimination to give priority of harvesting to natives and residents. In areas of the marine environment, the implementation of aquaculture is subject to authorization. In the Azores, the Natura 2000 network has been integrated within the arrangements for Island Natural Parks, for which rules have been defined to acheive effective fisheries management in these locations. For example: In the Ilheus das Formigas and Dollabarat reef SAC integrated in the Natural Reserve of Ilheus das Formigas, fishing is prohibited except commercial fishing with hand line or pole and line targeting tuna which use the continuous monitoring system of fishing activities (MONICAP). This is subject to the prior binding opinion of the Regional Inspectorate of Fisheries. In the Caloura-Ponta da Galera SAC integrated in the Protected Area for the Management of habitats or species from the islet of Vila Franca do Campo, any type of fishing is forbidden, including recreational fishing and spear fishing. In the Monte da Guia SAC integrated in the Caldeirinhas Natural Reserve, fishing and spearfishing are prohibited. In the Morro de Castelo Branco SAC, integrated into the Protected Area for Resource Management of Castelo Branco and Ilheu de Baixo - Restinga, unregulated fishing activity is not permitted. In the Costa and Caldeirao Corvo SAC, integrated in the Protected Area for resource management of Costa do Corvo, bottom and surface longline fishing is forbidden, as well as explosives, chemical agents, trawls, seines and deep-water gill nets and vessels over 10 m length, except for live bait fishing for tuna and vocational training. Aquaculture activity, commercial fishing, tourism, sports and underwater fishing and shellfish harvesting are regulated. In the Autonomous Region of Madeira, in the Ilhas Desertas and Ilhas Selvagens SAC, special measures for fishery management were defined and enshrined in the Regional Legislative Decree. Decree-Law No. 458/71/M of 29 October (which establishes the creation of the Natural Reserve of the Ilhas Selvagens), in conjunction with the Regional Legislative Decree No. 9/95/M, of May 20 (lays the creation of the Ilhas Desertas Nature Reserve), define the limits of fishing within these marine Natura2000 sites.  In the case of Ilhas Desertas, fishing can be carried out only beyond the 100 meters isobath, and only north of Deserta Grande and Ilheu Chão. In the Ilhas Desertas, capture of limpet (Patella patella) is permitted through a system of quota and licenses, outside the Integral Reserve area. As regards the Ilhas Selvagens, fishing is restricted to the 200 meters isobath.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 21Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 5 Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Portugal includes sampling design for collecting ecosystem data to assist with assessing the impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem in the \"Portuguese Data Collection Programme 2011-2013, Module V\" submitted to the European Commission in March 2010.The Data Collection Framework for continental Portugal (BANP Program / Project Collection of data) highlights the following activities as most important in assessing the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems: i) Sampling by observers aboard commercial fishing vessels: allows the estimation of unaccounted mortality of fish and collection of biological information on discarded fish and marine invertebrates (both in fisheries and fishing accessory, including species of no commercial value ); ii) campaigns annual trawl: estimates of abundance and recruitment, distribution and biomass for the main target species of demersal fish and crustaceans, as well as monitoring the structure and functioning of communities of demersal fishes on the continental shelf and continental slope of Portugal(state and pressure indicators); iii) Annual acoustic surveys: allow estimates of recruitment abundance, distribution and biomass for the main target species of pelagic fish, as well as monitoring community structure of pelagic fish on the Portuguese continental shelf (in addition to the DCF since 2005 informal collaborations and research projects with other research organizations and NGOs have also allowed the simultaneous monitoring of top marine predators - birds and mammals – by the observation platforms); iv) Pilot study of glass eels (eels, glass eels [(from 2011)]: Additional monitoring and retrieval of existing information will permit the use of relative abundance and distribution area of eels in selected Portuguese rivers as an indicator of efficiency of the European eel management plan and (indirectly) the status of transitional waters and riparian habitats.','','The Commission Decision on the \"Portuguese Data Collection Programme for 2011-2013)\" will take place only in late 2010. Currently the \"Data Collection Programme for 2009-2010\" is in effect.Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.Original text of narrative above in Portuguese: Do planeamento actual do Data Collection Framework para Portugal continental (Programa PNAB/ Projecto Recolha de dados) são de destacar as seguintes actividades seguintes como as mais relevantes na avaliação dos impactos da pesca nos ecossistemas marinhos:i)	Amostragem por observador a bordo de embarcações de pesca comercial: permite a estimativa da mortalidade de peixe não contabilizada e a recolha de informação biológica sobre as devoluções de peixe e invertebrados marinhos (tanto de pesca dirigida como de pesca acessória, incluindo espécies sem valor comercial);ii)	Campanhas anuais de arrasto: permitem a estimativa da abundância do recrutamento, distribuição e biomassa para as principais espécies alvo de peixes e crustáceos demersais, assim como a monitorização da estrutura e do funcionamento das comunidades de peixes demersais na plataforma continental e na vertente continental superior portuguesas (indicadores de estado e pressão);iii)	Campanhas acústicas anuais: permitem a estimativa da abundância do recrutamento, distribuição e biomassa para as principais espécies alvo de peixes pelágicos, assim como a monitorização da estrutura das comunidades de peixes pelágicos na plataforma continental portuguesa (como um extra à DCF, desde 2005 colaborações informais e projectos de investigação com outras organizações de investigação e ONGs também têm permitido a monitorização simultânea de predadores marinhos de topo – aves e mamíferos – pelas plataformas de observação);iv)	Estudo piloto do meixão (angula; enguia-de-vidro) (a partir de 2011): nova monitorização e recuperação de informação existente permitirá o uso da abundância relativa e da área de distribuição do meixão em rios portugueses seleccionados como um indicador da eficiência do plano de gestão europeu para a enguia e (indirectamente) do estado das águas de transição e e dos habitats ribeirinhos.','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDFCommission Decision C (2009) 6816 final of 14.09.2009','22/04/2010','na','','na','10/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for EEZ waters of Portugal (not including Overseas Territories) was 3.35 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.07 since 1999, but an overall increase of 0.27 since 1984.  ','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','06/05/2010','','','10/12/2009','07/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective4','A4_3','','A obrigatoriedade da consideração das redes ecológicas no planeamento é anterior a 2006. Desde 1999 que a lei nacional define o regime legal aplicável a instrumentos de gestão territorial, estabelecendo o conceito de estrutura ecológica ou rede ecológica, implicando que a revisão ou a publicação de novos planos de ordenamento devem identificar áreas, valores e sistemas cruciais para a protecção ambiental e para benificiação das paisagens rural e urbana. A tradução espacial deste conceito é, a nível sub-nacional, a definição de uma estrutura para proteger e beneficiar os valores ecológicos e a rede ecológica regional, que define e orienta a aplicação à escala local da rede ecológica local, estrutura que é definida e regulamentada por planos municipais de gestão territorial (através de diploma legal). Contudo, após 2006, foram aprovados diversos documentos enquadradores e legislação que reforçam o papel das “redes” e “corredores ecológicos” no planeamento, nomeadamente o Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território (Lei n.º 58/2007, de 4 de Setembro), o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 115-A/2008, de 31 de Julho), o Regime Jurídico da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Dec.-Lei n.º 142/2008, de 24 de Julho), a alteração ao Regime Jurídico dos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (Dec.-Lei n.º 46/2009, de 20 de Fevereiro), alteração ao regime jurídico da Reserva Ecológica Nacional (Dec.-Lei n.º 166/2008, de 22 de Agosto), alteração ao regime jurídico da Reserva Agrícola Nacional (Dec.-Lei n.º 73/2009, de 31 de Março) e, ainda, a Avaliação Ambiental de Planos e Programas (Dec.-Lei n.º 232/2007, de 15 de Junho). O Decreto-Lei n.º 46/2009, de 20 de Fevereiro, revê e desenvolve as bases da política de ordenamento do território e de urbanismo adoptadas em 1999, definindo o regime de coordenação dos âmbitos nacional, regional e municipal do sistema de gestão territorial. Engloba também, o regime geral de uso do solo e o regime de elaboração, aprovação, execução e avaliação dos instrumentos de gestão territorial (IGT). Os IGT devem identificar a estrutura ecológica, designadamente as áreas de reserva ecológica. Os IGT devem obrigatoriamente identificar as condicionantes legais, sendo que as redes ecológicas compostas pelas áreas protegidas e pela reserva ecológica estão incorporadas nessas mesmas condicionantes.No contexto da rede ecológica a Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN) assume uma importância decisiva. Sendo uma das componentes da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza, favorece a conectividade entre as áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade integradas no Sistema Nacional de Áreas Classificadas. Articula-se com o quadro estratégico e normativo estabelecido no Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território, nos planos regionais de ordenamento do território e nos planos sectoriais relevantes. A REN é uma estrutura biofísica que integra o conjunto das áreas que, pelo valor e sensibilidade ecológicos ou pela exposição e susceptibilidade perante riscos naturais, são objecto de protecção especial, e visa contribuir para a ocupação e o uso sustentáveis do território e tem por objectivos:a) Proteger os recursos naturais água e solo, bem como salvaguardar sistemas e processos biofísicos associados ao litoral e ao ciclo hidrológico terrestre, que asseguram bens e serviços ambientais indispensáveis ao desenvolvimento das actividades humanas;b) Prevenir e reduzir os efeitos da degradação da recarga de aquíferos, dos riscos de inundação marítima, de cheias, de erosão hídrica do solo e de movimentos de massa em vertentes, contribuindo para a adaptação aos efeitos das alterações climáticas e acautelando a sustentabilidade ambiental e a segurança de pessoas e bens;c) Contribuir para a conectividade e a coerência ecológica da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza;d) Contribuir para a concretização, a nível nacional, das prioridades da Agenda Territorial da União Europeia nos domínios ecológico e da gestão transeuropeia de riscos naturais.Não existe um mecanismo formal específico para uma monitorização sistemática da eficácia destas medidas, sendo a monitorização executada com recurso à verificação da identificação, delimitação e/ou transposição, nos instrumentos de gestão territorial (IGT) da rede fundamental de conservação da natureza (RFCN), composta pelas áreas nucleares de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade integradas no sistema nacional de áreas classificadas e pelas áreas de reserva ecológica nacional, de reserva agrícola nacional e do domínio público hídrico enquanto áreas de continuidade que estabelecem ou salvaguardam a ligação e o intercâmbio entre as diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, contribuindo para uma adequada protecção dos recursos naturais e para a promoção da continuidade espacial e também pela verificação da adequação das normas de uso e de ocupação do solo e/ou de níveis de protecção estabelecidos, bem como da transposição de normas de gestão específicas para habitats e/ou espécies. Compete às entidades com competências sobre as componentes da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza pronunciarem-se se os Planos têm em consideração as redes ecológicas: i) Comissões de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional e Comissão Nacional da Reserva Ecológica Nacional no caso da REN, sendo que compete à Comissão Nacional da REN monitorizar a aplicação das orientações estratégicas a nível municipal; ii) Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade no caso da Rede Natura 2000 e áreas protegidas; iii) INAG no caso do Domínio Hídrico, e iv) Direcções Regionais de Agricultura e Pescas, no caso da Reserva Agrícola Nacional. Não existe um único relatório abrangente, alvo de elaboração regular, que analise a eficácia da aplicação da legislação quanto à consideração das redes ecológicas no Planeamento Territorial. Todavia, os diversos IGT, de iniciativa municipal ou da administração central, recentemente elaborados ou revistos, identificam indicadores que permitirão aferir da eficácia das medidas tomadas, nomeadamente no âmbito da respectiva avaliação ambiental estratégica (AAE).Os Relatórios de Estado do Ordenamento do Território (REOT) (Decreto-Lei n.º 46/2009) são elaborados de dois em dois anos traduzindo o balanço da execução dos IGT objecto de avaliação, bem como dos níveis de coordenação interna e externa obtidos, fundamentando uma eventual necessidade de revisão do IGT. Pela sua periodicidade, esta aferição comporta em si mesma um elemento de monitorização. Outro exemplo: no caso da REN, a Comissão Nacional da REN elabora, de dois em dois anos, um relatório de avaliação. Como mecanismo de coordenação interministerial funciona a Comissão de Coordenação Interministerial que tem entre uma das suas incumbências a promoção da integração dos princípios de conservação e utilização sustentável da biodiversidade nas diferentes políticas sectoriais (Resolução de Conselho de Ministros n.º 41/99, de 17 de Maio), incluindo-se aqui considerações relativas à rede ecológica no planeamento. Funcionam ainda Comissões de Acompanhamento de planos especiais e de planos municipais de ordenamento do território, compostas por representantes dos diversos sectores da administração directa e indirecta do Estado, que deverão reflectir a natureza dos interesses a salvaguardar.As Comissões de Acompanhamento dos processos de revisão dos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial, que integram representantes de diversos organismos públicos, são um mecanismo de coordenação interministerial que se debruça sobre a inclusão das considerações da rede ecológica no ordenamento do território.No caso da REN, a CNREN é composta por representantes de diferentes ministérios. Na Região Autónoma dos Açores o mecanismo de coordenação entre departamentos do Governo Regional assenta nas comissões mistas de coordenação e/ou comissões de acompanhamento dos IGT, as quais abrangem a inclusão de considerações da rede ecológica no ordenamento do território. Não se considera que a rede ecológica esteja completa. Se bem que as áreas classificadas estejam estabilizadas e para todo o território e estejam delimitadas a Reserva Ecológica Nacional (REN), a Reserva Agrícola Nacional (RAN) e o Domínio Hídrico, entende-se que será necessário apurar a delimitação da REN segundo as novas orientações, integrar os corredores ecológicos definidos nos Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal (PROF) e, eventualmente, considerar outras áreas que se revelem essenciais à conectividade, por exemplo, para determinadas espécies prioritárias.Essa rede de conectividade terá de ser incorporada e estabelecida nos planos especiais e municipais de ordenamento do território, dado que são aqueles que vinculam directamente os utilizadores do solo. ','','Tendo em consideração os contextos de participação e contribuição directa e indirecta das Comissões de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional na concretização das “redes” e “corredores” ecológicos, considera-se de realçar, a título de exemplo,:- Acompanhamento da elaboração e revisão dos IGT (Planos Directores Municipais, Planos de Pormenor, Planos de Urbanização e Planos Especiais de Ordenamento do Território), no qual se acautela sistematicamente a conformidade com os planos sectoriais de ordenamento do território, designadamente o Plano Sectorial da Rede Natura 2000 e os Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal, e a articulação com os Planos Especiais de Ordenamento do Território.- Execução do procedimento de Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica de Planos, permitindo uma integração das questões ambientais no decurso do processo de planeamento, influenciando as opções a tomar.- Elaboração de guias orientadores sobre o Ordenamento das Áreas Classificadas e o Ordenamento dos Espaços Florestais para a revisão dos Planos Directores Municipais.- A elaboração dos Planos Regionais de Ordenamento do Território, designadamente na definição da Estrutura Regional de Protecção e Valorização Ambiental (ERPVA) que integra componentes da Rede Fundamental de Conservação da Natureza, normas orientadoras - regulação dos usos compatíveis com os objectivos de salvaguarda de recursos e funcionamento dos sistemas, indicações para a transposição para os IGT. A ERPVA tem como objectivo garantir a manutenção, a funcionalidade e a sustentabilidade dos sistemas biofísicos (ciclos da água, do carbono, do azoto), assegurando, desta forma, a qualidade e a diversidade das espécies, dos habitats, dos ecossistemas e das paisagens. Contribui assim para o estabelecimento de conexões funcionais e estruturais entre as áreas consideradas nucleares do ponto de vista da conservação dos recursos para, desta forma, contrariar e prevenir os efeitos da fragmentação e artificialização dos sistemas ecológicos e garantir a continuidade dos serviços providenciados pelos mesmos: aprovisionamento (água, alimento), regulação (clima, qualidade do ar), culturais (recreio, educação) e suporte (fotossíntese, formação de solo). Neste sentido, a ERPVA é o garante da existência de uma rede de conectividade entre os ecossistemas, contribuindo para uma maior resiliência dos habitats e das espécies face às previsíveis alterações climáticas, e possibilitando as adaptações necessárias aos sistemas biológicos para o assegurar das suas funções. É constituída por áreas de mais valia ambiental e corredores ecológicos. Nas áreas de mais valia ambiental distinguem-se as áreas classificadas (Rede Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Rede Natura 2000 e outras derivadas de convenções internacionais), e as que abrangem áreas que possuem valor para a conservação da natureza (biótopos naturais de valor) como sejam as áreas agro-florestais, as Importante Bird Areas e outros sistemas biogeográficos, não classificados. Consideram-se dois tipos de corredores ecológicos: os corredores ecológicos estruturantes, que assentam nas principais linhas de água e na zona costeira; os corredores identificados nos Planos de Ordenamento Florestal que constituem os Corredores Ecológicos Secundários. Estes corredores assumem uma extrema importância, na medida em que salvaguardam a ligação e os intercâmbios genéticos entre diferentes áreas nucleares de conservação, promovendo a continuidade espacial e a conectividade das componentes da biodiversidade em toda a Região A Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA) adaptou o Regime Jurídico dos Instrumentos de Gestão Territorial (RJIGT) Decreto-Lei n.º 380/99, de 22 de Setembro e respectivas actualizações através do Decreto Legislativo Regional nº 14/2000/A, de 23 de Maio. Este DLR sofreu posteriores revisões constituindo o Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 43/2008/A, de 8 de Outubro a mais recente. Esta Região está a a preparar um regime jurídico dedicado às áreas afectas à reserva ecológica.Está igualmente em curso um desenvolvimento legislativo, no âmbito do Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 15/2007/A, de 25 de Junho, que procedeu a uma reformulação do regime jurídico da classificação, gestão e administração das áreas protegidas dos Açores. Classifica e reclassifica as áreas protegidas, assente num modelo de gestão fundamentado em tipologias de classificação e categorias de acordo com os critérios da IUCN, surgindo assim os Parques Naturais de Ilha, nos quais se encontram identificadas as áreas ecologicamente sensíveis. A Região Autónoma da Madeira, aquando do delineamento e criação das suas áreas protegidas, sejam elas o Parque Natural da Madeira (PNM), Reservas Naturais Parciais e Integrais, ou ainda Sítios de Importância Comunitária, procurou que estes englobassem todos os habitats, flora e fauna de importância biológica. Estas áreas protegidas encontram-se desde o litoral (englobando zonas com elevada densidade demográfica) até ao interior das ilhas (onde ocorrem as áreas de floresta Laurissilva e os maciços montanhosos). Os Parques e reservas criados possuem um papel importante na protecção da biodiversidade e dos ecossistemas, garantido a conectividade ecológica, uma vez que os 49.443 ha de área total protegida da RAM permitem o fluxo de fauna e flora através de corredores ecológicos que facilitam a ligação entre o litoral o interior das ilhas, contribuindo igualmente para a preservação de recursos naturais essenciais.','Duarte, Zulmira Ferreira “Instrumentos de Suporte ao Ordenamento do Território e Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica (em elaboração)”, Dezembro 2009, CCDRCProposta de Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território da Região Centro – Dezembro de 2009, CCDRC. Decreto-Lei n.º166/2008Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 152/2001Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º41/99Decreto-Lei n.º73/2009Relatório Nacional de Avaliação Intercalar da Execução da ENCNBwww.arhtejohttp://protc.ccdrc.pt/equipa-elaboracao/proposta-de-plano/proposta-de-plano/Proposta%20%20PROT-Centro.docwww.arhalgarve.pt/ www.dqa.inag.pt/http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/gestao-florestal/http://www.iambiente.pt/portal/page?_pageid=73,408080&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&actualmenu=10141060&docs=10138691&cboui=10138691&menu_childmenu=10141008http://www.azores.gov.pt/www.parques-azores.org','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective4','A4_4_1','','Portugal não fez a implementação das Linhas Orientadoras sobre Turismo Sustentável da CDB, não existindo disposições legais que obriguem à sua consideração no planeamento do desenvolvimento turístico. Não é por isso produzido qualquer relatório sobre a utilização destas linhas orientadoras.Todavia existem acções que concorrem para objectivos preconizados pelas Linhas Orientadoras, caso do Programa Nacional de Turismo de Natureza e das Cartas de Desporto de Natureza.Turismo de NaturezaA íntima relação existente entre o suporte natural e as actividades turísticas e a importância que em tal relação adquire a noção de “uso sustentável” estão na origem do Programa Nacional de Turismo de Natureza (Resolução de Conselho de Ministros nº 112/98, de 25 de Agosto) que resultou de uma parceria pioneira em Portugal entre as Secretarias de Estado do Ambiente e do Turismo. Este programa integra-se num conjunto de orientações políticas internacionais direccionadas para o desenvolvimento sustentável das Áreas Protegidas visando a recuperação e conservação do património natural e cultural com base na conservação da natureza, desenvolvimento local, qualificação e diversificação da oferta turística.O quadro legal foi entretanto alterado (Portaria n.º 261/2009, de 12 de Março) redefinindo-se a noção de Turismo de Natureza que, das Áreas Protegidas, se alargou às áreas classificadas ou outras com evidente valor natural. Por outro lado, o reconhecimento da actividade turística como Turismo de Natureza passou a estar baseada na implementação e adesão a um conjunto de requisitos e critérios de boas práticas ambientais e na participação em, pelo menos, um projecto de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade.Finalmente, destaque-se a publicação da Portaria n.º 651/2009, de 12 de Junho, que define um Código de Conduta (responsabilidade empresarial e boas práticas ambientais) a adoptar pelas empresas dedicadas ao turismo de natureza que pretendam obter o reconhecimento oficial da sua actividade.Cartas de Desporto de Natureza A partir de 1999 (Dec. Reg. nº 18/99, de 27 de Agosto) a animação ambiental, interpretação ambiental e desporto de natureza nas Áreas Protegidas bem como o processo de licenciamento das iniciativas e projectos de actividades, serviços e instalações de animação ambiental passaram a estar regulamentados. Cada Área Protegida deveria possuir uma Carta de Desporto de Natureza e respectivo regulamento contendo as regras e orientações relativas a cada modalidade desportiva.Recentemente, o Dec-Lei nº 108/2009, de 15 de Maio regulamentou as condições de acesso e de exercício de actividade das empresas de animação turística e dos operadores marítimo-turísticos listando as actividades desportivas permitidas em Áreas Protegidas.Encontram-se publicadas as Cartas de Desporto de Natureza dos:•	Parque Natural das Serras de Aire e Candeiros, em 2004 (com revisão prevista para 2010); •	Parque Natural de Sintra-Cascais e respectivo regulamento Encontram-se em fase final de elaboração as Cartas de Desporto de Natureza de: •	Parque Natural Litoral Norte; •	Parque Natural Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina•	Reserva Natural do Estuário do Tejo•	Reserva Natural das Lagoas de Santo André e da Sancha•	Reserva Natural do Estuário do Sado•	Reserva Natural do Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Santo António•	Paisagem Protegida da Arriba Fóssil da Costa da CaparicaNa Região Autónoma dos Açores o Plano de Ordenamento Turístico (POTRAA) tem como grandes objectivos a diversificação, a melhoria da competitividade, a compatibilização do Plano com as diversas políticas regionais de ocupação do território e o desenvolvimento de produtos turísticos de acordo com as características naturais e humanas das diversas ilha. Estabelece ainda parâmetros para o crescimento do sector, ao mesmo tempo que potencia Vocações Turísticas por ilha e estabelece Espaços Específicos de Vocação Turística.O Governo Regional decidiu relançar a elaboração do Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território dos Açores (PROTA), em resultado da necessidade de o adequar aos objectivos estratégicos de desenvolvimento da Região e obter um instrumento de desenvolvimento territorial de natureza estratégica, que traduza em termos espaciais, os grandes objectivos de desenvolvimento económico e social sustentável e que equacione as medidas tendentes à atenuação das assimetrias de desenvolvimento intra-regionais, procedendo igualmente a um correcto aproveitamento das aptidões naturais e potencialidades de cada ilha.O Plano de Ordenamento Turístico da Região Autónoma dos Açores (POTRAA), aprovado pelo Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 38/2008/A, de 11 de Agosto, assumiu na sua elaboração medidas relativas à protecção de reservas naturais, biótopos, zonas de protecção especial, sítios de interesse comunitário, etc. Essas áreas, referidas no POTRAA como \"Espaços ecológicos de maior sensibilidade\" são definidas no respectivo artº 12º como áreas de aptidão muito limitada para a utilização turística e fortes condicionamentos à edificabilidade, pelo que apenas é permitida a instalação de unidades de alojamento nos termos dos regimes de protecção próprios deste espaços.A Região Autónoma da Madeira (RAM), enquanto região turística, sempre teve uma profunda preocupação na promoção de um turismo sustentável com respeito pela riquíssima biodiversidade que o arquipélago encerra. Deste modo, através do Plano de Ordenamento Turístico (POT), em conjugação com o Plano Regional da Política do Ambiente (PRPA) e o Plano Ordenamento do Território da RAM (POTRAM), foram traçadas linhas mestras de forma a atingir um desenvolvimento sustentável. A manutenção dos elementos paisagísticos, bem como da fauna e flora no seu estado clímax como é o caso da Floresta Laurissilva (Património Mundial Natural da UNESCO desde 1999), são disso exemplo.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Programa Nacional De Turismo De NaturezaPlano de Ordenamento Turístico da Região Autónoma dos Açores (POTRAA)http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Turismo+de+Natureza/http://www.azores.gov.pt/http://www.dre.pt/util/getpdf.asp?s=dip&serie=1&iddr=2008.154&iddip=20082221','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective4','A4_5_1','','Nas duas Regiões Autónomas Portuguesas (Madeira e Açores) são aplicadas, com as necessárias adaptações regionais, a legislação e políticas nacionais que prevêem a integração da biodiversidade nas actividades, projectos e programas de desenvolvimento territorial, designadamente: (i)	os regimes de planeamento e gestão territorial (planos sectoriais, especiais – áreas protegidas e orla costeira - e municipais de ordenamento do território); (ii)	a avaliação de impacto ambiental; (iii)	a avaliação ambiental estratégica; (iv)	o regime da Rede Natura 2000; (v)	o regime jurídico de conservação da natureza e da biodiversidade; (vi)	o regime jurídico relativo ao comércio externo de espécies ameaçadas; (vii)	o regime relativo introdução na natureza, detenção e comércio de espécies exóticas.Do mesmo modo as medidas de política e financiamento público associadas ao desenvolvimento regional, à agricultura, florestas e pescas têm em consideração os aspectos de biodiversidade decorrentes do Programas de Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas e do Quadro de Referência Estratégico aprovados para cada uma das regiões.','','','http://www.azores.gov.pt/http://www.climaat.angra.uac.pt/http://www.horta.uac.pt/projectos/macmar/ogamp/marmac.htmlhttp://www.spea.pt/ http://www.dre.pt/util/getpdf.asp?s=dip&serie=1&iddr=2008.154&iddip=20082221','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Portuguese spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 21.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Portugal has general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). The Portuguese Framework Environment Act (Lei de Bases do Ambiente (Law 11/87 of 7 April 1987) provides for the development of legislation regarding the introduction and control of alien plant and animal species into Portugal. In addition, nature conservation and biodiversity legislation also addresses IAS. Specific legislation that includes Decree Law No. 565/99 of 21 December 1999 which regulates the introduction and possession of IAS (except for scientific and educational purposes) and the purchase, sale, offer for sale and transport of IAS. It does not currently have any provisions regarding the export of IAS. The Decree Law underwent a revision at the beginning of September 2008. In Portugal’s two autonomous regions (Madeira and the Azores), Regional Decree No. 27/99/M regulates for the keeping, import and dissemination of exotic animal species into Madeira and Resolution No. 148/98 of June 1998 aims to minimise the possibility of IAS dissemination by escape of specimens in the Azores. A regional Decree for the regulation of import, detention and introduction of non-native species in the Azores region is currently awaiting approval.Further details are presented below by the Member State, in Portuguese only.Portugal possui legislação geral que confirma a importância das espécies exóticas no quadro da conservação da diversidade biológica autóctone: a Lei de Bases do Ambiente (Lei n.º 11/97 de 7 de Abril), a Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 152/2001 de 11 de Outubro) e o novo Regime Jurídico da Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade (Decreto-Lei n.º 142/2008 de 24 de Julho). No entanto, Portugal possui também legislação específica que regulamenta a introdução de espécies exóticas, interditando genericamente a introdução intencional de espécies exóticas na natureza (Decreto-Lei n.º 565/99 de 21 de Dezembro). Este diploma proibe o cultivo, a criação ou a detenção em local confinado e a utilização como planta ornamental ou animal de companhia de espécimes das espécies identificadas como invasoras (anexo I) ou das espécies consideradas como comportando risco ecológico (anexo III, do mesmo diploma). O diploma também proíbe a cedência, a compra a venda, a oferta de venda, o transporte, etc., de espécies identificadas no anexo III ou de espécimes vivos ou propágulos viáveis de espécies do anexo I. O referido não se aplica quando praticado para fins científicos e educativos, desde que as acções sejam realizadas por entidades devidamente licenciadas e se cumpridas as particulares condições de segurança exigidas. Este diploma e respectivos anexos encontram-se em revisão.A Região Autónoma dos Açores tem um Plano Regional de Erradicação e Controlo de Espécies da Flora Invasora em Áreas Sensíveis (PRECEFIAS) aprovado através da Resolução n.º 110/2004, de 29 de Julho, do Governo, cujo objectivo é a erradicação e controlo de 16 espécies de flora invasora em áreas sensíveis em todas as ilhas do arquipélago dos Açores (Pittosporum undulatum, Hedychium gardnerarum, Hydrangea macrophylla, Arundo donax, Gunnera tinctoria, Clethra arborea, Carpobrothus edulis, Lantana camara, Ailanthus altíssima, Polygonum capitatum, Drosanthemum floribundum, Acacia melenoxylon, Ulex europaeus, Ipomoea indica, Rubus ulmifolius, Pteridium aquilinum).A implementação do Regulamento (CE) nº 708/2007 do Conselho, de 11 de Junho, relativo à utilização na aquicultura de espécies exóticas e de espécies ausentes localmente, bem como as normas de execução do mesmo, aprovadas pelo Regulamento (CE) nº 535/2008 da Comissão, de 06 de Junho,  é articulada com a implementaçõ do Decreto-Lei nº 565/99, de 21 de Dezembro.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 34 are present in Portugal. This equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.    ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions..','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Portugal has not developed a strategy and/or action plan on invasive alien species (IAS). Portugal’s national strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (2001) does however, contain measures relating to IAS. So far a strategy has only been implemented in practice for the water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Portugal has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  According to reporting by the Member State, the ongoing project INSPECT focuses on the introduction of marine alien species. It looks at patterns of distribution and abundance of IAS, as well as potential intrusion vectors such as ballast water. This project is funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology over a 3 year period. Its objective is to take stock of marine alien species present in estuaries and coastal areas, to determine the environmental conditions leading to the introduction, and contributes to public awareness raising. ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','21/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, an inventory/database of alien species is in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects. However, no early warning and information system for IAS has been developed. Further details are provided below, in Portuguese only.Não existe uma base de dados nacional, embora estejam inventariadas as espécies não indígenas de Portugal, incluindo invasoras. No âmbito do processo de revisão do Decreto-Lei n.º565/99, de 21/12, em curso, foi actualizada a lista de espécies não indígenas com reprodução confirmada e a lista das espécies com impacte na diversidade biológica (invasoras e de risco ecológico). No caso das Regiões Autónomas dos Açores e da Madeira, ambas as listas foram igualmente elaboradas (Silva et al., 2008). Existem outras bases de dados desenvolvidas por projectos específicos, que permitem a divulgação continuada dos trabalhos efectuados e resultados obtidos no âmbito desses projectos, nomeadamente: •        Projectos INVADER e INVADER II - da responsabilidade do Centro de Ecologia Funcional da Universidade de Coimbra e da Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra, relativo às espécies de plantas invasoras mais problemáticas em Portugal Continental;•        Projecto INSPECT - Fundação da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, relativo às espécies exóticas marinhas introduzidas em estuários e zonas costeiras portuguesas: padrões de distribuição e abundância; vectores e potencial de invasão (em desenvolvimento).Não está desenvolvido um sistema de alerta precoce e de informação para as espécies exóticas invasoras, nem nenhuma das acções abrangidas por este sistema (mecanismo de resposta rápida, listas de incidentes, rede de pontos focais ou mecanismo nacional de coordenação).  O Inventário Florestal Nacional (IFN) 1995/98 identifica os povoamentos de eucalipto, incluindo-se na versão de 1998 as associações de eucalipto com outras espécies. O IFN 2005/6, por sua vez, identifica os povoamentos de eucalipto e acácia. Na Região Autónoma dos Açores (RAA), no âmbito do dos Projectos INTERREG III B “Atlântico” (2003-2005) e “BIONATURA\" (2007-2008), foi desenvolvido o Portal da Biodiversidade dos Açores, em http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/. Para a RAA os parceiros foram a Direcção Regional do Ambiente e do Mar e a Agência Regional da Energia e Ambiente - ARENA. O chefe de fila do projecto foi a Consejeria de Medio Ambiente y Ordenacion Territorial do Governo das Canárias.Na RAA foi também estabelecida uma base de dados através do Software ATLANTIS que organiza e analisa toda a informação existente sobre a informação espacial das espécies. O Gabinete de Ecologia Vegetal e Aplicada da Universidade dos Açores possui inúmeros inventários e mapas de distribuição de espécies exóticas as quais estão incluídas na sua base de dados interna Atlântida-GEVA ©. Parte desta informação encontra-se disponível na base na página do GEVA online como a” lista de referência da flora dos Açores”.Em Atlântida-GEVA © existem dados cartográficos desde 2003 e o Herbário da Universidade dos Açores (AZU) desde 1987. Na Região Autónoma Madeira (RAM) não existe uma base de dados de Espécies Exóticas Invasoras.  Ambas as regiões autónomas participaram com as Canárias num projecto que permitiu identificar 100 espécies exóticas mais nocivas, ordenadas de acordo com a sua prioridade de gestão (Silva, e tal., 2008) A RAM, a RAA e o Continente Português possuem departamentos de fiscalização orientados para as acções de controlo sanitário e fitossanitário no âmbito de regulamentação nacional e comunitária específica.Com a publicação do DL 565/99 procurou-se, de forma pioneira ao nível europeu, enquadrar, prevenir e sancionar a introdução de espécies exóticas em Portugal, estabelecendo disposições específicas para as que apresentam natureza invasora ou exibem risco ecológico. Assim, e para o efeito, no Anexo I deste diploma são discriminadas as espécies da fauna e da flora introduzidas em Portugal Continental e, entre elas, as que assumem carácter invasor e as espécies não indígenas consideradas “com risco ecológico conhecido”. A experiência de dez anos de aplicação desta legislação e os desenvolvimentos entretanto ocorridos a nível global (Linhas orientadoras adoptadas pela Convenção sobre a Diversidade Biológica), Regional (Conselho da Europa - Estratégia Europeia para as Espécies Exóticas) e Comunitário (Comunicação da  Comissão para uma Estratégia para as Espécies Exóticas Invasoras motivaram a necessidade de se promover a revisão deste diploma, processo iniciado em 2009 que, para além de alterações de âmbito regulamentar, inclui ainda a revisão técnica dos seus anexos. Por seu lado, os instrumentos de gestão florestal (Planos Regionais de Ordenamento Florestal – PROF) integram orientações específicas para as espécies exóticas e para as invasoras e no âmbito dos planos de gestão florestal (PGF), a aplicar ao nível da unidade de gestão, são consideradas orientações específicas neste âmbito, considerando-se que quanto às infestantes e espécies invasoras não indígenas poderá efectuar-se o seu mapeamento, indicando igualmente (caso existam) que medidas foram ou estão a ser tomadas no sentido do seu controlo. Para o caso dos planos específicos de intervenção florestal define-se que os programas de controlo das espécies invasoras deverão incidir sobre as espécies classificadas como tal no Decreto-Lei nº 565/99 de 21 de Dezembro. A Autoridade Florestal Nacional criou em 2009 um grupo de trabalho com vista à definição de normas / orientações específicas para serem adoptadas nos espaços florestais e no referente às unidades de gestão de recursos associados, incluindo, designadamente, espécies cinegéticas, haliêuticas e apícolas.','',' The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:Silva L, Ojeda Land E & Rodríguez Luengo J (eds) 2008. Flora e fauna terrestre invasora na Macaronésia. TOP100 nos Açores, Madeira e Canárias. ARENA, Ponta Delgada. 546 pp.Marchante E, Freitas H & Marchante H. 2009. Guia Prático para Identificação de Plantas Invasoras de Portugal Continental. Imprensa Universitária de Coimbra. 183 pp.Autoridade Florestal Nacional (2009) – Normas técnicas de elaboração dos planos de gestão florestal, Ed. AFN, Lisboa.Autoridade Florestal Nacional / DUDEF – DUGEF (2009) – Normas técnicas de elaboração dos planos específicos de intervenção florestal, Relatório AFN.http://www1.ci.uc.pt/invasoras/index.php?menu=114&language=pt&tabela=especies http://www.afn.min-agricultura.pt/portal/gestao-florestal/ http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/ http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/publicacoes.php?tipo=19 ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Portugal has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national co-existence legislation in force is as follows: Decree-law 160/2006, of 21 September, on national measures on coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming published in official journal; Order n. º 904/2006, of 4 September, for the establishment of free zones of GM crop cultivation; Order n.º1611/2007, of 20 December and ;  Decree-Law 387/2007, of 28 November, which creates a compensation fund to cover any economic damage, caused by adventitious presence of GMO on non GM crops if the labelling threshold (0.9 %) is exceeded.According to reporting by the Member State, there are no restrictions on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at both national and/or regional levels in Portugal. However, a state of emergency applies for the municipality of Lagos, which was defined GMO varieties free zone under the Ordinance No. 904/2006, of September 4.Further details are provided below, in Portuguese only.Em Portugal,  não existem restrições ao cultivo de organismos geneticamente modificados (OGM) quer a nível nacional e/ou regional, para os OGM que estão autorizados na União Europeia para cultivo, isto é, o milho GM evento MON810. No entanto, existe uma situação de excepção no Concelho de Lagos, que foi considerado  como Zona Livre do Cultivo de Variedades Geneticamente Modificadas, ao abrigo da Portaria nº 904/2006, de 4 de Setembro.  O cultivo de organismos geneticamente modificados (OGM) encontra-se regulamentado por normas de cultivo a aplicar às variedades geneticamente modificadas (VGM) inscritas no catálogo de variedades agrícolas, bem como pelo procedimento para o reconhecimento de zonas livres do cultivo de VGM.O cultivo de VGM obedece a requisitos administrativos e técnicos previstos no Decreto-Lei n.º 160/2005, de 21 de Setembro, que devem ser cumpridos pelos agricultores que pretendem cultivar VGM.Deste modo, o Decreto-Lei n.º 160/2005, de 21 de Setembro, que regula o cultivo de variedades geneticamente modificadas, visando assegurar a sua coexistência com culturas convencionais e com o modo de produção biológico, estabelece medidas, designadamente regulando a distância mínima de isolamento entre culturas, a salvaguarda do problema da contaminação, a notificação às entidades responsáveis por parte dos agricultores que quiserem cultivar essas variedades, as acções de controlo e acompanhamento das explorações agrícolas.Neste diploma estava prevista a adopção de um diploma legislativo para regulamentar a criação das chamadas Zonas Livres de cultivo de OGM.Assim, foi publicada a Portaria n.º 904/2006, de 4 de Setembro, que estabelece as condições e o procedimento para o estabelecimento de zonas livre de cultivo de variedades geneticamente modificadas.Decorrente desta possibilidade legal e por terem sido cumpridos os requisitos, foi oficialmente reconhecido o Concelho de Lagos como Zona Livre do Cultivo de Variedades Geneticamente Modificadas, nos termos do Despacho n.º 25306/2007, de 19 de Outubro. Posteriormente,  foi publicada a Portaria n.º 1611/2007, de 20 de Dezembro, que altera a Portaria nº 904/2006.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report had been submitted to the CBD. The Estratégia Nacional de Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade was published in 2001.Portugal had paid her annual contributions to the CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to Agreements, the exchange rate of the paying date is used.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions to conventions from Portugal Weblink: ','21/04/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related multilateral aid spent by Portugal in 2006 or 2007.','','The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Portugal spent EUR0.24m in 2006 and EUR0.37m in 2007 for bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.002% and 0.001%, respectively, of the total annual bilateral aid budget. ','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Portugal contributed EUR5.16 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.21% of the total replenishment. Portugal contributed EUR5.73 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.27 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Os Procedimentos de Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica ou de Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental não são obrigatórios, respectivamente, para estratégias, planos ou projectos relevantes financiados em países terceiros. Portugal encontra-se a acompanhar o processo de preparação da Estratégia da UE em matéria de Integração das Alterações Climáticas e Ambiente no Desenvolvimento e consequentemente em fase de reorganização de procedimentos internos com vista à harmonização das suas práticas no contexto da cooperação para o desenvolvimento. ','','','www.ipad.mne.gov.pt','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective8','A8_1','','Portugal has undertaken awareness raising activities on the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing; no national legislation implementing these Guidelines or the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exist. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is not available. However, the entire consumption of forest products coming from the European Union is from a sustainable origin. Portugal has issued a large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied; a number of items were seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed; no support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Portugal does not have national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists. However, Portugal has implemented national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. Actualmente estão em desenvolvimento medidas administrativas com vista a implementar as linhas orientadoras de Bona em acesso aos recursos genéticos e partilha dos benefícios decorrentes da sua utilização. Tal como actualmente redigidas, estas medidas administrativas visam essencialmente afirmar a existência de uma autoridade nacional em matéria de ABS e estabelecer um procedimento PIC. Entre as competências propostas para a autoridade nacional do ABS tendo em vista elevar a consciência sobre a matéria constam as seguintes tarefas:	Informar interessados sobre os procedimentos para obter o consentimento prévio informado (PIC) e os termos mutuamente acordados (MAT);	Divulgar e sensibilizar os diversos interessados sobre as disposições relevantes da CBD e nacionais sobre ABS;	Criar um mecanismo nacional de recolha e transmissão de informações (Clearing-House Mechanism) sobre ABS.Portugal não possui uma estratégia nacional, um plano de acção específico nem legislação nacional de execução das linhas orientadoras de Bona. Tendo as Partes da CDB acordado em concluir as negociações sobre o Regime Internacional de ABS, o mais rapidamente possível, até à COP 10 da CBD (Outubro 2010) e que, na COP 9, as Partes concordaram que o futuro regime internacional pode incluir elementos juridicamente vinculativos, Portugal considera que a legislação nacional sobre os recursos genéticos deverá ser desenvolvida e aprovada, após a adopção do Regime Internacional de ABS. Em relação a actividades nacionais que contribuam para a sensibilização sobre as Linhas Orientadoras de Bona em Acesso aos Recursos Genéticos e Partilha de Benefícios, as implementadas foram quase na totalidade anteriores a 2006 e, na sua maioria, direccionadas à administração pública. Incluíram reuniões interministeriais directamente focadas sobre o tema (nomeadamente com a participação dos Ministérios da Agricultura, da Economia e da Saúde) ou reuniões da Comissão de Coordenação Interministerial sobre a CDB onde o tema foi abordado. Além disso, em 2004, no âmbito de um curso de conservação de recursos fitogenéticos foi ministrada uma aula sobre o acesso aos recursos genéticos e partilha de benefícios no âmbito da CDB, com enfoque especial nas Linhas Orientadoras de Bona.Já em Julho de 2006 foi organizada uma reunião sobre esta temática com a participação do Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e do Gabinete de Relações Internacionais (Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento e do Desenvolvimento Regional), Secretaria de Estado da Indústria e Tecnologia e Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (Ministério da Economia e da Inovação), Direcção Geral de Protecção das Culturas, Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas, Estação Florestal Nacional e Banco Português de Germoplasma Vegetal (Ministério da Agricultura, Desenvolvimento Rural e Pescas).','','','','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Portugal did not provide funds for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','06/05/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Portugal does not have legislation on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In addition, Portugal does not have national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. ','','','','06/05/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective8','A8_1_4','','A percentagem relativamente ao total do consumo nacional não está disponível. No entanto, a totalidade do consumo de produtos florestais provenientes da União Europeia é de origem sustentável.A Autoridade Florestal Nacional não possui informação sistemática do consumo de produtos florestais. O consumo de produtos florestais a que se responde nos questionários internacionais é um \"consumo aparente\" estimado de alguns produtos, como a madeira serrada, os painéis e aglomerados, a pasta e o papel. Os consumos aparentes são estimados em função da produção, da exportação e da importação. Os dados em bruto do INE dizem respeito ao comércio (importação e exportação), não se considerando os dados relativos à produção. Estes eram no passado usualmente fornecidos pelas associações empresariais, mas nos últimos 3 anos a Associação das Indústrias de Madeira e Mobiliário de Portugal não tem fornecido tal informação.  Em qualquer dos casos, a informação existente é global, não estando alocada nem ao proprietário nem à propriedade. A Nomenclatura Combinada utilizada na UE para o comércio não discrimina os produtos certificados, pelo que não é possível chegar a estes valores através desta fonte. O anuário da CELPA-Associação da Indústria Papeleira apresenta consumos de madeira para a indústria da pasta e consumos de pasta para a indústria do papel, mas também não aloca nenhum dos valores à proveniência (certificada ou não).Na Região Autónoma dos Açores, em relação à produção lenhosa regional, a sua totalidade provém de fontes sustentáveis, uma vez que todas as áreas cortadas são alvo de reflorestação ou regeneração. Não existe no entanto ainda produção lenhosa certificada. Relativamente ao material lenhoso importado não se possuem dados sobre a sua proveniência.','','','','21/04/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Portugal','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 2377, 119 and 519, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 is not available. Portugal made significant seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens – 234 for 2007 and 225 for 2008, representing net decrease in the number of seizures of 9. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical assistance and training to Staff of enforcement authorities, traders and NGOs. Also, oral and written advice/guidance was provided to the public. Portugal has not provided technical or financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Portugal paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','21/04/2010','','','07/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Portugal','Objective9','','','A Estratégia Nacional de Adaptação às Alterações Climáticas, aprovada pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 24/2010, de 1 de Abril, considera a biodiversidade como um domínio/sector estratégico onde serão identificados impactes e definidas medidas de adaptação.','','','http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/04/06400/0109001106.pdf','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Portugal decidiu integrar um plano de acção sobre Biomassa no âmbito do Plano de Acção Nacional de Renováveis (NREAP), que se encontra em desenvolvimento. Mecanismos chave, tais como, critérios de sustentabilidade para a bioenergia, certificação de origem ou os impactes da produção de biomassa para aquecimento, arrefecimento e energia eléctrica, devem ser abordados no NREAP.Na Região Autónoma dos Açores foi estabelecido um protocolo de cooperação financeira entre a Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (em representação do MIT-Portugal), o Governo Regional e a Universidade dos Açores, no âmbito do desenvolvimento do projecto Green Islands.Este Projecto, financiado pela Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia e em desenvolvimento pelo MIT-Portugal, destina-se a promover conhecimento científico crítico para o desenvolvimento de sistemas sustentáveis de energia, caracterizados por reduzida dependência de combustíveis fósseis, e o consequente desenvolvimento tecnológico em parceria com empresas nacionais e internacionais e a sua implementação e demonstração nos Açores.Na Região está em desenvolvimento o Plano Estratégico para a Energia dos Açores (PEEA) que visa “fomentar a produção de energia de fontes renováveis e recursos endógenos prevendo-se a redução do consumo de gasóleo e gasolina rodoviários até 10 por cento e do fuel em mais de 50 por cento”.Para concretizar o PEEA, a Empresa de Electricidade dos Açores estima investir nos próximos cinco anos 105 milhões de euros de forma a possuir uma potência em energia verde de 46 megawatts.Vão ser construídas duas centrais de biomassa vegetal e duas de biogás nas ilhas Terceira e São Miguel, uma central de resíduos em São Miguel, instalação de aerogeradores em São Miguel (10) Santa Maria (2), Graciosa (2), São Jorge (3), Pico (2) e Faial (3).Os investimentos abrangem, também, a ampliação de uma central geotérmica e a construção de uma nova central geotérmica na ilha de São Miguel, aproveitamento hidroeléctrico em São Jorge e uma nova central hídrica nas Flores.A Região Autónoma da Madeira (RAM), ao abrigo do Projecto ERAMAC II “Maximização da Penetração das Energias Renováveis e Utilização Racional da Energia nas Ilhas da Macaronésia”, no âmbito do PCT MAC (03/MAC/4.3/C3), efectuou o levantamento do potencial energético da biomassa florestal do arquipélago, com o intuito de criar uma central de biomassa, a curto/médio prazo, na ilha da Madeira. No âmbito do 1º Inventário Florestal da Região Autónoma da Madeira, foram estimados a quantidade de biomassa florestal existente e o stock de carbono existente nesta biomassa. Estes dados serão utilizados para o plano de acção florestal da RAM.As energias renováveis e a metodologia para o seu desenvolvimento estão consagradas no Plano de Política Energética da Região Autónoma da Madeira (PPERAM). Paralelamente a este plano, a RAM tem-se associado a vários projectos, de onde se destaca o “WAVEGEN”, projecto de cooperação para a instalação de uma central de demonstração de aproveitamento da energia das ondas na Madeira, através da conversão directa em energia eléctrica, que consiste na integração de bombas, denominadas wavepumps – equipamento offshore ultraleve de conversão da energia das ondas – com um único gerador hidráulico submerso (6º Programa Quadro, 2006-2008).','','','Reference or title: Weblink: RCM n.º 63/2003 e RCM n.º 169/2005 (orientações da Política Energética Portuguesa)RCM n.º 171/2004 (Aprova o Programa de Actuação para Reduzir a Dependência de Portugal face ao Petróleo)','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_4_1','','A Estratégia Nacional de Adaptação às Alterações Climáticas, aprovada pela Resolução do Conselho de Ministros n.º 24/2010, de 1 de Abril, considera a biodiversidade como um domínio/sector estratégico onde serão identificados impactes e definidas medidas de adaptação.',NULL,NULL,'http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2010/04/06400/0109001106.pdf','21/04/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Portugal','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Um estudo intitulado “Iberia Change – Impacts of Climate Change in Terrestrial Biodiversity” foi patrocinado pelos Governos de Portugal e Espanha para análise dos potenciais impactes das alterações climáticas sobre um grupo de espécies de vertebrados nos próximos 100 anos. Este estudo está focado na análise de risco ao nível da espécie. Os habitats não foram alvo de estudo.As 302 espécies analisadas forma classificadas de acordo com as seguintes categorias: Estável	                            distribuição potencial futura difere da actual em menos de 30% Ganhadora	             distribuição potencial futura é 30% maior que a actualPerdedora	              distribuição potencial futura é 30% menor que a actualSem sobreposição	sobreposição entre distribuição actual e potencial futura menos que 70%www.biochange-lab.eu/iberiachange/pt ','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','21/04/2010','','','',''),
	('Romania','MandE','C1_2','','Romania applies 2 of the SEBI indicators directly (Nationally designated protected areas; Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives). 10 further SEBI indicators are similar but have been amended to the national circumstances; 6 indicators are in development or their use is being checked, and 8 SEBI indicators are not being used.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink-','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','MandE','C1_2_1','','Romania applies 2 of the SEBI indicators directly (Nationally designated protected areas; Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives). 10 further SEBI indicators are similar but have been amended to the national circumstances; 6 indicators are in development or their use is being checked, and 8 SEBI indicators are not being used.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Measure1','B1_1_1','','A Fund for the Environment was created in Romania. It consists of the taxes for pollution and biological resources exploitation paid by economic agents. There are no special governmental programmes for biodiversity conservation, but the willingness to cofinance the best conservation projects of public or private organisations selected for this purpose. The Ministry of Environment and Water Management decided to support with larger funds and facilities the co-financing of applications to the Fund for the Environment for projects on biodiversity conservation and management of biological resources. The recent measure 3.3 of the SAPARD program will contribute to the development of green agriculture and agricultural biodiversity conservation. Financial support is strictly limited to the projects of the institutions subordinated to the Ministry of Environment and Water Management and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development and for international co-financing. Bilateral external funding plays a significant role, coming from the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, USA and other countries, multilateral funding from the EU and in the past from the GEF. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Romania spent up to EUR1,544,050 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Romania’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report does not provide the detailed information required here. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Romania’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Romania’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR172m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR63.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR115.5m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Measure1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure2','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Romania has created a new strategy or policy or updated an existing one in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure3','','','No information was available on business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available on forestry and biodiversity or farming and biodiversity partnerships.','','Romania recognised that it is crucial for the environmental protection / biodiversity / nature conservation policies to be harmonized with programmes/policies on the sustainable use of natural resources. Relevant examples noted by Romania for the forestry sector included the long-standing discussions on harmonization and integration of environmental protection norms and regulations for the development of forest management plans. ','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Romania stated a number of future priorities concerning planning and biodiversity. These include adequate land use planning, which serves to mitigate urban dispersion and to reduce land fragmentation and biodiversity loss. Another future objective is the development of planning policies including regional level policies which include clear objectives in support of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation.  Romania does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development of biodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report of RomaniaWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','','','','11/12/2009','24/04/2010'),
	('Romania','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available on business biodiversity partnerships. ','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available on partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity.','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available on the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines and their application to projects financed by public funds.','','','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No information was available concerning a national communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','Romania noted that, in the European Union, misconceptions are widespread over the meaning of biodiversity conservation. It is often believed to mean the preservation of nature rather than the sustainable management of natural resources. Several studies in the forestry sector, looking at EU citizens perceptions have revealed this. Romania stated that this has to be changed through consistent information campaigns that put emphasis on technical data (at an appropriate level of accessibility) and onto the critical points of the political agenda (biodiversity, climate change, renewable energy policy, etc.). Romania also noted that the EU forest communication strategy is now in the stage of preparation, following the Jihlava Declaration 2009.','','','','','24/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Romania has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Romania between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.   ','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','11/12/2009','24/04/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_1','','No information on the conservation status of habitats was available for Romania as Romania only became a member of the EU in 2007.','','','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Romania has designated 273 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 32.833 km², totalling 13.2% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 6 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 1353 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 108 with a total area of 29,890 km², totalling 12.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 1, with a marine area of 1,470 km² (no surface area figures were available for SPAs).','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is generally not available in the data source indicated.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26.02.2010','','','07/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','20% of Natura 2000 sites have a completed management plan, while for 80% of sites a management plan is in preparation.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','26.02.2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','05/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_2_3','','The national legislation regarding protected areas includes articles on connectivity (ecological corridors). These articles define the ecological corridors and how they can be established. Also, the subsequent legislation regarding documentation for new protected areas establishment recommend for the location of new protected areas to take the ecological corridors into consideration. On the other hand, for the most important species of community importance, the Natura 2000 sites were designated taking into consideration the ecological corridors (for example for large carnivores also the most important ecological corridors were designated as SCIs).','','','','22/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 324 regularly occurring bird species in Romania, 12 are globally Near-threatened and 12 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Romania, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!Romania has not submitted information on the conservation status of mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants. ','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed of the total of regularly occurring species at the global level. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa from the Habitats Directive reporting process: The methodology for the other taxa would be different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Romania does not have species action plans. Red Data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','www.blacksea-commisssion.org ','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective10','A10_1','','No information was provided on whether Poland has a national research scheme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research or if biodiversity research is incorporated into other national programmes. ','','Romania provided this information: Ecosystem services of forests included in natural protected areas are accounted for in Romania based on the amount of wood restricted from harvesting through nature conservation measures (as alternative to the aggregation of the whole array of ecosystem services, e.g., UNEP tool-kit on environmental economics, 2005). These compensatory payments are made in accordance with the Law no. 46/2008 - Forest Law and the subsequent governmental decision on forest support measures, and were awarded so far for private forests belonging to individuals. However, the allocated funding for 2010 will not allow for granting these compensatory payments for the ca. 225,000 ha forests included in protected areas (of which ca. 50,000 in designated core conservation areas) belonging to both natural and legal persons. In addition, from 2010 on, there is need of Commission approval for this state aid scheme. ','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective10','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Romania is planning a follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. ','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective10','A10_1_8','','No information was provided on whether Romania has created a national biodiversity platform.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info BioPlatformhttp://www.bioplatform.info/index.htm ','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Romania is not currently a Participant or Associate member of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A private organisation in Romania is a member of the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI). Finsiel Romania Srl, an IT company, are ‘members’ of Work Package 2: ENBI forums.','','Finsiel Romania Srl is a private company, so none of the categories above apply','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees (lines, groups or isolated) and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures aim to maintain soil organic matter, avoid soil erosion and protect water resources. To maintain soil condition farmers must not plant the same crops in a field in more than 2 consecutive years and must ensure autumn sown crops maintain crop cover over the winter. There are also legal requirements governing the use of water for irrigation.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Romania total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 8124.2 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 10097.08 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1907.8 million EUR, and 2326.59 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 23.48 and 23.04 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Romania was 817.05 million EUR (996.4 with co-financing) and amounted to 10.06 per cent of the EAFRD (9.87 with co-financing). There are no payments in Romania for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','',' 2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)00Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, a national strategy and action plan has not been developed to address the conservation of genetic resources. No further information on the conservation of genetic resources is provided by the Member State.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in Romania in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, no national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Romania had a total certified forest area of 917,473 hectares out of a total forest area of 6.37 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Romania was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 14.4 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Romania amounted to 4.86 million ha, representing a share of 33.7 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf','','','','',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.Protection of permanent pasture.Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees (lines, groups or isolated) and field margins.Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Other additional GAEC measures aim to maintain soil organic matter, avoid soil erosion and protect water resources. To maintain soil condition farmers must not plant the same crops in a field in more than 2 consecutive years and must ensure autumn sown crops maintain crop cover over the winter. There are also legal requirements governing the use of water for irrigation.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_6','','According to the Member State’s questionnaire response, training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity, but no further details are provided.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_8','','National / regional monitoring schemes are being developed (to be implemented from 2010) for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds.•	HNV farming.There are no indicators in place for the other mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators, namely HNV forestry or tree species composition. However, according to the Member State, programme-specific biodiversity indicators have additionally been drawn up.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:','23/04/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 102 million € has been added to the Romanian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Romania attributed € 14 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 13 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, national monitoring programmes have been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity. However, parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory.In Romania, degraded land area has been indentified. This refers to their location as well as to drivers which lead to degradation (e.g., erosion, salinisation, desertification, landslides, etc.). Land area classified as inappropriate for the designated use category amounts to at least 2 million ha. One of the most common mitigation measures is afforestation, as part of a programme implemented by the Forestry General Department, and financed through budgetary allocations and the Land Amelioration Fund (Law no. 18/1991). In the framework of this programme, maximum annual area afforested amounted to roughly 5,000 ha between 2005 and 2006. In 2008 and 2009 afforested area decreased to roughly 1,000 per year, due to decreasing budgetary allocations and the enactment of special laws exempting from compensatory payments deforestation works for particular public investments (e.g., roads, ski slopes and transport installations, etc.). ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_3','','Romania does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2006 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007.','','-','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','23/04/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, no information on oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonium concentrations, concentrations of nitrate and phosphorus concentrations was available for Romania.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Romania had a total number of 1 bathing water which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 2.0 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to the previous year, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, the colour of the water, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Romania, all biological assessment methods for rivers, but also lakes, transitional and coastal waters are only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete).According to reporting by the Member State in 2010, Romania developed assessments methods for rivers for the following biological indicators: phytoplankton, benthic invertebrate and fish fauna. Regarding transitional and coastal waters the following applies: phytoplankton and benthic invertebrate are already available; fish fauna, and macro algae and angiosperms methods are under development.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 249 in Romania.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','',''),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, iRomania had a total number of 699 IPPC installations and issued 57 permits. 1 permit was still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ro/eu/ippc/colssghwq/envssgibq/RO_Template_question_2_1.xls/manage_document ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_4_2','','In 2008, Romania’s emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, and non-methane volatile organic compounds were all below NEC Directive ceilings. It is projected that they will remain below these levels in 2010, although emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds have been increasing over the last years.','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised for 2007, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Romania the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 46 and 19 per cent respectively, considering an area of 97,964 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 22 and 12 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 20 per cent in 2010 and 15 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 0 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','A2_4_3','','-','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','Romania does not have a Habitats Directive Article 17 report for the reporting period 2001-2006 as it became a Member State of the European Union in 2007.','','-','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_1','','No information was provided for Romania in the first Article 17 report (covering period 2000-2006), as Romania entered the EU in January 2007. Romania has indicated that they have started to classify and map some marine habitats identified as habitats of community interest. Only 6 of coastal habitats identified until now are considered of community interest and they are in ‘Unfavorable’ status of conservation. Between 2003 and 2005 an inventory of marine species was carried out. Based on available data obtained in the previous 20 years in different projects, and data from this assessment, a list of important species for the Black Sea was drafted. The 222 species included in that list have been assessed against IUCN criteria. Among them, there are 19 plant species (macrophytes and angiosperms), 57 invertebrates, 142 fish and 4 mammals. In red categories, there are 21 species listed as Critically Endangered (CR), 24 as Endangered (EN) (most of them invertebrates - 12), and 18 as Vulnerable (VU).','','Romania (along with Bulgaria) joined the EU in January 2007, so no data is available from official Habitats directive Article 17reporting for the period 2000-2006. ','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 report on period 2001-2006, 2008 Prepared by ETC/BD, June 2009Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','',''),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Romania reported that, in 2009, it had 42 surveillance stations and 42 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Romania has 4 coastal water bodies. All coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Assessment methods for monitoring phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and macroalgae or angiosperm have been developed.A programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD is being developed.  ','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','14/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No information was available on the status of the national plan/strategy for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM).','','','','','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_2','',' In Romania, 98% of the coastal bathing waters (48) met the mandatory values in 2008. Only one coastal bathing area was not-compliant. This is a very significant increase compared to the previous year, when 28.6% of the bathing waters met the mandatory values. In 2007, the compliance rate was low because a large percentage of the bathing waters (51%) was insufficiently sampled and could not be taken into account in the quality assessment. Only one coastal bathing area (2%) met the more stringent guide value, the same number as in 2007. There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as Romania has reported time series to the EEA of less than 5 years.','','There is no bathing water quality data for 2006 as Romania had not yet joined the EU. ','','21/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL);

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_4','','Romania’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €13,300,000 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and developing conservation measures for Turbot and sprat as well as improving gear selectivity and energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€140,000,000) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and organic production. It also promotes the protection of N2000 sites and management of traditional features of the landscape in aquaculture zones. Axis 3 (€40,000,000) allows for the rehabilitation of sturgeon migration routes and stock enhancement of Danube salmon. Axis 4 (€100,000,000) does not include any specific environmentally friendly measures. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_02_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm ','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_5_1','','There is no 2006 data for Romania as it only joined the EU in 2007.','','2007 data is not currently available','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_5_2','','It is assumed that Romania does not have any specific restoration plans for diadromous species,  as no information was provided by the Member State. However there are some stocking activities for Sturgeon. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Romania has a relatively small fleet compared to other European countries. Its fishing capacity has remained quite stable but has reduced between 2006 and 2008. Vessels numbers have hardly changed from 440 in 2006 to 437 in 2008 but the tonnage has dropped from 2607 to 1660 (36% reduction) and fishing power has decreased from 8701 to 6194 kW (29% reduction). Romania considers its fleet to be sustainable and although some scrapping of older vessels is envisaged under EFF (2007-2013 programme).','','2008 data: 437 vessels; 1660 tons; 6194 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_6_1','','There is no 2006 data for Romania as it only joined the EU in 2007. No information was provided by Romania on actions to improve enforcement of CFP measures to reduce by-catch and damage to the benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_6_2','','No information was provided by Romania on shark or seabird monitoring plans. ','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','23/04/2010','','','13/5/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Romania has 9 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However there are different ways of defining marine sites and according to national sources, Romania suggests there are 6 Marine Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and 1 Marine Special Protection Area (SPA), therefore 7 marine Natura2000 sites in total. No information was provided by Romania on what fisheries measures have been implemented in any marine Natura2000 site either within or outside territorial waters. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusHowever, Romania gave some feedback that a number of these habitat/species are not relevant: Habitats: The habitat 1120 and 8330 are not present in Romania. For the habitat 8330 further research will be done. The habitat 1150* is present. Mammals: 1366* Monachus monachus is extinct (last observations 40-50 years ago). From our information, this species is also extinct in Bulgaria and Ukraina. 1938 phoca hispida bottnica, 1365 Phoca vitulina, are not present in Romania. Amphibians and Reptiles: 1224 Caretta caretta, 1227 Chelonia mydas, are not present in Romania. Fishes: 1101 Acipenser sturio is extinct. 1100 Acipenser naccarii, 1102 Alosa alosa, 1099 Lampetra fluviatillis, 1095 Petromyzon marinus, 4120 Alosa caspia normani, 1989 Alosa caspia vistonica are not present in Romania. 4127 Alosa tanaica (former name Alosa caspia caspia). 1130 Alosa fallax scientific reserve. -------It is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 6Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0 DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','21/04/2010','','','13/01/10','13/5/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Romania has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.  Data requirements needed for the calculation of the ecosystem indicators are specified in Appendix XIII of EC Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. Indicators 1-3 listed in Appendix XIII require data on species abundance and length distribution by species from fishery independent research surveys. Such information is collected routinely in Romania through established trawl surveys. Also, for the shallow waters near the shore, biodiversity surveys have been proposed using beach seine nets for four areas which cover whole Romanian littoral, to be undertaken two times a year. Indicator 4 requires extended information on age, length, sex and maturity from fishery independent research surveys. From 2009 onwards, this information will be collected for the turbot and sprat fisheries. Indicators 5-7 require position registration data based on VMS. The data are available in a resolution of one record every 2 hours and are stored in the central database NAFA. The different data sources can be linked. The data collected for economic and transversal variables allows the direct calculation fuel costs per quarter and métier for some segments. Estimation of the total costs for fuel in these métier will be based on total effort (from logbooks) and fuel costs per sea day. For all other fleet segments, fuel costs per métier and quarter will be estimated, based on the quarterly effort by métier.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Romanian National Programme for Collection and Management of Fisheries Data 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_tabs1=folders&_20_folderId=94848&_20_cur1=1&_20_delta=20&_20_keywords=&_20_advancedSearch=false&_20_andOperator=true&cur2=2Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF','','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Romanian EEZ waters was 3.11 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.05 since both 1999 and 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','21/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Romanian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity considerably increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 351.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','21/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Romania has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However,the following specific legislation in Romania include articles referring to IAS: Law 192/19.04.2001 forbids the introduction of fish species into rivers; Law 103/23.09.1996 (regarding hunting) requires the introduction of animal species into hunting areas to be approved by a state organisation; Law 137/29.12.1995 (regarding environmental protection) forbids the introduction of species (animal, plant and microorganism) without consent of the Central Authority of Environmental Protection which consults the Romanian Academy of Sciences; Order 322/16.03.2000 (regarding import of species from wild fauna) states that alien species may only be imported with the consent of the Romanian government and the Romanian Academy of Sciences; Law 58/13.07.1994 implements the Convention on Biological Diversity in Romania (Article 8: signing bodies will prevent, control or eradicate the introduction of alien species that are potentially dangerous). Although specific legislation in Romania addresses import and export, introduction and control and eradication, it does not address the issue of possession and trade of IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 39 are present in Romania. This equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Romania has no specific strategy or action plan focused on invasive alien species (IAS) in place . In addition, IAS are not comprehensively dealt with as part of a national/sub national biodiversity strategy of action plan. However, the upcoming updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan will also address issues related to IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Romania has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_1_4','','','',' The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective5','A5_2_2','','Romania has adopted legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. The national legislation in force is as follows: Order no. 237 of 7 April 2006 on authorising economic agents to grow GM crops, issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 337 from 14 April 2006 and; Order no 471 from 14 July 2006. Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 663 from 2 August 2006.     According to the Member State, there are no bans on GMO in place at the moment.  ','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm ','','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in October 2009. The Approximation Strategy for the Nature Conservation Sector was elaborated in 1999 and updated in 2000. While the annual contributions to CBD, CMS, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention were paid, the annual contribution to AEWA for 2008 was, as of August 2008, still outstanding.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Romania for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Romania for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet. ','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Romania has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet. Data will be filled in by contractor from official sources.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective8','A8_1','','Information on national legislation implementing, and on activities raising awareness of, the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing and the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plan Genetic Resources and awareness raising activities is not available. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources reaches almost 100%. Romania has issued a number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no application denied, and a few items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Romania did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Romania','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','','','','','','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Romania','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The definition of  “Sustainable forest management” is provided in the Forest Code - the basic forest act:“Sustainable management of forests = The management and use of forests so they maintain and improve their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, health and in the way to ensure the capacity to fulfill permanently multiple ecological economical and social functions, in present and in the future at local, regional, national and global level, without prejudice to other ecosystems.”This is carried out through the “forestry regime” - “a unitary set of technical, economical and juridical norms concerning forest management planning, culture, harvesting, protection and guarding forests in order to ensure sustainable forest management”.The forestry regime is implemented through forest management plans. Consequently, wood consumption wich is not derived from sustainable sources is illegaly harvested which is estimated at 0.1 % from the annual harvesting rate. The greatest part of wood used in processing, building and furniture industry in Romania originate from domestic production (Romania is a traditional net wood-exporter, e.g., beech). Therefore, the national policy on assuring legal and sustainable use of timber concentrates on the domestic production (Strategy on illegal logging, SUMAL- an information system for wood tracking - , October 2008 MCPFE-FLEGT expert-level meeting organized by Romania, etc.). For the imported products (of which a still smaller part comes from non-EU states), the agreements valid at the EU level apply (EU-FLEGT, CITES.). ','','The greatest part of wood used in processing, building and furniture industry in Romania originate from domestic production (Romania is a traditional net wood-exporter, e.g., beech). Therefore, the national policy on assuring legal and sustainable use of timber concentrates on the domestic production (Strategy on illegal logging, SUMAL- an information system for wood tracking - , October 2008 MCPFE-FLEGT expert-level meeting organized by Romania, etc.). For the imported products (of which a still smaller part comes from non-EU states), the agreements valid at the EU level apply (EU-FLEGT, CITES). ','','','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 424, 50 and 18, respectively. Information on the number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 is not available. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens is 5 for 2007 - 2008. As to capacity-building at the national level, The national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance, technical and financial assistance to Staff of the Management, the Scientific Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities. Oral and written advice/guidance was also provided to traders, NGOS and the public. Romania has not provided technical or financial support to another country in relation to CITES. Romania paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','',''),
	('Romania','Objective9','','','','','In Romania\'s Guide on the Adaptation to Climate Change Effects, one chapter is dedicated to biodiversity sector. In this context, Romania can mention the recommendations and adaptation measures proposed:• the determination of a national monitoring system of endangered species, performed with public and private support, through national programs and through the participation of the Civil Society, as a result of the research activities;• the evaluation of the monitoring system in order to determine its efficiency in accordance with the evolution of climate change effects and the identification of its modification opportunities.• the extension regarding the use of data in the monitoring process, by adapting the results achieved using the mathematical simulation;• the elaboration of the special management plans of the natural habitats in order to prevent and limit the degradation process of these habitats as a result of the climate change impact;• the decrease of the additional pressures which affect vulnerable species;• the decrease of the agricultural activities in the areas directly affected and the implementation of appropriate measures to protect the natural and semi-natural habitats existing close to the agricultural surfaces, including the identification of compensatory measures necessary for the survival of the affected population;• the decrease of the impact generated by the industrial activities on the phreatic water and air quality, by isolation with forest belts;• the increase of the forest areas by the rehabilitation of the waste areas and by the creation of other favourable areas;• the performance of surveys on the assessment of different ecosystems/species vulnerability to the climate change effects.','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','In Romania, the following climate change adaptation or mitigation measures have been initiated/implemented:- Sustainable harvesting: the annual allowable quota below growth, technical norms of forest management and harvesting applicable in Romania (promoting natural types of forests, under shelter regeneration, etc.) consistent with an increased potential of adaptation to climate change and to the increase of sink in all “pools” considered by GHG inventories;- The area of non-forestry land that was afforested from 1990 to present (ca. 30,000 ha) surpasses the deforested land within the same timeframe (ca. 7,000 ha, of which a lower amount still was deforested). This coupled with the forest management activity described above, lead to report “sinks” under LULUCF sector for the 1st  commitment period (2008-2012). - Forest National Inventory, to be completed in 2011, will assure solid evidence of the resource, enable thorough completion of the LULUCF-related tables in the UNFCCC and KP GHG inventories, and assess the mitigation potential for the present and subsequent commitment periods;- It is of outmost importance that the forestry biomass component within the NREAP 2010 (now in preparation) will take due account of the need to keep the mitigation potential of Romanian forests intact (i.e., harvest will allow \"sink\" accounting of GHG emissions from forests, irrespective of the accounting method that will be adopted for the 2nd commitment period). For EU Biomass Action Plan, the competent authority in Romania is the Ministry of Economy, Commerce and Business Environment.','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_4_1','',NULL,NULL,'In Romania\'s Guide on the Adaptation to Climate Change Effects, one chapter is dedicated to biodiversity sector. In this context, Romania can mention the recommendations and adaptation measures proposed:• the determination of a national monitoring system of endangered species, performed with public and private support, through national programs and through the participation of the Civil Society, as a result of the research activities;• the evaluation of the monitoring system in order to determine its efficiency in accordance with the evolution of climate change effects and the identification of its modification opportunities.• the extension regarding the use of data in the monitoring process, by adapting the results achieved using the mathematical simulation;• the elaboration of the special management plans of the natural habitats in order to prevent and limit the degradation process of these habitats as a result of the climate change impact;• the decrease of the additional pressures which affect vulnerable species;• the decrease of the agricultural activities in the areas directly affected and the implementation of appropriate measures to protect the natural and semi-natural habitats existing close to the agricultural surfaces, including the identification of compensatory measures necessary for the survival of the affected population;• the decrease of the impact generated by the industrial activities on the phreatic water and air quality, by isolation with forest belts;• the increase of the forest areas by the rehabilitation of the waste areas and by the creation of other favourable areas;• the performance of surveys on the assessment of different ecosystems/species vulnerability to the climate change effects.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Romania','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','MandE','C1_2','','Slovakia applies 3 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 9 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Slovakia in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','08/12/2009, 13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','MandE','C1_2_1','','Slovakia applies 3 of the SEBI indicators directly, while a further 9 indicators have been adapted to the national circumstances.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009. Note that there were two entries for Slovakia in that survey which are not fully consistent with each other; there is no additional information presented.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink:','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','MandE','C1_3_1','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Measure1','B1_1_1','','The major funding sources for biodiversity in Slovakia are the state budget, the Ministry of Environment’s Environmental Fund, and various EU funds and programmes provided by the EU and EU-associated countries (Norway, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands). Within LIFE projects,from 2004 – 2008, Slovakia spent up to EUR2.288.832 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Slovakia spent up to EUR2.723.233 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','',' The information on national programmes is taken from Slovakia’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Slovakia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Slovakia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR30.5m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR46.3m, while there is no allocation for category 55 (protection of natural assets).','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Measure1','B1_1_8','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure2','B2_4','','No information was provided on whether Slovakia created a new policy or strategy or updated an existing policy or strategy in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was available concerning any partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity facilitated by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','B3_1_5','','The principle policy for planning is the Act No. 50/1976 on land-use planning and the building code. There have been problems in the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity including the low levels of cooperation and coordination at all levels of activity and the inconsistencies between national, regional and local strategies and planning documents on issues relating to sustainable use and biodiversity conservation. Slovakia does not appear to have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','','Reference or title: Slovakia CBD 4th National ReportsWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','11/05/2010','','','11/12/2009','11/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was available concerning any business and biodiversity partnerships encouraged by the Member State.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No information was available concerning any partnerships between the financing sector and biodiversity encouraged by the Member State.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was available concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','','','','11/05/2010','','','11/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No information was available on the development of a national level communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The government of Slovakia has not yet made a declaration supporting the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative. No funding contributions appear to have been made from Slovakia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) sclerophyllopus scrub habitats are in favourable condition. The condition of 6 of the 8 (75%) rocky habitats, 3 of the 5 (60%) heath and scrub and 9 of the 16 (56%) forests is also reported to be favourable. Habitats in an unfavourable-inadequate condition include 6 of the 6 (100%) bogs, mires and fens, 9 of the 12 (75%) grasslands and 5 of the 9 (56%) freshwater habitats.  All coastal alpine habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 3 of the 9 (33%) freshwater habitats and of 2 of the 8 (25%) rocky habitats is unknown. In the Pannonian biogeographical region 4 of the 6 (67%) rocky habitats and 1 of the 2 (50%) heath and scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition.  Half or over of dune (1 of 1 or 100%), sclerophyllous scrub (1 of 1 or 100%), bogs, mires and fens (2 of the 3 or 67%), grasslands (7 of the 11 or 64%), freshwater (3 of the 6 or 50%) and heath and scrub (1 of the 2 or 50%) habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition.  All Pannonic coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 33% of both freshwater and rocky habitats is unknown.','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Bioregion HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable-inadequate U2= Unfavourable-badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported  Coastal habitats00%00%1100%00%00%1AlpineFreshwater habitats00%556%111%333%00%9Heath & scrub360%240%00%00%00%5Sclerophyllous scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands217%975%00%18%00%12Bogs, mires & fens00%6100%00%00%00%6Rocky habitats675%00%00%225%00%8Forests956%638%16%00%00%16PannonianCoastal habitats00%00%2100%00%00%2Dunes habitats00%1100%00%00%00%1Freshwater habitats00%350%117%233%00%6Heath & scrub150%150%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%1100%00%00%00%1Grasslands19%764%218%19%00%11Bogs, mires & fens00%267%133%00%00%3Rocky habitats467%00%00%233%00%6Forests325%542%433%00%00%12','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Slovakia has designated 382 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 5739 km², totalling 11.8% of the country’s area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 38 with a total area of 12,236 km², totalling 25.1% of the country’s area. ','','Details on marine sites do not apply for Slovakia.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','05/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_2_3','','','','',':','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 296 regularly occurring bird species in Slovakia, 10 are globally Near-threatened and 7 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Slovakia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 13 of the 48 (27%) invertebrates and 9 of the 40 (23%) plants was reported to be favourable. 12 of the 19 (63%) amphibians and reptiles, 13 of the 43 (30%) mammals and 16 of the 40 (40%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 19 (21%) amphibians and reptiles and 14 of the 48 (29%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 15 of the 19 (79%) fish and 19 of the 43 (44%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Pannonian biogeographical region, 22 of the 44 (27%) invertebrates and 4 of the 29 (14%) plants are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 15 of the 21 (71%) amphibians and reptiles, 12 of the 40 (30%) mammals and 11 of the 29 (38%) plants was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 12 of the 44 (27%) invertebrates and 12 of the 29 (41%) plants are in an unfavourable- bad condition. The condition of 18 of the 22 (82%) fish, 12 of the 44 (27%) invertebrates and 20 of the 40 (50%) mammals in the Pannonian biogeographical region is unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: oregion Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 316%1263%421%00%00%19Fish 211%211%00%1579%00%19Invertebrates1327%919%1429%1225%00%48Mammals37%1330%819%1944%00%43Plants 923%1640%718%820%00%40PannonianAmphibians and reptiles 210%1571%314%15%00%21Fish 314%15%00%1882%00%22Invertebrates1227%818%1227%1227%00%44Mammals13%1230%718%2050%00%40Plants 414%1138%1241%27%00%29','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective10','A10_1','','No information was provided on national research programmes supporting biodiversity research in Slovakia.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective10','A10_1_2','','No information was provided on whether Slovakia has plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) either as part of a national initiative or a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency.','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective10','A10_1_6','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The Slovak Platform for Biodiversity was developed as part of the thematic network to support the European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy (EPBRS). It is a network of scientists and government workers working in areas related to biodiversity and the National Biodiversity Strategy. Entries on the website span from 2000 to 2005, but it does not appear to have been updated since then.','','copyright on website is 2004, latest ‘event’ is 2005','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Slovakia became a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in April 2007. From August 2001-March 2007, Slovakia was an Associate Member.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A total of 11 German organisations contribute to ENBI. The Department of Vascular Plant Systematics at the Institute of Botany, Slovak Academy of Sciences is a ‘member’ of ENBI Work Package 2: ENBI Forums.','','','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','10/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','','','','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Slovakia total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 1969.42 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 2562.27 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 984.71 million EUR, and 1242.08 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 50 and to 48.47 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Slovakia was 268.15 million EUR (338.24 with co-financing) and amounted to 13.62 per cent of the EAFRD (13.2 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 2.73 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.14 per cent of EAFRD) and 3.45 million EUR of public expenditure (0.13 per cent of public expenditure). Natura 2000 payments related to forests (measure 224) account for 5.74 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.29 per cent of EAFRD) and 7.24 million EUR of public expenditure (0.28 per cent of public expenditure). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 19.93 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (1.01 per cent of EAFRD) and 25.14 million EUR of public expenditure (0.98 per cent of public expenditure).','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)50.6163.588Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan. ','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. No information on payments for genetic conservation measures was available for Slovakia.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_15','','','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Slovakia had a total certified forest area of 1.39 million hectares out of a total forest area of 1.93 million hectares. 174,083 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme under which 1.22 million hectares were certified. In total, 72.3 per cent of the forest area in Slovakia was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Slovakia amounted to 0.54 million ha, representing a share of 22.0 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_4','',NULL,NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross complianceWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_6','','','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title:','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_8','','','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: Weblink: ','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 27 million € has been added to the Slovakian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Slvakia attributed € 11 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 38 per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: no link','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_2_1','','','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 67 per cent of both the Pannonian and alpine fresh water habitats in Slovakia have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining 33 per cent in each case have an unknown status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of fresh water habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151005067%0%33%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6402067%0%33%0%U13  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9603067%0%33%0%U15   U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Slovakia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.10 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.71 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were still higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 1.94 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.62 mg N/l in 2005, being at the lowermost level of 1.47 mg N/l in 2004. Latest figures were below the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater slightly increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 12.2 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 12.9 mg NO3/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.100 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.059 mg P/l in 2005. The previous value was well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on ammonium phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Slovakia had a total number of 20 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 52.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage decreased.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water ','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Slovakia did not develop (or no information was available on) fish fauna assessment for lakes. For all other water categories methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete).','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Slovakia under the Water Framework Directive.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, Slovakia had a total number of 500 IPPC installations and issued 452 permits. No permits were still outstanding. ',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/sk/eu/ippc/envstbjkw/Table_IPPC_Questionaire_2006_2008.xls/manage_document ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to 2008 data on NECD emissions, Slovakia already met the targets set by the NEC Directive regarding all relevant air emissions. According to the country, taking into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures, it will be able to maintain emissions within its national ceilings, although increases in nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and, to a smaller extent, non-methane volatile organic compounds and ammonia are expected by 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Slovakia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 18 and 100 per cent respectively, considering an area of 20,532 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 9 and 8 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages no reduction for 2010 and 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 83 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Slovakia’s gross nitrogen balance was 46 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 43 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 82 per cent of the Pannonian and 80 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. Nine per cent of the Pannonian and 10 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats have a favourable conservation status; the remainder has an unknown status. Of the Pannonian forest habitats, 75 per cent have an unfavourable status; the remaining 25 per cent have a favourable status. 56 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have a favourable status; the remaining 44 per cent have an unfavourable status. With regards to heath and scrub habitats, 50 per cent of the Pannonian and 60 per cent of the alpine have a favourable conservation status, the remaining percentage has an unfavourable status. All occurrences of peat land habitat both Pannonian and alpine have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage231832078%13%9%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11911082%9%9%0%U17  U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10811080%10%10%0%U18   U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2816120057%43%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12930075%25%0%0%U15  U24       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage16790044%56%0%0%U16   U21       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7340043%57%0%0%            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2110050%50%0%0%U11  U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5230040%60%0%0%U12   U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9000100%0%0%0%9            PannonianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage33000100%0%0%0%U12  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U16   U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','A3_4','','Slovakia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes some environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 2 is €17,782,239and includes the promotion of traditional aquaculture methods in order to support conservation. Axis 3 (€4,227,154) aims to reduce negative environmental impacts. There are no activities or funding under Axis 1 or Axis 4. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_96_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','12/5/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','A3_5','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','A3_5_2','','No information has been provided by Slovakia on restoration plans for diadromous species. ','','','','','','','12/5/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective3','Objective3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective4','A4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective4','A4_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Slovakian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 76.8 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56). However, only spendings under categories 51 and 56 are foreseen by the Slovakian Structural Funds programme.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','','','','04/01/2010','10/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Slovakia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, it does have specific legislation that addresses the issues of import and export, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. The Act on Nature and Landscape protection (No. 543/2002) prohibits the import, possession, introduction, growth, reproduction and trade in IAS (and parts and products thereof). This currently only applies to the seven most problematic plant species (according to the Order of the Ministry of the Environment No.24/2003 Coll.) The Order of the Slovak Government No. 81/2007 Coll. contains regulations that require the elimination of IAS (plants) in order to qualify under the conditions of agricultural support under the single area payment scheme. Maintaining good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) is a basic mandatory condition for farmers to receive payments and since April 2008, the Order of the Slovak Government No. 160/2008 Coll. has included the elimination of IAS plants as one sub condition of the GAEC. The Order of the Ministry of the Environment No. 110/2005 Coll. prohibits the possession of alien birds of prey (Falconiformes) and owls (Strigiformes) and Red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans).','',' The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','  Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 46 are present in Slovakia which equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.  ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_1_2','','Slovakia’s National Biodiversity Strategy covers IAS and was approved by the Slovak government and the National Council of Slovakia in 1997. The Action Plan for implementing the national strategy was subsequently developed (amended in 2002 for the period 2003 to 2010). A National Strategy specifically for IAS is under development based on the Global/European Strategy for IAS and will include measures pertaining to the introduction, control and eradication of all IAS in Slovakia. The first draft has been through cross-sectoral consultation.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Slovakia has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_1_4','','','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in Slovakia.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europe initiativehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in September 2009. The National Biodiversity Strategy of Slovakia was published in 1997.Slovakia had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Slovakia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related aid spending by Slovakia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective7','A7_1_4','',' Slovakia has not contributed to the 3rd and 4th replenishment.','','Data for the 5th replenishment are not available yet.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective7','A7_2_2','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective8','A8_1','','Slovakia has issued very few import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no applications denied, and a low number of items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8.','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective8','A8_1_3','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Slovakia did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','','','','08/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective8','A8_1_4','','','','','','','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 0, 27 and 2, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications were denied in 2007 and 2008. The combined number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 17 for 2007 and 2008. Disaggregated numbers of seizures are not available. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance to the Management Authority, the Scientific Authority, the public, district offices as well as training and technical to the Staff of enforcement authorities. Slovakia has not provided technical and financial assistance to another country in relation to CITES. Slovakia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres), combined for 2007 and 2008. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used. ','','','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_3_2','','No Information Available/Provided','','','','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_4_1','','No Information Available/Provided',NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: CBD national reports. Third national report available for EC, some MS already with Fourth national report.Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/countries/',NULL,NULL,NULL,'10/05/2010',NULL),
	('Slovakia','Objective9','A9_4_3','','No Information Available/Provided','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','','','','10/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','MandE','C1_2','','Within the National Environmental Action Programme in 2005, a range of indicators has been adopted. In the field of biodiversity and nature conservation, these indicators basically follow the logic of the SEBI indicators (as at that time SEBI indicators were not fully developed). As for the EU level not for all of the SEBI indicators national data exists.','','','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?&data=group&group_id=13&menu_group_id=13','08/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','MandE','C1_2_1','','Within the National Environmental Action Programme in 2005, a range of indicators has been adopted. In the field of biodiversity and nature conservation, these indicators basically follow the logic of the SEBI indicators (as at that time SEBI indicators were not fully developed). As for the EU level not for all of the SEBI indicators national data exists.The Slovenian Environmental Agency is publishing information on environmental indicators with the following indicators (some in development) in the field of biodiversity and nature conservation: Brown bearDamage caused by protected animal speciesDolphinsEndangered speciesGame preservationPlants – invasive speciesPlants – species richness and endangered speciesPopulation size of selected bird speciesSubterranean biodiversityNatura 2000Nature areas under protectionProtected areasValuable natural features ','','No attempt is made here to link the national indicators as shown above to the SEBI 2010 indicators.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009Weblink: http://kazalci.arso.gov.si/?&data=group&group_id=13&menu_group_id=13','08/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','MandE','C1_3_1','','Slovenia does not have monitoring programmes for habitats, but for the following species groups monitoring schemes exist: birds (31 schemes), mammals (29), fish (5), and invertebrates (26).','','Results are available on the webpage: http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=211','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=211','26/02/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Besides the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, other ministries provide funding for the implementation of the CBD. External funding, through EU resources, also plays a significant role. There is a process of monitoring financial support for biodiversity from the state budget that is being further developed.Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Slovenia spent up to EUR1,506,164 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. The Natura 2000 site management programme 2007-2013, adopted by the government in 2007 defines sources of funding for its implementation:Type of financing      Total sum 2007-13 in m€	%National budget	     52.5	                                      35.7%Structural funds	     57.3	                                      39.0%Rural development    21	                                      14.3%LIFE +	                   16.1	                                      11.0%TOTAL	                 146.9                                       100.0% ','','The information on national programmes is taken from Slovenia’s 3rd national report to the CBD as the 4th national report had not been submitted as of November 2009. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Slovenia’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','08/03/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Measure1','B1_1_2','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see A.2.1.1 for Community and MS co-financing measures under the RD Regulation which are supportive of biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Slovenia’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR49.6m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR39.9m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR7.7m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','08/03/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Measure1','B1_1_7','','This action is covered under Objective 7. Please see the measures of progress under A.7.1 and A.7.1.3 for your country’s international development assistance funds for projects directly benefiting biodiversity.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Measure1','B1_1_8','','Exact information on the amount of funding for biodiversity research is not available.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','12/04/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure2','B2_4','','Slovenia has updated a national environmental programme in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’. The updated Natura 2000 management programme was approved by the Government in October 2007 as a specific follow up of the National Environmental Action Programme and as an update of a part of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. This management programme covers 35.5% of Slovenian territory, including many areas with outstanding biodiversity, and includes specific biodiversity targets for 2010.  ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/NATURA_2000-ANG-01.pdfhttp://www.mop.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/okolje/zakon_o_ohranjanju_narave/priloga_42_operativnega_programa/','08/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','','','There is cooperation between business and nature conservation services (park administrations) and NGOs, where business supports nature conservation activities or undertakes these activities itself. In some cases this cooperation is established as a formal partnership.The Ministry has supported the following partnerships:- Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation, Aquarium Piran and Marine Biology Station for preservation of Caretta caretta. - Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation for conservation of locally specific waterholes “kali” - Partnership between Petrol and NGO Morigenos on survey and conservation of dolphins.- Partnership with Mobitel for management of the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park – managed by Mobitel’s daughter company Soline.d.d  - Partnership between Telekom and NGO Doves on national contest of eco-schools, theme: Natura 2000 (schoolyear 2009/2010). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.morigenos.org/index.php?path=Novice http://www.mobitel.si/Splosno/Druzbena-odgovornost/sobivanje/soline.aspx?en=1http://eko.telekom.si/','08/03/2010','','05/05/2010','',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No partnerships for forestry and biodiversity or for farming and biodiversity have been formally facilitated or established.However, there is regular cooperation between the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning and nature conservation services and the Chamber of agriculture and forestry in the field of Natura 2000 implementation','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','B3_1_5','','No forum or similar platform/frameworks have been set up by MS for establishing formal biodiversity and planning partnerships at local, regional and national levels.There is however a legal requirement for the cooperation of nature conservation institutions and bodies, responsible for spatial planning (on national and local level), and this cooperation is exercised in a number of meetings.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','08/03/2010','','','na','25/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','B3_1_6','','There is cooperation between business and nature conservation services (park administrations) and NGOs, where business supports nature conservation activities or undertakes these activities itself. In some cases this cooperation is established as a formal partnership.The Ministry has supported the following partnerships:- Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation, Aquarium Piran and Marine Biology Station for preservation of Caretta caretta. - Partnership between Petrol and Institute of RS for Nature Conservation for conservation of locally specific waterholes “kali” - Partnership between Petrol and NGO Morigenos on survey and conservation of dolphins.- Partnership with Mobitel for management of the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park – managed by Mobitel’s daughter company Soline.d.d  - Partnership between Telekom and NGO Doves on national contest of eco-schools, theme: Natura 2000 (schoolyear 2009/2010). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.petrol.si/index.php?sv_path=213,1341http://www.morigenos.org/index.php?path=Novice http://www.mobitel.si/Splosno/Druzbena-odgovornost/sobivanje/soline.aspx?en=1http://eko.telekom.si/','08/03/2010','','05/05/2010','',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','B3_1_7','','There is cooperation between business and nature conservation services (park administrations) and NGOs, where businesses (which include companies from financing sector) support nature conservation activities or undertake these activities themselves. In some cases this cooperation is established as a formal partnership.','','Slovenia indicated that the collaborations supported by the Ministry for business and biodiversity (given in B3.1.6) were similar as the partnerships established between the financing sector and biodiversity.','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure3','B3_1_8','','','','No information was available concerning the implementation of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines to projects financed by public funds.','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No information was available concerning communications campaigns which have been developed directly in support the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). However, related communications campaigns have been developed. For example, Slovenia launched a communication campaign on Natura 2000 as part of the project: “Communication support to Natura 2000” over the period 2007-2008. The specific objectives of the project were to augment the general visibility of the Natura 2000 ecological network; to place biodiversity conservation among the key development opportunities of Slovenia; to equip and qualify a network of communicators; encourage stakeholders to participate in maintaining biodiversity conservation in the Natura 2000 sites.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','08/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initative on 16th October 2007.The Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning communicated that it had joined Countdown 2010 to strengthen understanding  and management of biodiversity in particular focusing on endemic and endangered species particularly given the level of species richness in Slovenia. Their focus was stated to be also on establishing new protected areas and promote effective management to contribute to the European and global network of protected areas. They proposed expanding existing transboundary collaboration in order to ensure a coherent transboundary network of protected areas and by developing and implementing the nature conseration measures of the Natura 2000 Operational Programme 2007-2013 on protected and planned protected areas.  The implementation of the Slovenian National Biodiversity Strategy was also a priority. The establishment of a monitoring system which will allow the continious review of the biodiversity status and the progress of implementation of international commitments. Another aim was to involve local authorities and other stakeholders  in the implementation of international commitments. Best practice examples on the use of wood biomass on biodiversity with particular attention to close-to-nature forest management were mentioned as a future action. Connecting biodiversity and forest issues was also refarded as a priority during the Slovenian Presidency in early 2008.  No funding contributions appear to have been made by Slovenia between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects. Activities in Countdown initiative have been or are currently part of different governmental programmes, therefore funding has been assured or allocated through these programmes when they have been approved.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 100% of both heath and scrub and sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. 8 of the 9 or 89% and 4 of the 7 or 57% of forests and rocky habitats are also in favourable condition respectively. Half of alpine bogs, mires and fens are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of 4 of the 11 (36%) grasslands and 2 of the 9 (22%) freshwater habitats are reported to be unfavourable-bad.In the Continental biogeographical region, 100% (1 of 1) of sclerophyllous scrub habitats are in favourable condition. 6 of the 9 (67%), 5 of the 8 (63%) and 2 of the 4 (50%) coastal habitats, forests and rocky habitats are also reported to be in favourable condition respectively. The condition of 4 of the 5 (80%) bogs, mires and fens, 4 of the 7 (57%) freshwater habitats and 2 of the 4 (50%) rocky habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 7 (57%) and 3 of the 7 (43%) grasslands and freshwater habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition respectively. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) coastal habitats are in favourable and an unfavourable-inadequate condition respectively.','','An analysis for the biogeographical region follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats333%444%222%00%00%9Heath & scrub2100%00%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous Scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands436%327%436%00%00%11Bogs, mires & fens233%350%117%00%00%6Rocky habitats457%229%114%00%00%7Forests889%111%00%00%00%9ContinentalCoastal habitats667%333%00%00%00%9Freshwater habitats00%457%343%00%00%7Sclerophyllous Scrub1100%00%00%00%00%1Grasslands00%343%457%00%00%7Bogs, mires & fens00%480%120%00%00%5Rocky habitats250%250%00%00%00%4Forests563%113%225%00%00%8Marine Mediterranean Coastal habitats133%267%00%00%00%3','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','18/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Slovenia has designated 260 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 6397 km², totalling 31.6% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of Special Protection Areas is 26 with a total area of 4618 km², totalling 22.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are no marine areas in SCIs or SPAs.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm; http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=N2K@ZRSVN and http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=45  ','22/02/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','The Natura 2000 site management programme 2007-2013, adopted by the government in 2007 defines the Natura 2000 conservation objectives and measures for each species and/or habitat type at each Natura 2000 site. In relation to management planning it identifies the competent sectors (protected area management plans, forestry, fisheries and hunting), their related unit and/or area management plans and responsible implementers. According to a governmental conclusion conservation measures have to be incorporated in relevant sector management plans, when they are being updated. The data in the field \"…management plans completed\" shows the situation for each of these four sectors. There are 9 protected areas, relevant for Natura 2000 measures, where legislation enables approval of a site management plan, and in this case this number has been taken as 100% of sites. For these 9 sites there is 1 approved protected area management and 7 in preparation. In forestry out of 234 unit management plans, that cover the whole country, 158 are relevant for Natura 2000 measures and were identified by the Natura 2000 management programme and in this case this number has been taken as 100% of sites. By the end of the year 2009 45 of them have been in the process of update and Natura 2000 measures have been incorporated in these management plans. They represent 28% of all relevant management plans in forestry. It is not applicable to give % of sites, as some management plans cover several sites and some only a part of one site. The same system exists for hunting (10 area management plans are relevant, meaning 100% of sites), and fishing (26 unit management plans are relevant, meaning 100% of sites).','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/NATURA_2000-ANG-01.pdf, http://www.mop.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/okolje/zakon_o_ohranjanju_narave/priloga_42_operativnega_programa/','26/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Currently, no tools to support ecological connectivity are in place or developed.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','22/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 298 regularly occurring bird species in Slovenia, 11 are globally Near-threatened and 4 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Slovenia, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa. Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 13 of the 40 (33%) mammals and 15 of the 35 (43%) plants was reported to be favourable. 15 of the 21 (71%) amphibians and reptile, 18 of the 19 (100%) fish, 20 of the 37 (54%) invertebrates and 13 of the 35 (37%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 6 of the 37 (16%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 20 of the 40 (50%) mammals and 1 of the 19 (5%) fish species in alpine biogeographical region is unknown. is unknown. In the Continental biogeographical region, 11 of the 39 (28%) mammals and 13 of the 36 (36%) plants are in a favourable condition. 68% of amphibians and reptiles, 90% of fish, 52% of invertebrates and 36% of plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 10 of the 46 (22%) invertebrates is reported to be unfavourable-bad. The condition of 20 of the 39 (51%) mammals is unknown. Of the species in the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) amphibians and reptiles and 1 of the 2 (50%) invertebrates are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 1 of the 2 (50%) invertebrates and 1 of 1 (100%) mammals was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (HD Art 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies group tNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 15%1571%210%314%00%21Fish 00%1895%00%15%00%19Invertebrates616%2054%616%514%00%37Mammals1333%615%13%2050%00%40Plants 1543%1337%39%411%00%35Continental Amphibians and reptiles 13%2168%516%26%00%29Fish 00%2790%27%13%00%30Invertebrates613%2452%1022%613%00%46Mammals1128%718%13%2051%00%39Plants 1336%1336%411%617%00%36Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 110000%00%00%00%1Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates150%150%00%00%00%2Mammals00%1100%00%0000%1Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','18/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Slovenia has 2 completed species action plans for birds and 1 for mammals.In addition, Slovenia has 2 action plans for mammals. Red Data lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants. The Rural Development Plan 2007-13 includes indicators, derived from the Farmland Bird Index (part of Common bird monitoring scheme). ','','Action plans for some species have been adopted at the EU level and include specific measures for Slovenia. These action plans are taken into account in indicating the numbers. An up-to-date overview of  action plans is in preparation for species; relevantRed lists are adopted also as a legislative act (Ministerial Decree).','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/rds_zivali_rastline.pdfhttp://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/rds_zivali_rastline_priloga.pdf','26/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective10','A10_1','','Slovenia does not have a specific research programme dedicated exclusively to dealing with a holistic approach to biodiversity research. However, within other programmes there are each year several projects approved, basic and applicative, that aim at contributing to the knowledge of status and trends of biodiversity in Slovenia.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Slovenia does not currently have any plans to follow up the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), either as a national initiative or as part of a wider programme, such as the European Ecosystem Assessment (EURECA) of the European Environment Agency. The MA results and approaches are used in the updating of the strategic documents in Slovenia. However, at the moment Slovenia are focused on reporting, which will be basis for next updating of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. There are some approaches to assess ecosystem services in Slovenia, mostly in forestry, but there is currently no systematic approach.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','04/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective10','A10_1_6','','This action is covered under Supporting Measure 1. Please see B1.1.8 for an indication of the amount of funding allocated for biodiversity research for the years 2006-2010 for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Slovenia has a national biodiversity platform, developed under the European Platform for Biodiversity (BioPlatform) project—1999-2005. After the end of the project the use of the biodiversity platform as a coordination body between biodiversity and research policies stopped. Slovenia indicated that they are included in the BIOSTRAT project and regularly attends EPBRS meetings, but that there are currently no active links between this and research policy, and there is therefore not much influence on the research policy in favour of biodiversity research.','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','05/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','05/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective10','A10_1_9','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulation on statutory management requirements and GAEC (only in Slovene):Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=96008   ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Slovenia total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 916 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 1176.99 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 474.31 million EUR, and 592.89 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 51.78 and 50.37 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Slovenia was 248.4 million EUR (310.5 with co-financing) and amounted to 27.12 per cent of the EAFRD (26.38 per cent with co-financing). There are no payments in Slovenia for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)32.62017*40.7753*Forest environment payments (225)00According to reporting by the Member State, following data refer to actual payments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 31 December 2009:(214): EAFRD: 65.595093 miilion €, Total: 81.993866 miilion €','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A strategy to address the conservation of genetic diversity is being developed for crop varieties and an action plan has been adopted for crop varieties and breeds. The national biodiversity strategy (NBS), action plan (NBAP) and RDP also promote the conservation of genetic diversity in crops. Further cover NBS and NBAP livestock breeds and races as well as commercial tree species.In situ measures are being taken for livestock breeds (with a value of €25,154.00), which in 2009 addressed the most endangered breeds (Istrian sheep, Bela Krajina Sheep, Dreznica goat, Krskopolje pig and Cika cattle). ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.*for crop varieties** for crop varieties and breeds','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/publikacije/drugo/biotska.pdf ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Slovenia approved 3220 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.798 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.997 million of total expenditure, representing respectively around 2.44 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.According to reporting by the Member State, as part of the agri-environment measures within the Rural Development Programme sub-measures such as \'Sustainable rearing of domestic animals\' and \'Production of autochthonous and traditional agricultural plant varieties\' are being implemented.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data, MS questionnaireWeblink: No link ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, there have not been any afforestation plans in Slovenia. Deforestation is only possible on the basis of special permits issued by Slovenian Forest Service, which comprise about 200 ha annually. A limit for application is 0.5 ha. Impact on biodiversity is among criteria considered when issuing the permits. Otherwise a permit is issued if none of environmental and social forest functions are endangered.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to offcial sources, in 2009 Slovenia had a total certified forest area of 212,104 hectares out of a total forest area of 1.26 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in Slovenia was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 16.78 per cent of the total forest area.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Slovenia amounted to 0.59 million ha, representing a share of 78.4 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_4','','Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaire, Regulation on statutory management requirements and GAEC (only in Slovene):Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.uradni-list.si/1/content?id=96008   ',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Lectures and training is provided by the Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia, the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation and DOPPS (BirdLife Slovenia), the content of which are checked and approved by  the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (national level).HNV farming (national level).The farmland birds population indicator has several sub-indicators (e.g. for Natura 2000 sites and LFA areas). Programme specific indicators for biodiversity in forests have been developed, which are: tree species composition, distribution of developmental phases, dead wood, habitat trees and key habitats.According to reporting by the Member States, favourable conservation status using above indicators is assessed on the basis of ecological requirements of forest dependent species, in the interest of the EU (as defined in the Wild Birds and the Habitats Directives). Density of population of protected large predators and some other species is regularly monitored on the basis of approved schemes.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink:','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 12 million € has been added to the Slovenian national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Slovenia provided no additional funding to ‘biodiversity’. ','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: no link','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all seven occurrences of continental fresh water habitats in Slovenia have an unfavourable conservation status. 67 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats have an unfavourable status; the remaining 33 per cent have a favourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIOU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentageNumber Occurrences1330081%19%0%0%16            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9630067%33%0%0%U14  U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U14   U23       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Slovenia oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a clear downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.84 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.64 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were below the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a decrease from 0.30 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.19 mg N/l in 2005. 2005 values were lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, increasing from 1.10 mg N/l in 2002 to 1.23 mg N/l in 2005. Figures were slightly the weighted average of 1.91 mg N/l for Eastern Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 29.7 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 34.6 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 37.2 mg N/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.053 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.048 mg P/l in 2005. The latter data were well below the weighted average of 0.116 mg P/l for Eastern Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA). Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Slovenia had a total number of 8 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 44.4 per cent of all inland bathing waters. There is no clear trend compared to previous years. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Slovenia did not develop (or no information was available on) phytoplankton assessment for rivers as well as fish fauna for lakes. For all other water categories methods were only partially available or partially under development (or the information was incomplete). According to reporting by the Member State, due to natural characteristics of Slovene rivers phytoplancton in rivers is not relevant as indicator. This has been verified by national legislation.Since July 2009 Slovenia has biological assessment methods available for  Macrophytes and phytobenthos and benthic invertebrate - rivers Phytoplankton - lakes Macro algae and angiosperms and benthic invertebrate - coastal waters.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#secondhttp://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_okolje/sektor_za_vode/ekolosko_stanje_povrsinskih_voda/.  ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Slovenia under the Water Framework Directive, because no extra requirements were defined. However, according to reporting by the Member State, in Slovenia out of 83 surface water monitoring stations analysing the chemical and ecological status, 27 are based in Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive, and 56 in Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive. In addition, out of 39 groundwater monitoring stations analysing the chemical status 12 are base in SPAs and 27 in SACs. Monitoring at these stations is performed according to WFD requirements.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a reporting on the permitting progress 2006-2008, Slovenia had a total number of 169 IPPC installations and issued 64 permits. 102 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=dhttp://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/si/eu/ippc/colsokvvg/envsokw0w/ippc-q2-2006-2008_SI.xls/manage_document  ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, data for 2008 indicate that Slovenia has met its NECD ceilings targets for three emissions - sulphur dioxide, ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC).  It exceeded the target for its nitrogen oxide emissions, and will continue to do so according to 2010 projections. Its is expected by 2010 that all other ceilings will be met, according to the country’s projections. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007 figures, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Slovenia the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 7 and 98 per cent respectively, considering an area of 10,996 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 92 per cent in 2010 and 82 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 0 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, the following figures represent Slovenia’s nitrogen balance from 1992 onwards, calculated in accordance with OECD methodology for all years presented:N balance (kgN/ha/year):1992  1993  1994   1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 93.6   79.9   38,2    44.6   45.2   41.1   44.0   48.4   66.0   67.7   45.6   81.8   33.1   23.1   50.5   40.3   24.3                                                                                                                 Figures represent a clear downward trend, with a change of roughly 26 per cent between 2008 and 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).Data on nitrogen balance are mainly retrieved from OECD data sets. Not all EU Member States are therefore covered. If no information has been included in the boxes above, countries were able to add relevant data or information available.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','-','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all seven occurrences of continental grassland habitats in Slovenia have an unfavourable conservation status. 78 per cent of the alpine grasslands also have an unfavourable status, the remaining 22 per cent have a favourable status. The majority of forest habitats in Slovenia have a favourable conservation status (89 per cent of alpine and 63 per cent of continental forest habitats), the remainder in both alpine and continental have an unfavourable status. All of the two occurrences of alpine heath and scrub habitats have a favourable conservation status. The majority of peat land habitats in Slovenia have an unfavourable conservation status (100 per cent of continental and 67 per cent of alpine). The remaining 33 per cent of alpine peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage181440078%22%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11740064%36%0%0%U13  U24       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage77000100%0%0%0%U13   U24       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage174130024%76%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage9180011%89%0%0%U11  U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8350038%63%0%0%U11   U22       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage920082%18%0%0%11            AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6420067%33%0%0%U13  U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage55000100%0%0%0%U14   U21       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','08/03/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Slovenia found that of the three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Mediterranean, one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and the other two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (67%). There were nine coastal habitats assessed in the Continental biogeographic region, of which six had a ‘Favourable’ status (67%) and three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (33%). Four marine species were assessed—including a mammal, a reptile and two invertebrates—of these four, two had a ‘Favourable’ status (50%) and the other two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographic regions follow below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats133%267%00%00%00%3ContinentalCoastal habitats667%333%00%00%00%9Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles1100%00%00%00%00%1Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates150%150%00%00%00%2Marine MediterraneanMammals00%1100%00%00%00%1Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL250%250%00%00%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','18/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','26/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Slovenia reported that, in 2009, it had 2 surveillance stations and 4 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas (both surveillance stations are also included in operational monitoring network). Slovenia has 5 coastal water bodies. Approximately 15% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. Since July 2009 Slovenia has had biological assessment methods available for monitoring macroalgae and benthic invertebrates in coastal waters.  The phytoplankton assessment method is still under development. A programme of measures for coastal areas is being developed and should be adopted by December 2010.','','-','framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfReference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf ','08/03/2010','','','13/01/10','25/03/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No national plan/strategy exists for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). The ICZM Protocol was ratified in 2009.','26/02/2010','','Reference or title:Weblink:','','','','16/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_2','','Slovenia has 19 coastal bathing areas. 94.7% of these reached mandatory standards for water quality in 2008 and the number of non-compliant bathing waters decreased from six in 2007 to one in 2008. There has been a steady improvement in compliance with the stricter guideline standards from 84.2% in 2006 to 94.7% in 2008, although there was a dip in water quality in 2007. The trend analysis of nutrient concentrations in transitional, coastal and marine waters requires a minimum of 5 years of information. Slovenia has reported time series of less than 5 years duration so this information is not currently available. ','','-','','08/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_2_1','','This action is covered under Objective 2. Please see Action 2.4.1 for an indication of the implementation of Directives for this Member State.',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_4','','Slovenia’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures). Total funding for Axis 1 is €2,885,372 and includes adjusting fishing capacity and increasing the diversification of activities. Axis 2 (€10,675,876) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques and sustainable processing and marketing. Axis 4 (€2,885,372) promotes the sustainable development of coastal areas. Axis 3 does not include any specific environmentally friendly measures. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_91_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','22/2/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','08/03/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Slovenia had 179 vessels and 12% were involved in a serious infringement (22 vessels). A total of 22 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €170 and maximum fine of €417.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','08/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_5_2','','There are no permanent diadromous populations of salmon, trout or sturgeon present in Slovenia; therefore there are no management plans for these species. Eel is present in Slovenia, but the species is protected and not exploited, and therefore no management plan exists. There is restoration of a brackish bay ongoing (Škocjan bay) and eel populations could benefit from this restoration.','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','10/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Slovenia’s fishing capacity has increased in terms of vessel numbers between 2004 and 2008 from 173 to 181 vessels (4% increase). Tonnage has slightly decreased from 1068 to 983 tons (8% reduction) and power has remained fairly consistent changing from 11,450 in 2004 to 10,653 (7% decrease) in 2008. The capacity of the Slovenian fleet decreased slightly during 2007 without public aid. The fleet suffers from structural problems, notably old vessels and obsolete gear. The management plan drawn up according to the provisions of the Mediterranean regulation will focus on capacity adjustment and reduction of trawling.','','2008 data: 181 vessels; 983 tons; 10653 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf ','08/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Slovenia had 179 active vessels. There were 5 type D breaches in this year and 5 penalties imposed with an average fine of €86. Slovenia has adopted two national legal acts that use fisheries inspection as a basis for penalizing infringements in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy (see additional clarifications).','','2007 data is not currently available. Slovenia’s legal instruments to use fisheries inspection as a basis for penalizing infringements in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy: There is a decree defining pecuniary penalties for violations of provisions of Community Regulations applicable in the field governed by the maritime Act (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 141/2006) and a decree amending the Decree defining pecuniary penalties for violations of provisions of Community Regulations applicable in the field governed by the maritime Act (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 9/2009). ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdfNB. New report should be available in November 2009 with 2007 data. Please check before completing','10/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Although there are no specific seabird and shark monitoring programmes, shark and seabird by-catch is recorded as part of the national programme on fisheries data collection. The Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia implements a study of by-catch and discards every year. Samples are taken four times a year, from five different fishing gears (purse seines, bottom trawl nets, pelagic trawl nets, gill nets and trammel nets). Within the framework of this study, all by-catches of sharks and seabirds are recorded.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','10/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','10/03/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Slovenia has 1 marine Natura 2000 site (located within its territorial waters) based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). There are no specific fisheries measures defined for this site. ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 3Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','10/03/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Slovenia has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. MEDITS surveys will be used by Slovenia to calculate the ecosystem indicators 1-4 from Appendix XIII. Only two MEDITS surveys are undertaken annually in Slovenian waters, restricted to a small geographical area, so Slovenia suggest calculation of ecosystem indicators should be performed on the regional level, covering at least GFCM geographical sub-area (GSM) 17: Northern Adriatic. Appendix XIII ecosystem indicator 8 on discarding rates of commercially exploited species will be calculated from logbooks of observer trips and ecosystem indicator 9 on fuel efficiency of fish capture will be calculated based on data collected through the use of a survey questionnaire and technical literature.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','National programme of the Republic of Slovenia for the collection and management of data 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94848 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','10/03/2010','','','26/03/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Slovenian EEZ waters was 3.09 in 2004. This represents a slight decrease (-0.02) since 1999 and overall a decrease of 0.01 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink:  http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx  Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','08/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','26/10/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective4','A4_3','','Additional to a coherent Natura 2000 network in Slovenia, there is a network of ecologically important areas (Decree on ecologically important areas) covering 50% of the country, that are taken into account in spatial planning procedure. Part of this procedure is intersectoral coordination. In spatial planning procedures protected habitat types, animal and plant species have also to be taken into account. Effectiveness can be partly monitored through conservation status of species and habitat types (Measures of progress giving information on conservation status of species and habitat types). Information on species monitoring schemes is given under Measure of progress for the action C.1.3.1 ','','','The Decree on ecologically important areas has been adopted in 2004: http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/epo_uredba_sprejeta.pdf http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/okolje/ohranjanje_narave/epo_uredba_sprejeta_priloga1.pdfThe decree on habitat types has been adopted in 2003 and later extended therefore we include the reference to a consolidated version:http://www.pisrs.si/npb/files/2003-01-4926-20090525_100452_2009-2511-0041.doc The decree on protected animal species has been adopted in 2004 and later changed therefore we include the reference to a consolidated version:http://www.pisrs.si/npb/files/2004-01-2216-20090525_100758_2009-2511-0040.doc The decree on protected plant species has been adopted in 2004 and later changed therefore we include the reference to a consolidated version:http://www.pisrs.si/npb/files/2004-01-2215-20090525_101057_2009-2511-0075.docMonitoring:http://www.natura2000.gov.si/index.php?id=211','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The implementation of CBD Guidelines is not required by the law or any national regulation. However these guidelines on Sustainable Tourism are included in the Development Plan and Policies for Slovenian Tourism 2007-2013 and in the Tourism Policy with Guidelines, which is the an annual implementation document of the Governement of the Republic of Slovenia for systematic development of tourism.','','','http://www.mg.gov.si/fileadmin/mg.gov.si/pageuploads/razpisi/JN/DT/publikacija_RNUST_ang_SPLET.pdf http://www.mg.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/turizem','25/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Slovenian direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity slightly increased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 97.2 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). Some other activities indirectly providing biodiversity benefits (for example tertiary treatment of sewage, elimination of sources for water pollution, improvement of sanitation networks, etc) are also financed from the Cohesion Fund, but the amount of these activities has not yet been identified.','','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','25/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Slovenia has no general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS) but there is specific legislation in place that addresses the issues of possession and trade and introduction into the wild of IAS, in particularly in the context of plant health. Measures related to the introduction, reintroduction, repopulation and captive breeding of alien species are regulated for in the revised Nature Conservation Act (ZON-UPB2; Uradni list RS No. 96/04). The Nature Conservation Act also provides rules on carrying out assessments on the risk to nature which provides a mechanism for controlling intentional releases of alien species (2002, Uradni list RS No. 43/02). Other relevant legal measures in Slovenia pertaining to IAS include: the Environmental Protection Act (1993, 2004); the Forestry Act (Uradni list RS No. 30/93) which provides for forest management plans (within its guidelines it is implicit that non-native species commonly planted across Slovenia be replaced by native species); Freshwater Fisheries Act (Uradni list RS, No. 61/06) that aims to prevent the introduction and spread of alien species in inland waters and; the Plant Health Act (Uradni list RS No. 62/2007) that implements Council Directive 2000/29/EC and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 35 are present in Slovenia which equates to between 0.7 and 3.0 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_1_2','','A national strategy on alien species is being prepared with the aim of developing a comprehensive inter-sectoral framework that would allow a co-ordinated action on IAS. It is foreseen that the strategy will entail a review of legislation and provide a comprehensive list of priorities for action with regard to IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Slovenia has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Slovenia does not have a national level early warning system for IAS. And no inventory inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS projects. In the plant health sector, an early warning system is being developed for species requiring quarantine measures under the EU Plant Health Directives. Also, a special project (i.e. Thuja project) to raise awareness on IAS was conducted in 2008/2009 (see link below). ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.tujerodne-vrste.info/projekt.html    ','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, the Slovenian parliament adopted the Act on the co-existence of genetically modified plants with other agricultural plants in June 2009 (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia, 1 June 2009, Ur.l. RS, št. 41/2009). The Act sets up the conditions under which genetically modified plants can be cultivated in Slovenia. The legislation to implement the Act is still pending. In Slovenia no ban on GMO cultivation at national level exists.According to the Member State, Slovenia has no ban on GMO cultivation at national level.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlid=200941&stevilka=1980','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective6','A6_1_1','','As of 10 November 2009, no 4th National Report to the CBD had been submitted. The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy was published in 2001.Slovenia had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','','26/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Slovenia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective7','A7_1_3','','The OECD marker does not show any spending on biodiversity-related aid by Slovenia for 2006 or 2007.','','Data for 2008 are not available yet.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Slovenia contributed EUR1.45 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.06% of the total replenishment. Slovenia contributed EUR5.15 million to the 4th replenishment which is 0.24 % of the total replenishment.','','','','','','','',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Both directives are transposed (link: http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=101&vt=1&sm=k&q=zakon+o+varstvu+okolja&mandate=-1&unid=UPB|7F3DBE2A64E1FB92C12576A90042382F&showdoc=1) and implemented.','','Overview of decisions in implementation procedures are available for SEA at: http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_okolje/celovita_presoja_vplivov_na_okolje/and for EIA at: http://www.arso.gov.si/varstvo%20okolja/presoja%20vplivov%20na%20okolje/podatki/PVO-Soglasja20100212.xls ','Reference or title: Weblink:http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=101&vt=1&sm=k&q=zakon+o+varstvu+okolja&mandate=-1&unid=UPB|7F3DBE2A64E1FB92C12576A90042382F&showdoc=1http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_okolje/celovita_presoja_vplivov_na_okolje/http://www.arso.gov.si/varstvo%20okolja/presoja%20vplivov%20na%20okolje/podatki/PVO-Soglasja20100212.xls  ','26/02/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective8','A8_1','','While Slovenia has not provided funds for the CBD ABS Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing, it has established national legislation to implement the Bonn Guidelines on ABS. Slovenia has established national legislation on the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources and has undertaken activities to raise awareness about it. About 98% of the national consumption of wood products derives from sustainable sources. Slovenia has issued a low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens in 2007 and 2008, with no application denied, and a few items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to Croatia for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','08/03/2010','','','13/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Strategies and Acts that are implementing  the Bonn guidelines: Law on Industrial Property Act, Nature Conservation Act, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, National Environmental Action Programme, Aarhus Convention. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','03/03/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Slovenia did not provide funding for the ABS Working Group.','','-','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','08/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The text of the standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) has been translated in Slovenian lanugage. Detailed instructions / guidelines have been prepared for the implementation of the standard MTA. The implementation of the standard MTA has been presented and discussed with the representatives of institutions keeping ex situ collections of plant genetic resources in public domain. All organisations keeping plant genetic resources in public domain use sMTA for distribution of accessions. Some private organisations keeping plant genetic resources have been informed about the use of sMTA as well.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','17/03/2010','','','','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective8','A8_1_4','','Taking into account the fact that according to Slovenia Forest Service Reports only 1.2 percent of timber in Slovenia is cut illegally without a permit required by the Forest Act, and only 200.000 cubic metres of round wood is imported (mostly from Croatia and BiH), where we assume that 10% might not be legal, we can conclude that 98 percent of timber derives from sustainable sources. The figure is pretty stable from 2006 to 2009.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','05/05/2010','','','09/05/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 271, 27 and 66, respectively. No import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 19 for 2007 and 22 for 2008 representing a net increase of 3 seizures. As to capacity-building at the national level, the national CITES authorities have provided oral and written advice/guidance as well as training was provided to the Management and Scientific Authorities, the Staff of enforcement authorities, traders, NGOs and the public. Slovenia has provided training assistance to Croatia. Slovenia paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. ','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','05/03/2010','','','11/01/2010','09/05/2010'),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','','','Slovenia will develop and define a national approach to tackle biodiversity adaptation to climate change in relation to the level of appropriateness of the EU level Programme of priority actions.','','','','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Slovenian NREAP has a separate part on biomass and requirements for sustainable production of biomass are addressed in its chapter on Biomass. Impacts of NREAP on biodiversity are being assessed in strategic environmental assessment of NREAP.','','','','23/03/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_4_1','','Slovenia will develop and define a national approach to tackle biodiversity adaptation to climate change in relation to the level of appropriateness of the EU level Programme of priority actions.',NULL,NULL,NULL,'26/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Slovenia','Objective9','A9_4_3','','There are assessments of habitats and species in the EU most at risk from climate change that probably cover also Slovenia, however there are no specific assessments made on the national level yet.','','','Reference or title: National reports in the framework of UNFCCCWeblink: http://unfccc.int/national_reports/items/1408.php ','26/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Spain','MandE','C1_2','','Spain has developed biodiversity indicators, within a wider system of environmental indicators. Many of these indicators correspond to the SEBI indicators. Spain has included in its national conservation law (Ley 42/2007, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad) the obligation to develop a National Indicators System. This system will be based on existing international indicator systems, such as SEBI 2010, and an annual national report on biodiversity will be produced using this information.','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009, does not contain information from Spain on national indicators. The information presented above is taken from the 4th national report to the CBD augmented by information from Spain. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','MandE','C1_2_1','','Spain has developed biodiversity indicators, within a wider system of environmental indicators. Many of these indicators correspond to the SEBI indicators. Spain has included in its national conservation law (Ley 42/2007, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad) the obligation to develop a National Indicators System. This system will be based on existing international indicator systems, such as SEBI 2010, and an annual national report on biodiversity will be produced using this information.','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009, does not contain information from Spain on national indicators. The information presented above is taken from the 4th national report to the CBD augmented by information from Spain. ','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBDWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/   ','25/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','MandE','C1_3_1','','Spain is carrying out a national monitoring scheme for biodiversity, including all major vertebrate groups, as well as vascular plants and terrestrial invertebrates. It is expected to start monitoring for marine biodiversity and habitat types in the future.','','','','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Spain spent up to EUR18,377,375 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Spain spent up to EUR787,357 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','As to national biodiversity funding programmes, little information was found in the 3rd and 4th national reports to the CBD hence no information is included here.The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Spain’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States. On the basis of the methodology followed up by the Article 8 Expert Group (EC, 2002), total public direct expenditure needed for the Natura 2000 network was estimated. In sum, global management of the terrestrial Natura 2000 Network would rise to 1,556,934,607 € in 2007 (113.52 € in 2007 / hectare), while real allocation only sums up to 967,763,764 € in 2007 (70.56 € in2007 / hectare). Additionally, 68,168,994 € in 2007 should be allocated for the marine Natura 2000 network (14.86 € in2007 / hectare), although it is still underdesignated. ','Reference or title: LIFE project database; Moreno, V., Picazo, I., Cuellar, R., García, M.C. y Cabrerizo, M. 2007. Valoración de los costes directos de gestión de la Red Natura 2000 en España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid. Documento inédito.Fernández, M., Moreno, V., Picazo, I., Torres, A. y Martínez, B. 2008. Valoración de los costes indirectos de gestión de la Red Natura 2000 en España. Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino. Madrid. Documento inédito.-Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','08/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Measure1','B1_1_4','','Spain’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR681.8m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR68.1m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR63.5m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Measure1','B1_1_8','','The national funding allocation for biodiversity research was EUR41,025,700 for 2006, EUR34,711,500 for 2007, EUR30,933,900 for 2008 and EUR35,014,200 for 2009. See for additional clarification below.','','Funding from R+D+i National Plan as explained in the Measure of Progress A.10.1. This does not include national funding allocated for biodiversity under the Seven Framework Programme since data are not easy to access for specific programmes exclusively dedicated to biodiversity.','','29/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Measure2','B2_4','','Span is currently developing a Strategic National Plan of Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. It is anticipated that it will be approved in 2010. ','','','','01/03/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','Measure3','','','No information was provided concerning business biodiversity partnerships.','','DG-Environment desk officers indicated that there is data on business and biodiversity even in the web site of the Fundación Biodiversdidad and in the program Emplea Verde.','','','','','29/03/10',''),
	('Spain','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Measure3','B3_1_2','','No information was provided concerning farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships.','','','','29/03/10','','','30/03/10',''),
	('Spain','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Sectoral policies are the competence of the General State Administration, the Ministry of EnvironmentEnvironment and the Ministries which are jointly concerned with the development of Sectoral Plans in consultation with the Autonomous Communities and stakeholders. As part of its future priorities Spain is the integration of different aspects of biodiversity in development policies of the major policy challenge biodiversity in Spain. Although significant progress has been made at the policy level and planning, the extent to which existing measures are producing real benefits for biodiversity need to be assessed. Spain does not appear to currently have an established forum, framework or similar platform for encouraging the development ofbiodiversity and planning partnerships.','','No information could be found in the CBD Fourth National Report specifically related to biodiversity and planning partnerships at the local, regional and national levels.    ','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for SpainWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','','','','11/12/2009','24/03/2010'),
	('Spain','Measure3','B3_1_6','','No information was provided concerning business biodiversity partnerships.','','DG-Environment desk officers indicated that there is data on business and biodiversity even in the web site of the Fundación Biodiversdidad and in the program Emplea Verde.','','','','','29/03/10',''),
	('Spain','Measure3','B3_1_7','','','','','','','','','',''),
	('Spain','Measure3','B3_1_8','','No information was provided concerning the application of the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines. ','','','','','','','29/03/10',''),
	('Spain','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Measure4','B4_1_1','','A National Communication campaign related to Biodiversity has been implemented by The Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs, since January 2010, has been broadcast in the press, media, radio and television. The concept of this campaign is to show how biodiversity contributes to the harmony of life. 1.500.000 € has been awarded to support this initiative which should continue with other funding when this ends. ','','','http://www.marm.es/','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Spain','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Spanish Ministry of Environment made a declaration in support of the IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative on the 10th January 2005.The Fundacion Biodiversidad, established by the Spanish Ministry of Environment, contributes to halt the loss of biodiversity through different activities. It publishes an annual publication with several calls for proposals to help NGOs developing environmental projects. It commits itself to promoting Countdown 2010 and raising public awareness through its newsletter, encouraging its partners to join as well, informing Countdown 2010 campaign of their activities, and being involved where possible, in Countdown 2010 activities such as: Steering Group meetings, contributing expertise to thematic working groups or collaborating with others nationally. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Spain between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects.','','-','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','28/03/10','','','11/12/2009','29/03/10'),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_1','','','04/03/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of 28th August 2009, Spain has proposed 1435 Sites of Community Importance, covering a total area of 126,132 km². This represents 22.9 % of the terrestrial area of the country, calculated as the total terrestrial area of the SCIs divided by the total terrestrial area of Spain. There are 95 sites with a marine part. The number of Special Protected Areas is 594. This involves an area of 103,216 km², totalling 20.18 % of the terrestrial area of the country, calculated as total terrestrial area of the SPAs divided by the total terrestrial area of Spain. The total number of SPAs with a marine part is 33.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update) and direct information from Spain: CNTRYES, 28th August 2009Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','04/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','Spain is working on the embellishment of new guidelines to the future elaboration of management plans.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:','12/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Currently, particular guidelines for implementing and improving the ecological coherence of Natura 2000 network are being developed within the context of the National Guidelines for its management and conservation. ','','',':','04/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 385 regularly occurring bird species in Spain, 17 are globally Near-threatened and 16 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Spain, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)!See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographical data for non-bird taxa.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 2 of the 7 (29%) fish and 3 of the 15 (20%) invertebrates was reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 4 of the 17 (24%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 36 (17%) mammals are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 12 of the 17 (71%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 7 (57%) fish, 11 of the 15 (73%) invertebrates, 22 of the 36 (61%) mammals and 17 of the 22 (77%) of plants was reported to be unknown. In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of all amphibians and reptiles, fish, mammals and plants was reported to be unknown .In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 36 (3%) mammals and 1 of the 38 (3%) plants was reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate and favourable condition, respectively. 1 of the 10 (10%) of fish were reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 21 of the 22 (95%) amphibians and reptiles, 9 of the 10 (90%) fish, 22 of the 23 (96%) invertebrates, 34 of the 36 (94%) mammals and 37 of the 38 (97%) plants were reported to be unknown.In the Macaronesian biogeographical region, 9 of the 12 (75%) amphibians and reptiles, and 6 of the 8 (75%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 2 of the 12 (17%) amphibians and reptiles, 2 of the 8 (25%) of mammals and 23 of the 52 (44%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 18 of the 52 (35%) of plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. 1 of the 12 (8%) amphibians and reptiles and 5 of the 52 (10%) plants were reported to be unknown, respectively. Of the species in the Macaronesian/ Marine Atlantic biogeographical regions, 1 of the 3 (33%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 26 (23%) mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 2 of the 3 (67%) of amphibians and reptiles, 18 of the 26 (69%) mammals and 1 of 1 (100%) invertebrates was reported to be unknown. In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, the conservation status of all amphibians and reptiles, fish, mammals and invertebrates was reported to be unknown.Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 2 of the 36 (6%) amphibians and reptiles and 1 of the 21 (5%) fish are in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 7 of the 21 (33%) fish was reported to be unfavourable-bad. The conservation status of 31 of the 36 (86%) amphibians and reptiles, 11 of the 21 (52%) fish, 26 of the 33 (78%) invertebrates, 36 of the 45 (80%) mammals and 112 of the 130 (86%) plants was reported to be unknown.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. Note:  There is a slight difference with the data provided regarding the total number of mammals in the Mediterranean Region. This is because Spanish criteria includes Eliomys melanurus (= E. munbyanus, E. quercinus subsp. melanurus), which is distributed in Ceuta. This species is included in Annex IV.','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title;http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','04/03/2010','','','12/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','The number of species action plans is as follows (all plans are completed): birds 30, mammals 10, amphibians and reptiles 6, fish 5, invertebrates 2, plants 43. There are currently no species action plans in preparation. Spain has developed indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes. Red Data Lists exist for birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, fish, invertebrates and plants.','','','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/inventarios/inb/index.htm','05/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective10','A10_1','','Spain does not currently have a national research programme exclusively dedicated to biodiversity. They had a ‘National Program of Biodiversity, earth science and climate change’ in the 2004-2007 National Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation Plan (R+D+i National Plan).  For 2008 to 2011 a new R+D+i National Plan is being implemented. This new plan does not have a dedicated biodiversity research programme, but biodiversity is included in the Subprogram of fundamental non-oriented research, which is based on instruments more than in thematic areas of research. Therefore data related to budget support to biodiversity should be higher than if there was a specific programme for biodiversity as there is the possibility for actions in other Subprograms. ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Ministry of Science and Innovation:: http://www.micinn.es Plan Nacional de I+D+I: http://www.plannacionalidi.es/plan-idi-public/toHome.do ','26/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective10','A10_1_2','','The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of Spain (EME) is an interdisciplinary project led by the Biodiversity Foundation – Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs. It aims to provide scientifically accepted information to different stakeholders and decision-makers, so that they can be more conscious of the close links between ecosystem conservation and well-being. The project is now under implementation. The evaluation is done at National level within different scales and including case studies.  In the previous investigative period, coordination meetings were undertaken with team leaders from Universities to identify their availability to collaborate in the project. Furthermore, contact was established with international projects working on ecosystem services (e.g. MA, EURECA) to facilitate coordination and understanding of their methodology.','','The CBD considered the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) evaluation at the 9th Conference of Parties (COP) meeting. This led to decision COP IX/15: Follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.','http://www.ecomilenio.es/','03/03/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective10','A10_1_8','','Spain does not have a national biodiversity platform at the moment, but creation of a Biodiversity Platform is ongoing, following the structure of LIFEWATCH (Pending approval). This process and the future platform are coordinated by the Spanish National research Council (CSIC).  Up to now, 19 countries have expressed their interest in Life Watch. Spain has participated since the preparatory phase, through CSIC, and is a part of the direction core in the Management Committee and the Science and Policy Board as well as leaders of WP4: Legal Organisation.  ','','','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','04/03/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Spain has been a voting Participant of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since February 2001. Spain’s ‘Participant node’ is GBIF Spain. One of its fundamental tasks is to support collections, centres and projects relating to participation in GBIF. This includes providing technical support, information, training, standards, software and advice; enduring coherence between national initiatives and GBIF information architecture; investigating how to maximise the value of developing data analysis tools; collecting and disseminating information relevant to the collections; and coordinating the activities of the national centres and international initiatives.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. In Spain, participants in the European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI) are members of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC). The Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) is a State Agency in Spain with the objective to promote, coordinate, develop and disseminate scientific and technological research to advance knowledge, economic, social and cultural development. The three Centres/Research Units under the CSIC that participate in ENBI are: Real Jardin Botanico, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, and the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar. Both the Real Jardin Botanico and the Museo Nacional de Ciencias are main contractors of WP2 (ENBI Forums) and also contribute to WP1 (Coordination and continuity). The Instituto de Ceincias del Mar is a member of WP11 (Multilingual access).','','The ENBI network organisation of all institutional participants is organized in the 13 workpackages. For each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package.','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Implementation of the cross-compliance regulation is coordinated by FEGA (Spanish Agricultural Guarantee Fund), which has monthly coordination meeting with the Autonomous Regions regarding the evaluation, monitoring and enforcement of measures.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.fega.es/PwfGcp/es/accesos_directos/condicionalidad/index.jsp ','05/03/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Spain total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 7508.65 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 14266.3 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 2923.65 million EUR, and 5275.35 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 40.02 and 37.09 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Spain was 1146.23 million EUR (2079.92 with co-financing) and amounted to 15.27 per cent of the EAFRD (14.58 per cent with co-financing). Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture (measure 213) account for 10.14 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.14 per cent of EAFRD) and 14.29 million EUR of public expenditure (0.1 per cent of public expenditure). Forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 50.52 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.67 per cent of EAFRD) and 82.77 million EUR of public expenditure (0.58 per cent of public expenditure). There are no payments in Spain for Axis 2 measure 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)1.66422.44001Agri-environment payments (214)188.70508372.2844Forest environment payments (225)2.736916.84227','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reportsWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','Since 1993 there has been a National Programme on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetics, and there is the Spanish Law 30/2006 on seeds, nursery plants, and plant genetic resources (Title IV). There is also a strategy for the conservation and sustainable use of Spanish forest genetic resources. Furthermore, in compliance with the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) a Spanish Strategy of Plant Conservation is being drafted, which will go further than current measures for forest and agricultural  genetic resources, both for commercial and traditional varieties, and for genetic conservation in wild nature.The Plant Genetic Resources Centre (INIA-CRF) is responsible for the National Plant Resources Inventory.There is also a Royal Decree 2129/2008, of 26 December, establishing a national programme for the conservation, improvement and promotion of livestock breeds. A development plan has also been produced to implement the programme.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://wwwx.inia.es/webcrf/CRFesp/Paginaprincipal.asp http://www.mapa.es/app/Zootecnia/Pdf/pags/Real%20Decreto%20Ingl%C3%A9s.pdf http://www.mapa.es/app/Zootecnia/Pdf/pags/Plan%20Nacional%20Ingl%C3%A9s%20con%20portada.pdf http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/montes_politica_forestal/recursos_geneticos_forestal/pdf/ecrgf_11mayo_imprenta.pdf http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/montes_politica_forestal/recursos_geneticos_forestal/ ','08/03/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Spain approved 234 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.352 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.705 million of total expenditure, representing respectively 0.187 and 0.189 per cent of actual agri-environment financing from 2007 to 2008.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_12','','','','','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys or additional tools are not applied. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 50 ha for afforestation and 20 ha for deforestation. EIA and SEA are fully implemented following the Royal Legislative Decree 1/2008 on EIA and the Law 9/2006 of Plans and Programs Evaluation affecting environment. Special conditions apply when Natura 2000 or RAMSAR wetlands are affected. Here no limit for application in hectares exists if there is a negative ecological transformation. According to Spain, currently the development of methodological guidelines on afforestation is in progress. More specifically a Technical Protocol following the ruling of the Royal Decree 289/03 in Reforestation is being elaborated. In addition, a work group as part of the National Committee for Improvement and Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources has been created. Regarding non-invasive tree species the legislation in force is implemented at regional level, with each autonomous region having its own procedures. Furthermore, Forest Plans and Environmental Authorisations are needed for any project affecting these forest areas.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','','03/03/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Spain had a total certified forest area of 1.25 million hectares out of a total forest area of 17.92 million hectares. 127,356 hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the majority was certified by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) under which 1.12 million hectares were certified. In total, 6.96 per cent of the forest area in Spain was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self http://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Spain amounted to 18.99 million ha, representing a share of 55.8 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmlandWeblink: http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/HNV_Final_Report.pdf ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_4','','The following Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.Implementation of the cross-compliance regulation is coordinated by FEGA (Spanish Agricultural Guarantee Fund), which has monthly coordination meeting with the Autonomous Regions regarding the evaluation, monitoring and enforcement of measures.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf http://www.fega.es/PwfGcp/es/accesos_directos/condicionalidad/index.jsp ','05/03/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. However, these are devised by each Autonomous Region and no further information is given on the training and advisory services provided. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: •	Population trends of farmland birds (national level).•	Tree species composition (regional and national level).Schemes are also being set up to monitor HNV farming and forestry areas.In compliance with the Article 11 of the National Law 42/2007 (Natural Heritage and Biodiversity) the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs together with the Autonomous Regions will prepare a report on the status of biodiversity. This will use data provided by the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity National Inventory, the National Forest Inventory (dating back to 1966 and currently being updated with new data on biodiversity) and from the Indicator System. Farm land birds Indicators are being developed by SEO. In the future they will be available at the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs Web Page. Since 1998 there is a continuous monitoring of common bird population tendencies. Through a standard methodology of census, idemographic data of more than hundred breeding birds is obtained in almost all the territory of Spain. This standard methodology is used in almost all the European countries and some others around the world. It is derived from the proposal made by BirdLife International and the EBCC (European Bird Census Council), and directly applied by BirdLife International partner in Spain: SEO/BirdLife.The following graphic refers to the national Farmland Birds Index developed by Spain. It shows that by 2008 the indicator had decreased to -1.4 per cent above the 1998 baseline. ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.seo.org http://www.seo.org/programa_seccion_ficha.cfm?idPrograma=3&idArticulo=2952 http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/inventarios/ifn/ http://www.seo.org/media/docs/graf_grupos98_08.pd ','03/03/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 574 million € has been added to the Spanish national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Spain attributed € 243 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 42 per cent of total national additional programmed funding. Furthermore, € 25.1 million were additionally allocated to biodiversity in the framework of the regional RDP for Extremadura defined as a priority area.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.The table below provides an overview of resources generated for Spain’s ‘outermost region’: Total million €Biodiversity million €PercentageCanaries1.600    ','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','','','','',''),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by Spain, no national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented and no projects have been undertaken to identify potential indicators for soil biodiversity. ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','','03/03/2010','','','',''),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic (10 occurrences), Macaronesian (one occurrence) and Mediterranean (13 occurrences) fresh water habitats in Spain have an unknown conservation status. Furthermore, 67 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats have an unknown conservation status; the remaining 33 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage30202807%0%93%0%            AtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10001000%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6204033%0%67%0%U12  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13001300%0%100%0%U10  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Spain oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 3.35 mg O3/l in 2002 to 2.73 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were still higher than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated an increase from 0.81 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.92 mg N/l in 2005. Values are clearly higher than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally increased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 31.1 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 39.7 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 45 mg NO3/l in 2004. No information on concentrations of nitrate in rivers and phosphorus concentrations according to EEA data was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting by the Member State, in 2008 Spain had a total number of 68 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 36.6 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage of bathing waters complying with guide values decreased. ','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','','','','','14/05/2010');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, in Spain the development of biological assessment methods shows a complete range from developed to undeveloped for all water bodies, due to differences in various districts.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 1116 in Spain.','','The Water Framework Directive requires additional monitoring in drinking water protected areas and in habitats and species protection areas. It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to reporting on the permitting process 2006-2008, Spain had a total number of 5061IPPC installations and issued 3694permits. O permits were still outstanding.',' ','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installations, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/es/eu/ippc/envsvk69a/Template_question_2_1_final_Spain_updated.xls/manage_document ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Spain by far exceeded its 2010 NEC Directive emission ceilings for nitrogen oxides, although it shows a slight decrease compared to previous years. Ammonia and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) emissions were slightly above, sulphur oxides emissions since 2008 below target levels. Projections suggest that emissions of sulphur oxides will further fall below ceiling levels. Ammonia emissions will only exceed targets by a small amount and also NMVOCs levels will exceed targets at a moderate level. However nitrogen oxide emissions are will be well above their ceiling level. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Spain the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 3 and 95 per cent respectively, considering an area of 187,115 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 0 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will also be 0 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 93 per cent in 2010 and 90 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 48 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020. ','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Spain’s gross nitrogen balance was 33 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, an increase of 5 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.',' ','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990Weblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1996 and 2001, Spain’s national farmland bird indicator showed an increase of 27.7 per cent from the 1996 baseline. By 2006 the indicator had decreased to 7.2 per cent above the 1996 baseline. 25 species were assessed. Data not available for the years 1990 to 1995.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.Information on the national Farmland Birds Index developed by Spain can be found under A2.1.8.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html http://www.seo.org/media/docs/graf_grupos98_08.pdf ','05/03/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, all of the Atlantic (10 occurrences) and Mediterranean (11 occurrences) grassland habitats in Spain have an unknown conservation status. The entire Macaronesian grassland habitat (one occurrence) has an unfavourable conservation status as well as 18 per cent of the alpine grassland habitat. The status of the remaining 82 per cent of the alpine grassland habitats is unknown. All 13 occurrences of Atlantic forest habitat in Spain have an unknown conservation status. All 6 occurrences of Macaronesian forest habitat have an unfavourable conservation status. 33 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status; the remaining 67 per cent have an unknown status. Of the heath and scrub habitats in Spain, all occurrences of Atlantic heath and scrub (six) and Mediterranean heath and scrub (four) have an unknown conservation status. All occurrences of Macaronesian heath and scrub have an unfavourable conservation status, as does 75 per cent of the alpine heath and scrub. The remaining 25 per cent of the alpine heath and scrub habitats have an unknown status. The conservation status of the vast majority of peat land habitats in Spain is unknown (100 per cent of Macaronesian, alpine and Mediterranean peat land habitats). Furthermore, 86 per cent of the Atlantic peat land habitats have an unknown status; the remaining 14 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage33303009%0%91%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10001000%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11000100%0%0%0%U10   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11209018%0%82%0%U11  U21       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage11001100%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage5311042021%0%79%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage13001300%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage66000100%0%0%0%U11   U25       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage12408033%0%67%0%U14  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22102105%0%95%0%U11  U20       Status of heath and scrub  habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage165011031%0%69%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage600600%0%100%0%U10  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U11   U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4301075%0%25%0%U13  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage400400%0%100%0%U10  U20       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage19101805%0%95%0%            ATLNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7106014%0%86%0%U11  U20       MacaronesianNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage100100%0%100%0%U10   U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage500500%0%100%0%U10  U20       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage600600%0%100%0%U10  U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for Spain found that in the Marine Atlantic region, five out of five marine habitats were ‘Unknown’(100%), in the Marine Atlantic/Macaronesian region (Canary Islands for Spain) two out of two habitats were unknown (100%),  and in the Marine Mediterranean region five of five habitats were ‘Unknown’ (100%).  There are nine coastal habitats in the Atlantic biogeographic region—and all nine had an ‘Unknown’ status (100%). In the Macaronesian (Canary Islands) biogeographic region, four coastal habitats were assessed—one had an ‘Inadequate’ status (25%), two had a ‘Bad’ status (50%) and one had an ‘Unknown’ status (25%). A total of 18 marine species were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, including reptiles & amphibians, fish, mammals and plants, and all had an ‘Unknown’ status (100%). All 25 of the marine species assessed in the Marine Mediterranean, including reptiles & amphibians, fish, invertebrates and mammals, also had an ‘Unknown status’ (100%). In the Marine Macaronesian/Atlantic (Canary Islands) region a total of 30 marine species were assessed, including amphibians & reptiles, invertebrates and mammals. Of these, two had a ‘Favourable’ status (7%), seven had an ‘Inadequate’ status (23%) and the remaining 21 had an ‘Unknown’ status (70%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%00%00%5100%00%5Marine Atlantic/MacaronesianMarine habitats00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats00%00%00%5100%00%5AtlanticCoastal habitats00%00%00%9100%00%9MacaronesianCoastal habitats00%125%250%125%00%4MediterraneanCoastal habitats00%00%00%13100%00%13Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%5100%00%5Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%3100%00%3Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals00%00%00%8100%00%8Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%2100%00%2Marine AtlanticTOTAL00%00%00%18100%00%18Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%3100%00%3Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%3100%00%3Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%6100%00%6Marine MediterraneanMammals00%00%00%13100%00%13Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%00%00%25100%00%25MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%133%00%267%00%3MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%1100%00%1MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticMammals28%623%00%1869%00%26MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0MarineMacaronesian/AtlanticTOTAL27%723%00%2170%00%30The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','25/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Spain reported that, in 2009, it had 1148 surveillance stations and 395 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Spain has 351 coastal water bodies. Approximately 55% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has some assessment methods developed for 8 out of 19 river basin districts for monitoring coastal waters for phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates and macroalgae and angiosperm. Programmes of  measures in coastal and transitional waters are part of the river basin management plans, to be approved shortly.','','','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdf','25/02/2010','','','13/01/10','26/04/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_1_5','','An ICZM plan/strategy is being developed in Spain. The Member State indicated that there was an ICZM plan/strategy under preparation, but as no further information was provided on its content, its contribution to halting biodiversity loss cannot be assessed.','','','','20/02/2010','','','24/04/10',''),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_2','','Spain currently has 1,988 coastal bathing waters. A high proportion of these have achieved mandatory standards for water quality in 2006, 2007 and 2008 (98.9%; 99.1% and 99.4%). A high proportion has also achieved the stricter guidelines standards although this has dropped slightly in recent years: 92.7% in 2006; 88.7% in 2007 and 83.4% in 2008. Four coastal bathing areas had to be closed in 2008 and one in 2007.There are no trend data for nutrient concentrations in coastal waters between 1985 and 2005 as although Spain has reported such data, they have not reported it for this full 5-year time series to the EEA.  ','','The data required for this MOP was a time series, and Spain did not report during the years that were used by the EEA. Thus, no analysis of nutrients under this MOP was possible.','','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_4','','Spain’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €778,357,591 and includes measures such as reducing negative impacts of fishing and improving energy efficiency. Axis 2 (€633,009,953) encourages the use of environmentally friendly aquaculture techniques. Axis 3 (€595,999,163) promotes the development of aquatic flora and fauna through the creation of artificial reefs and marine reserves. Axis 4 does not include any specific environmentally friendly measures. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/com07_100_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ',NULL,'na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Spain had 13,357 vessels and 15% were involved in a serious infringement (2,061 vessels). A total of 2061 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €1,995 and maximum fine of €120,000.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_5_2','','There are no National Management Plans for Salmon, Trout, Sturgeon or Eel. However the autonomous regions have developed some plans specifically for these species and these activities include restoration of habitats and removal of migratory barriers. ','','','Reference or title: Weblink:','05/03/2010','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Spain has one of the largest fishing fleets in the EU. Its fishing capacity has reduced consistently between 1999 and 2008. The number of vessels has reduced from 17,322 to 11,402 (34% reduction), tonnage from 531,606 to 458,520 (14% reduction) and power from 1,382,805 to 1,023,366kW (26% reduction). According to the annual report from the Commission in 2007, the Spanish fleet has reduced fishing effort for deep-sea species and for southern hake and nephrops (shrimps). In the 2007-2013 operational programme there is an objective to achieve further capacity reductions of 39,335 tons and 126,276.5 kW by 2010.The operational programme provides around 20% of the funding required to achieve this.','','2008 data: 11402 vessels: 458520 tons; 1023366 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','','','','10/12/2009','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Spain had 13,357 active vessels. There were 632 type D breaches in this year, and 632 penalties imposed with an average fine of €2,442. Spain has undertaken some specific actions to reduce by-catch including: Technical studies and an awareness campaign have been undertaken to reduce by-catch of turtles from long-lines. Technical assistance has also been commissioned to reduce the by-catch of seabirds in the Mediterranean during the use of deep long-lines.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_6_2','','A recent study on seabird monitoring has been implemented by SEO/Birdlife Spain and in the future this information will be incorporated into Management Plans of marine protected areas. Further information on seabird monitoring was not provided by Spain. There is no specific monitoring programme for sharks in Spain. ','','','','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','','','','11/5/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Spain has 105 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below).  However, as there are different ways of defining marine sites according to national sources there are 95 marine Sites of Community Importance, of which 27 are implicit Special Protected Area. There has been collaboration between the Deputy General Direction of Coastal Resources and Aquaculture, and the Autonomous Region of Valencia to increase the number of marine SPA areas. There is an offshore marine Natura2000 site 25km from the Spanish coast in the Cantabrian Sea known as ‘El Cachucho’ where fisheries measures have been undertaken. Protection measures were adopted in December 2008, requiring an amendment to the TAC & Quota Regulation ((EC) 43/2009). The Macronesian Bioregion will be the first area within territorial waters where fisheries management areas will be implemented. Data collection is currently ongoing with the collaboration of stakeholders and approval is foreseen in the second semester of 2010 (following the obligation described in the Ministerial Order MARM/3521/2009 of 29th December 2009). Other activities related to marine Natura 2000 sites include: - Continued and intense collaboration between the fisheries department and ten Marine Protected Areas with fishery interests (all SCIs); - Continued data contribution from the ten marine protected areas on biodiversity information, coverage, and species frequencies such as dendropoma, pinna, cymodocea, cladocora,  patella, scyllarus etc;- Collaboration with the Coasts General Direction on drawing up inventories and lists of endangered species;- Updating of all the information related to marine Natura Network and, improving the implementation of the Marine Natura 2000.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 139Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 0Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','','','','13/01/10','11/5/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Spain has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008.  They will calculate the Appendix XIII indicators from data collected in surveys in 2009 and 2010. Indicator 8 on the percentage of discards of commercially exploited species will be calculated from data collected by observes conducting discards sampling of  the different fisheries. Indicator 9 on the energy efficiency of fish catches will be made by dividing the income by fuel cost for each fishery to provide comparison of the energy efficiencies for both capturing different species and by different vessel types within a species. ','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.','Programa de recopilacion y gestion de dataos de España Año 2009-2010, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94849 ; Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for the EEZ waters of Spain, not including the Canary Islands, was 3.42 in 2004. This represents a decrease of 0.03 since 1999, but an overall increase of 0.09 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','This data is for Spain EEZ, not including Canary Islands.From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','25/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective4','A4_3','','In Spain, the ecological coherence within the spatial planning is included in the National Law 9/2006 of Plans and Programs Effects Evaluation on the Environment.','','Though the Member State indicated that ecological network is enacted by law, as no further information was provided on its content, its contribution to halting biodiversity loss can not be assessed','http://www.boe.es/aeboe/consultas/bases_datos/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2006-7677','01/03/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective4','A4_4_1','','Nature tourism sector in Spain is growing year after year based on a quality and sustainable criteria. Sectorial Strategies have been approved to guarantee the performance of sustainable objectives of this activity following the CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism. The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism gathers directly the CBD Guidelines. The Spanish adhesion has been promoted by EUROPARC Spain and has been adopted in almost all the Nature Protected areas of the country.The Strategic National Plan of Nature heritage and biodiversity  which is now in elaboration will include the future strategy for Nature Tourism.Moreover, there is a preliminary draft of election law on sustainable economy which will take into account the sustainable tourism. In November 2007 it was approved the Spanish Tourism Plan 2020, its objective aims to develop a future tourism sector competitive and based on environmental, social and economy sustainability. Moreover, there is a plan to create an Observatory on Sustainable Tourism.  At the moment, The Spanish Strategy on Sustainable Development (2007) describes some objectives and activities to reassess the tourism with sustainable character','','','http://www.redeuroparc.org/carta_europea_turismo_sostenible.jsphttp://www.economiasostenible.gob.es/http://www.la-moncloa.es/NR/rdonlyres/B73920C0-8F78-4EFE-83D8-A570345ADBA4/0/EEDS.pdfhttp://www.turismo2020.es/','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective4','A4_5_1','','Spain has National and Regional Legislation on Nature Protection and EIA/SEA. The National Law 42/2007 of Nature Heritage and Biodiversity is in force in all National Territory; and the Law Decree 1/2000, 8th May approved the rewritten text of Spatial Planning Laws of Canaries ad the Nature protected areas of Canaries.','','','','','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Spanish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity significantly decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 813.4 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006).','Spain explained that the total amount directly spent under \'Biodiversity\' categories under the Cohesion and Structural Funds could be higher, as there are funds from the European Social Fund (ESF) that are going directly to the improvement and adaptation of workers, enterprises, employers and technical assistances to a new culture that introduces environmental aspects into creation and management of green companies. For example, the Biodiversity Foundation (as part of the Ministry of Environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs) has started the \"Empleaverde\" Programme. (Source: http://www.fundacion-biodiversidad.es/es/inicio/emplea-verde/intro)','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS, provided by DG Regio.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','19/04/2010','','','04/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','Spain has both general and specific legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS).Article 61 of the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Act (Law no. 42/2007) provides for the creation of a National catalogue of IAS. IAS are added to the catalogue based on scientific or technical information. Under the Act, it is prohibited to possess, transport, trade in, import or export any species (or specimen/part/propagule thereof) listed in the catalogue, alive or dead. Article 74.2.i of the Act establishes a National Biodiversity and National Heritage Fund which includes the control and eradication of IAS. Article 62.3.e of the Act prohibits the introduction of alien species for hunting or fishing. This is also covered by earlier legislation (Law 1/1970 of 4 April; Royal Decree 1095/1989; and Royal Decree 1118/1989 of 15 September). Further to the general legislation in relation to IAS outlined above, specific legislation in Spain also addresses the issues of import, export, introduction and eradication of IAS. Under Article 333 of the Penal Code, the unlawful introduction of an IAS is punishable and may involve a prison sentence. If an IAS listed in the National catalogue of IAS is introduced this is considered to be a ‘severe’ or ‘very severe’ (depending on the damage it causes) infraction. The Royal Decree 1803/1999 of 26 November (corrected in BOE No. 13 of 15 January 2000) regulates for the management of National parks. Prohibition of the introduction of non-native taxa and the encouragement of eradication of established alien populations is found in chapter 3.2 (c). Law 31/2003 of 27 October on the conservation of wild fauna in zoological parks requires zoos to avoid the escape of IAS (Art. 3d) and imposes fines for the illegal, negligent and intentional releases of IAS (Art. 14). The Autonomous Communities of Spain have developed their own legislative tools based on the national legal framework addressing IAS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS StrategyWeblink: no link','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 38 are present in Spain. This equates to <0.10 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_1_2','','In 2006, a national action plan on invasive alien species (IAS) was developed. The action plan provided a diagnosis of IAS in Spain in order to form a basis for developing a national strategy. It is unclear whether IAS are comprehensively dealt with as part of a national or sub national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.According to the Member State, a catalogue for IAS was created through Law 42 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (Article 61). It is in process of publication. Responsibilities lay at the national level, whereby the Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs is responsible of administrative issues. Specific Action Plans are a competence of the Regional Administrations. The Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs is also responsible for the National Control Programmes (i.e. Oxyura jamaicensis, Mustela vison).  It has also published a National Strategy for the control of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) elaborated by the Working Group on zebra mussel. This was approved by the National Commission for Nature Protection on 10th of May 2007, and by the Environment Sectorial Conference on 6th September 2007.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link1. Law 42/2006, of  28th December 2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/12/29/pdfs/A46226-46444.pdf2. Title:  Invasive Alien Species: Diagnosis and bases for management and treatment. Authors: Capdevilla L.; Iglesias A., Orueta J.F. and Zilleti B. Publishing: National Parks Autonomous Organism. Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs. ISBN-10:84-8014-667-2. 20063. Title: Invasive vertebrates. Authors: Orueta J.F. Publishing: National Parks Autonomous Organism. Ministry of environment, and Rural and Marine Affairs. ISBN: 978-84-8014-697-5. 2007','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_1_3','','Spain has ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, Spain is in progress of developing an inventory/database of alien species in place other than those published by the DAISIE and/or NOBANIS, as well as in developing an early warning and information system for IAS.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire Weblink: ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, no legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming has been adopted.According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative in 2010, four regions (Asturias, Basque Country, Balearic Islands and Canary Islands) have declared themselves GMO-free.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm GMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in April 2009. The “Spanish Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity” (no year of publication given) was posted on the CBD website in 2001.Spain had paid her contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','02/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective7','A7_1','','The OECD marker does not show any multilateral biodiversity-related aid spending for Spain for 2006 and 2007. However, Spain has provided the following information: Spain spent EUR1,878,069m in 2006, EUR3,246,490m in 2007, and EUR6,529,338m in 2008 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid. These figures have been provided by the Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, and the Autonomous Organization of National Parks (OAPN).','',' The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','04/03/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the figures from the OECD markers, Spain spent EUR40.5m in 2006 and EUR52.8m in 2007 on bilateral biodiversity-related aid, which amounts to 0.02% of the total annual bilateral aid budget in both years. However, Spain points out that these figures are not accurate.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','09/12/200906/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Spain contributed EUR19.49 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 0.80% of the total replenishment. Spain contributed EUR21.67 million to the 4th replenishment which is 1.01 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective7','A7_2_2','','The new Master Plan for the Spanish Cooperation (2009-2012) incorporates these two concepts and foresees the application of EIA in larger projects. Nonetheless, SEA and EIA are not compulsory at this moment. ','','','http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/CooperacionInternacional/Publicacionesydocumentacion/Paginas/publlicaciones_cooperacion.aspx','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective8','A8_1','','Spain has provided substantial funding annually for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. National legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists and awareness of the issue exists, as well as on the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. Although all the wood products derived from National Forest are considered derived from sustainable sources, no overall data is available on the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources. Many import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens were issued in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed; there is no information on support to developing countries provided for implementing CITES. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Spain has national legislation on implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing. Additionally, national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing been implemented. Awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing is being implemented by The International University of Andalucía through the Master programme: Master Degree in Management, Access and Conservation of Species in Trade: The International Framework. Furthermore, Spanish Law 30/2006 on seeds, nursery plants, and plant genetic resources deals with access to plant genetic resources for food and Agriculture (not covered by The FAO International Treaty) in a manner which is in line with the CBD Bonn Guidelines.','','','','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','Spain provided the following amounts to the ABS Working Group: -2006-ABS 4: 255.842 $ (Conference servicing costs = 166.481$; Developing Country Participants costs = 89.362 $).- 2007-ABS 5: 44.430 $ (Developing Country Participants costs = 1.109 $; Indigenous and Local Communities Participants costs = 43.321$).- 2008- ABS 6: 93.506 $ (Developing Country Participants costs = 45.396 $; Indigenous and Local Communities Participants costs = 48.110 $).- 2009-ABS 7: 949.962 $ (Conference Servicing costs = 328.204 $; Developing Country Participants costs = 500.720 $; Indigenous and Local Communities Participants costs = 121.038 $).               ','','The exchange rate used is the one for 30 June of each year.','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The SMTA of the International Treaty does not need to be implemented through national legislation. A number of awareness raising and implementation meetings have been undertaken and are scheduled for this year by INIA (National Institute of Agriculture Research and Food Technology) through the National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which covers 33 public gene-banks, with the participation of MARM (Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs.','','','','26/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective8','A8_1_4','','All the wood products derived from National Forest are considered derived from sustainable sources, as the management is clearly positive and no decline in the production or soil impoverishment, among others, has been observed. However, few of them are certified (Source: FSC and PEFC); the wood source (80% plantations) will continue being plantation and producing the same quantity of wood afterwards.For international consumption no data are available.','','','','12/04/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 6921, 1211 and 4476, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications denied in 2007 and 2008 was 196, 4 and 2, respectively. The combined number of seizures in 2007 and 2008 was 724. As to capacity-building at the national level, it was provided through oral and written advice/guidance and training to the Management Authority. Training was provided to the enforcement authorities. Spain supplied the management programme to issue CITES documents used in Spain to the CITES Management Authority of Portugal. Spain paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','09/03/2010','','','06/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Spain','Objective9','','','On July 2006 the Spanish Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affaire adopted the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan. This plan provides the current framework for carrying out assessment actions to evaluate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Spain. The Plan’s objective is to mainstream adaptation to climate change in the planning processes of all the relevant sectors or systems. To achieve this, it is important that the development of the Plan becomes a major collective project with the participation of all institutions and key players.Many ecological, economic and social sectors and systems in Spain are vulnerable to climate change. The National Adaptation Plan has defined an initial set of 15 sectors and systems to start the assessment of their vulnerability and their possibilities of adaptation, in which biodiversity is included.The Plan is being implemented trough work programmes in which the activities and projects to be carried out are determined, as well as the schedule to develop them.The First Work Program, approved in 2006, targets the development of regional climate scenarios and the impacts of climate change on water resources, biodiversity and coastal areas.','','Data source: http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_3_2','','Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC has not been implemented yet in Spain. Its Implementation is in progres and will address those requirements.','','','','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_4_1','','On July 2006 the Spanish Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affaire adopted the National Climate Change Adaptation Plan. This plan provides the current framework for carrying out assessment actions to evaluate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Spain. The Plan’s objective is to mainstream adaptation to climate change in the planning processes of all the relevant sectors or systems. To achieve this, it is important that the development of the Plan becomes a major collective project with the participation of all institutions and key players.Many ecological, economic and social sectors and systems in Spain are vulnerable to climate change. The National Adaptation Plan has defined an initial set of 15 sectors and systems to start the assessment of their vulnerability and their possibilities of adaptation, in which biodiversity is included.The Plan is being implemented trough work programmes in which the activities and projects to be carried out are determined, as well as the schedule to develop them.The First Work Program, approved in 2006, targets the development of regional climate scenarios and the impacts of climate change on water resources, biodiversity and coastal areas.',NULL,'Data source: http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htm','25/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'06/05/2010',NULL),
	('Spain','Objective9','A9_4_3','','The National Climate Change Adaptation Plan includes activities to assess the impact of climate change on biodiversity., as it has been said above.Regarding biodiversity, two projects have been carried out until now: -Identification of the most climate change vulnerable Spanish flora and fauna Habitats and species in order to estimate their capacity to adapt to climate change along S XXI. This project is been developed in coordination between the Spanish Climate Change Office and the General Directorate of Nature and Forestry Policies, by two agreements, one  with the University of Extremadura and the other one with the National Natural Science Museum.The results coming out from this project are going to be published during this year 2010 under the title “Atlas of Climate Change Impacts over the Spanish Flora and Fauna”. They will provide important elements to integrate adaptation to climate change into planning and biodiversity management.-“Establishment of a Global Change Impact Monitoring Network inside the Spanish National Parks” with the involvement of four different organizations: Spanish Climate Change Office, Biodiversity Foundation, National Park Agency and National Meteorological Agency. This projects is been developed inside three National Parks; Sierra Nevada, Picos de Europa, and archipiélago de la Cabrera but is foresee to increase its scope to other Parks. ','','','http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/cambio_climatico/areas_tematicas/impactos_cc/pnacc.htmhttp://reddeparquesnacionales.mma.es/en/parques/rcg/index.htm','25/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','MandE','C1_2','','Sweden is implementing a wide range of indicators, including most of the SEBI indicators. There are many indicators additional to the SEBI indicators and further indicators are under development.','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009 does not contain information from Sweden. The above information was provided by Sweden and parts of it are taken from the 4th National Report to the CBD. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/','17/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','MandE','C1_2_1','','Sweden is implementing a wide range of indicators, including most of the SEBI indicators, in the national system of environmental objectives. There are many indicators additional to the SEBI indicators. Further indicators investigated or under development include the following: indicator for butterflies; Red List Index; indicator for species in the Habitats Directive; an indicator developed from National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden, or NILS (cf. A2.1.8 and C1.3.1) and satellite-based landscape monitoring; indicator based on Article 17 assessments of Habitats of European Interest; invasive alien species; membership numbers of nature conservation organisations (NGOs).','','The EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009 does not contain information from Sweden. The above information was provided by Sweden and parts of it are taken from the 4th National Report to the CBD.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; National Reports to the CBD. Weblink: http://www.cbd.int/reports/search/ . For the indicator on growing forest stock, increment and fellings see http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/default.aspx?id=38515. 20    ','17/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','MandE','C1_3_1','','National and/or regional monitoring schemes exists for all habitat types and species groups, typically several schemes per group. The National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) monitors landscape conditions and changes and the resulting conditions for biodiversity. In general the estimate is that Sweden has reliable monitoring data for less than half of the species and habitats listed in the Habitats Directive. Expert judgement can likely provide reasonable estimates of several more. A project just started, \"Biogeographical monitoring of habitats in species in the Habitats Directive\", aiming at filling the most important gaps in existing monitoring of biodiversity covered by the Directive, until 2011. ','','The numbers mentioned above are rough estimates only. ','Reference or title:Weblink:National list of environmental monitoring methods (\"undersökningstyper\"), national list of biodiversity methods for baseline surveys of protected areas, national list of monitoring methods for protected areas, national list of regional environmental monitoring, expert judgement. Weblink NILS: http://nils.slu.se/ Weblink Swedish EPA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/State-of-the-environment/Habitats-and-species/ ','10/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Measure1','B1_1_1','','The Swedish government has established budget appropriations for protection of biodiversity, agricultural management measures and purchase of forest land. Also relevant for biodiversity are management measures in farming, purchasing forest land of high conservation value or compensating forest owners for enhanced environmental stewardship. Although there are environmental payments and even entire posts on the national budget that have biodiversity as their main focus, a lot of other expenditures benefit both biodiversity and other issues. Besides the state, local authorities, businesses and households also spend money on improving the environment for themselves or others. Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, Sweden spent up to EUR10,965,119 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. Sweden spent up to EUR381,288 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. The national funding allocated for management of protected areas, including the Natura 2000 sites, was approximately EUR 12 million (SEK 126 million) in 2004, EUR 12.3 million (SEK 130 million) in 2005, EUR 16 million (SEK 170 million) in 2006, EUR 24.3 (SEK 257 million) in 2007 and EUR 24.3 (SEK 257 million) in 2008.','',' The information on national programmes is taken from Sweden’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to Sweden’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','09/02/2010','','','11/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Measure1','B1_1_4','','According to data from the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, the approximate total amounts granted for 2007-2013, as of yet, are: Category 51 - € 1.98 million; Category 55 - € 0.36 million; Category 56 - € 1.5 million. ','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. ','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the Commission, amended by data from the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional GrowthWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','09/02/2010','','','11/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Measure1','B1_1_8','',' From 2006-2009, Sweden has spent between EUR660,000 and EUR2,990,00 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure. ','',' From 2006-2009, Sweden has spent between EUR660,000 and EUR2,990,00 annually for biodiversity research programmes plus institutional funding for research infrastructure','','10/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure2','B2_4','','Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) that are aimed at guiding the Swedish society towards sustainable development. The individual EQOs address biodiversity to a varying extent. In particular, the EQO \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" sets the strategy and policy for biodiversity issues. The Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’ was influential in the latest in-depth evaluation, when new interim targets were proposed.','','In addition to the EQO \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" there are several EQOs addressing specific types of nature - and the associated biodiversity - such as wetlands, forests, lakes and streams, the agricultural landscape, mountain areas, and the marine environment. For further information see the Environmental Objectives Portal: http://www.miljomal.nu/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/',' Environmental Quality Objective \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\", in-depth evaluation conducted 2007: www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-5773-2.pdf (English summary)','16/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure3','','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals. Far-reaching changes in society are also needed, where environmental improvement programmes in farming, forestry and industry have a vital part to play. The forestry, farming and business sectors are represented in the Environmental Objectives Council, by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and The Federation of Swedish Farmers (agriculture and forestry).\"The Rural Network\" reinforces the implementation of the Swedish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and also reinforces the link between rural policy, regional growth policy and environmental policy. LEADER constitutes a part of the Rural Network. The Swedish government has also supported local nature conservation initiatives (called “LONA”). Within this initiative, government grants have enabled Sweden’s municipalities, individuals, companies and associations to work on nature conservation in local projects. Between 2004 and 2006, almost EUR 28 million (used to finance up to 50% each project) was granted to 1513 projects. The total budget for these projects was almost EUR 70 million. LONA resumed in 2010, and the Swedish EPA has recently distributed almost 5 million euros for new projects.   ','','','Weblinks:The Environmental Objectives Portal, www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: www.svensktnaringsliv.se/english/The Federation of Swedish Farmers: www.lrf.se/In-English/The Swedish Rural Network, www.landsbygdsnatverket.se/inenglishLONA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-8255-8.pdf','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Measure3','B3_1_2','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals. Far-reaching changes in society are also needed, where environmental improvement programmes in farming, forestry and industry have a vital part to play. The forestry, farming and business sectors are represented in the Environmental Objectives Council, by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and The Federation of Swedish Farmers (agriculture and forestry).The Swedish Parliament has adopted the national objectives, and regional EQOs have been developed by the County Administrative Boards. Some municipalities have translated the national and regional objectives into local aims and actions, in order to make the objectives effective tools at the local policy level.\"The Rural Network\" reinforces the implementation of the Swedish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and also reinforces the link between rural policy, regional growth policy and environmental policy. LEADER constitutes a part of the Rural Network. Partnerships are established in certification standards for forest and agriculture as well as in sectoral integration and environmental policy integration activities. The Swedish Forest Agency and the County Administrative Board are key authorities, working at regional and local level, to facilitate a work partnership between farming, forestry and biodiversity. The forestry sector is where there is strong involvement of private and public sectors for the protection and sustainable use of forest land. The ‘Greener Forest’ educational document shows how forest owners can voluntarily implement the Swedish forest policy on their property. Also, the ‘National Strategy for the legal protection of forest land’ is a guidance document aimed primarily at regional and local authorities to promote the protection of forest land, and can also be used by the private sector for voluntarily setting-aside areas for nature protection.The Swedish government has also supported local nature conservation initiatives (called “LONA”). Within this initiative, government grants have enabled Sweden’s municipalities, individuals, companies and associations to work on nature conservation in local projects. Between 2004 and 2006, almost EUR 28 million (used to finance up to 50% each project) was granted to 1513 projects. The total budget for these projects was almost EUR 70 million. LONA resumed in 2010, and the Swedish EPA has recently distributed almost 5 million euros for new projects.   ','','','Weblinks:The Environmental Objectives Portal: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/The Swedish Rural Network: www.landsbygdsnatverket.se/inenglishThe Federation of Swedish Farmers: www.lrf.se/In-English/LONA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-8255-8.pdf','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure3','B3_1_5','','Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships in different sectors. The Swedish Parliament adopted a strategy (which is is a part of the EQO system) for the management of land, water and the built environment in order to emphasize the need to consider biological diversity, as well as the culture, human health, wise land and water management, environmentally sound land use planning and a sustainable built environment. The Swedish Parliamant adopted the national objectives, and regional EQOs have been elaborated by the County Administrative Boards. Some municipalities have translated the national and regional objectives into local aims and actions, as to make the objectives effective tools in local politics and spatial planning.The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning is responsible for issues concerning city planning including urban green structures. The Board has developed several documents on how the municipalities can work with these issues. The Board has started work on how to integrate green areas in city planning and to promote planning at the landscape level. A handbook was published on how to perform impact assessments of city plans. In addition, similar work has started for the marine environment (“seascape planning”). In general, planning processes are conducted at the local municipal level, and landscape strategies are developed by the regional county administrative boards. The county administrative boards have suggested that the situation for biodiversity in urban areas should be improved and that urban biodiversity should also be included in environmental impact assessments. Sweden consists of 290 local municipalities. Each municipality is responsible for developing plans for land use, as well as detailed development plans, covering smaller units. These should, according to national policy follow the ecosystem approach, although this varies greatly depending on the municipality. Most municipalities have adopted a strategy to include biodiversity issues. A number of municipalities are aware of biological diversity and nature values in urban areas and have actively taken initiatives to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Municipalities are also involved; particularly those with more densely populated which appear to focus the most on urban nature. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has granted funds to help the municipalities carry out projects with the am of promoting biological diversity. Other examples include the restoration of ponds which deliver purification services and function as recreational areas, wildlife inventories and methods for promoting biological diversity in urban areas. ','','','Reference or title: CBD 4th National Report for SwedenWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/Reference or title: The Environmental Objectives PortalWeblink: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/Reference or title: The National Board of Housing, Building and Planning Weblink: www.boverket.se/Om-Boverket/About-Boverket/','16/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Sweden','Measure3','B3_1_6','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals. Far-reaching changes in society are also needed, where environmental improvement programmes in farming, forestry and industry have a vital part to play. The forestry, farming and business sectors are represented in the Environmental Objectives Council, by the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and The Federation of Swedish Farmers (agriculture and forestry).\"The Rural Network\" reinforces the implementation of the Swedish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 and also reinforces the link between rural policy, regional growth policy and environmental policy. LEADER constitutes a part of the Rural Network. The Swedish government has also supported local nature conservation initiatives (called “LONA”). Within this initiative, government grants have enabled Sweden’s municipalities, individuals, companies and associations to work on nature conservation in local projects. Between 2004 and 2006, almost EUR 28 million (used to finance up to 50% each project) was granted to 1513 projects. The total budget for these projects was almost EUR 70 million. LONA resumed in 2010, and the Swedish EPA has recently distributed almost 5 million euros for new projects.   ','','','Weblinks:The Environmental Objectives Portal, www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise: www.svensktnaringsliv.se/english/The Federation of Swedish Farmers: www.lrf.se/In-English/The Swedish Rural Network, www.landsbygdsnatverket.se/inenglishLONA: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-8255-8.pdf','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure3','B3_1_7','','The concept of biodiversity partnerships has not yet been defined in Sweden. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify this action. However, a number of initiatives have been launched in Sweden to encourage the establishment of what can be considered as partnerships at the national, regional and local levels of government. Sweden\'s environmental policy is based on 16 Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) for different areas, which can be seen as the framework for biodiversity partnerships for different sectors. To meet the objectives, all stakeholders participate – from authorities and businesses to organizations and individuals.In 2010, a project on Business and Biodiversity will start, in cooperation with the other Nordic countries. The financing sector will be included in this project.','','','The Environmental Objectives Portal: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/','16/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe Kwon Guidelines have been partly applied to funded projects in non-EU and developing countries. Relevant aspects of the Akwe Kwon guidelines are addressed in the assessment and preparation process for all development cooperation, e.g. in EIA/SEA guidance.','','Perspectives relating to issues of poverty and rights are included as guiding principles in all Swedish external relations (following the Swedish Policy for Global Development) and always considered in management of Swedish Official Development Aid.','','09/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Sweden','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Measure4','B4_1_1','','No communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) has been developed at the national level.However, the Swedish EPA is waiting for more information on the campaign at EU level. In 2009, Sweden celebrated Nature\'s Year, in commemoration of the designation of the first Swedish national park in 1909 and 100 years of nature conservation. Around 20 organisations took part in the communication efforts in 2009. This cooperation has continued since and will increase in 2010, as Sweden has joined the UN\'s International Year of Biodiversity. The Swedish EPA has planned to highlight biodiversity issues in their information and communication in 2010.','','','Reference or title: \"Nature\'s Year\"Weblink: www.naturensar.se ','09/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Sweden','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Swedish Ministry of the Environment (01/10/2005) and the Swedish Museum of Natural History (29/08/2006) have made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initative.The Swedish Museum of Natural History communicated that it would commit itself to further research on global biodiversity and to organize exhibitions aimed at the general public to describe biodiversity and the threats to biodiversity, in addition to encouraging and assisting decision makers to achieve the 2010 biodiversity targets. No funding contributions appear to have been made by Sweden between 2006 and 2008 for Countdown projects. ','','Although no funding has been contributed specifically to the 2010 countdown initiative or related projects, as described elsewhere in this country profile, a number of efforts have been made aiming at tackling the causes of biodiversity loss in order to achieve the goal of halting its loss. The 16 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) address biodiversity, and the EQO \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" in particular sets the strategy and policy for biodiversity issues. The EQOs are widely communicated. During the Swedish EU Presidency, Sweden highlighted the importance of biodiversity and the value of ecosystem services to the sustainable development of society, see the presidency website www.se2009.eu/biodiversity.','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublished','22/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.Habitats currently enjoying a favourable conservation status are mainly found within the northern mountain range, and in rocky areas all over the country, where levels of exploitation are low, and land use is less intense. This applies to e.g. Baltic islands and islets, alpine grasslands and heaths as well as screes and caves. Other habitats with a favourable conservation status are dystrophic lakes (nationwide) and calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus (Boreal and Continental biogeographical regions). Several other lacustrine, riverine and wetland habitats only reach a favourable conservation status in the Alpine region, where they cover large areas, are widely distributed, and often occur within protected areas. In other parts of Sweden river damming, wetland drainage, sewage effluents and excessive use of fertilisers have caused severely disturbed hydrological conditions and eutrophication. As a result, many habitats are currently in an unfavourable conservation status. In recent years, strengthened legislation regulating all kinds of drainage has, however, contributed to an improvement of the situation.  Marine habitats, forests and grassland habitats are generally heavily affected, and as a result neither range nor structures and functions reach satisfactory levels. Problems are often associated with inappropriate land use and human exploitation of land and water resources. The situation for several marine habitats is regarded as unfavourable, with negative future prospects, due to excessive nutrient levels and commercial fisheries (mainly bottom trawling). Forest habitats are adversely affected by clear-cutting and other forest practices. Modern forestry management results in severe deficits of coarse woody debris and old trees, and natural disturbances such as fire and flooding are scarce. Valuable grassland habitats suffer from lack of management and are consequently becoming increasingly over-grown with young trees and bushes. Abandonment of agricultural land, fertilisation through deposition of air-borne nitrogen, and an ever more intense use of remaining areas constitute major problems. A small but positive exception concerns calcareous grasslands and alvar on the island of Öland, where a LIFE-funded restoration project has been highly successful.In the Alpine biogeographical region, 50% of more of all habitat types are reported to be in a favourable condition. 2 of the 2 (100%) of heath and scrub habitats are in favourable condition. The condition of 2 of the 3 (67%) and 1 of the 3 (33%) coastal habitats in both the Marine Atlantic and Marine Baltic biogeographical regions are reported to be in an unfavourable-inadequate and unfavourable-bad respectively.In the Boreal biogeographical region, 5 of the 7 (71%) rocky habitats and 2 of the 4 (50%) heath and scrub habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. The condition of 6 of the 8 (75%) of both freshwater habitats and bog, mire and fen habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. 11 of 13 (85%), 5 of the 9 (56%) and 2 of the 4 (50%) grasslands, dune habitats and heath and scrub habitats are reported to be unfavourable-bad condition respectively. The condition of all boreal sclerophyllous scrub habitats is unknown.In the Continental biogeographical region, 3 of the 4 (75%) rocky habitats are reported to be in favourable condition. The condition of 6 of the 7 (86%) freshwater habitats is reported to be unfavourable-inadequate. Over half of bogs, mires and fens (4 of the 7 or 57%), grasslands (7 of the 10 or 70%), dunes (7 of the 9 or 78%), forests (11 of the 13 or 85%) and heath and scrub (100%) habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of all continental sclerophyllous scrub habitats is unknown. ','17/02/2010','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Unfavourable- inadequate U2= Unfavourable- badXX= UnknownNA= Not reported AlpineFreshwater habitats686%114%00%00%00%7Heath & scrub2100%00%00%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%00%00%0Grasslands338%00%563%00%00%8Bogs, mires & fens788%00%113%00%00%8Rocky habitats571%00%114%00%114%7Forests457%00%229%00%114%7Marine Atlantic Coastal habitats00%267%133%00%00%3Marine Baltic Coastal habitats00%267%133%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats431%538%431%00%00%13Dunes habitats111%222%556%111%00%9Freshwater habitats225%675%00%00%00%8Heath & scrub250%00%250%00%00%4Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands18%00%1185%18%00%13Bogs, mires & fens113%675%113%00%00%8Rocky habitats571%229%00%00%00%7Forests213%320%1067%00%00%15ContinentalCoastal habitats220%440%440%00%00%10Dunes habitats00%111%778%111%00%9Freshwater habitats114%686%00%00%00%7Heath & scrub00%00%2100%00%00%2Sclerophyllous scrub00%00%00%1100%00%1Grasslands220%00%770%110%00%10Bogs, mires & fens114%229%457%00%00%7Rocky habitats375%125%00%00%00%4Forests00%18%1185%18%00%13','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, Sweden has designated 3983 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 64,468 km², totalling 15.7% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 334 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 9.2%. The number of Special Protection Areas is 531 with a total area of 29,873 km², totalling 6.2% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 108, 4.9% of the total area. Sweden started the process of designating sites as SACs in 2009, and will continue this work during 2010. The process of designation includes establishing conservation plans with conservation objectives and measures.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update); Swedish EPA N2000-basenWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','16/02/2010','','','07/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','The absolute majority of the Swedish Natura 2000 sites have a \"bevarandeplan\" (BP), which is the Swedish interpretation of the management plans. However, most of the management plans will need to be updated due to new knowledge about habitats etc coming from the baseline inventory. The BPs are a rather basic type of plans, and the sites that have some other sort of formal protection, as nature reserves or national parks, also have a more comprehensive management plan.','','The BPs are a rather basic type of plans, and the sites that have some other sort of formal protection, as nature reserves or national parks, also have a more comprehensive management plan.','Reference or title:Weblink: Swedish EPA - expert judgment and information gathered from County administrative boards in relation to the article 17 reporting in 2007.','09/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','013/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_2_3','','Ecological connectivity is promoted in many different ways in Swedish society. Some examples of tools to support ecological connectivity include legal demands for environmental consideration in forestry; obligations concerning spatial planning; obligations concerning environmental impact assessments in e.g. infrastructure projects; general habitat protection of e.g. small ponds, wetlands and ditches on agricultural land. Further, in accordance with the Environmental Quality Objectives efforts are being made to promote or restore connectivity in e.g. rivers and along roads.','','',':','16/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_3','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.Of the 279 regularly occurring bird species in Sweden, 7 are globally Near-threatened and 2 are Red-listed. Note this refers to all bird species of Sweden, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! The national Swedish Red List from 2005 gives that out of 251 assessed bird species, 88 species are red-listed and distributed on the Red List categories as follows: RE 8, CR 5, EN 7, VU 31, and NT 37. With regard to non-bird taxa, similar patterns as above under target 1.1 (regarding habitats) apply also to the species. The differences in conservation status between organism groups are, however, large. The conservation status of species and populations is, in general, more favourable in the northern part of the country. This is also true of species associated with montane and rocky habitats. The conservation status of vascular plants and freshwater insects is, on average, better than that of other groups, but also some mammal and fish species maintain a favourable status. Enduring work to decrease acidification, and to restore natural watersheds, together with construction of new ponds and wetlands, is beginning to yield improved conditions for many aquatic organisms. In addition, all frog and toad species currently in an unfavourable conservation status are subjected to Species Action Plans.  Many species are, however, threatened and fail to reach a favourable conservation status. This is often due to decreasing range and excessive loss of habitat, in conjunction with small population sizes. The situation is especially serious for listed butterflies, woodland insects and marine mammals. Commercial fisheries and chemical pollution are major threats to seals and Harbour porpoises. The seals are, however, gradually recovering. Commercial fisheries on Atlantic salmon, Vendace, and River lamprey affect these species adversely, as does the presence of dams and other obstacles to migration. Butterflies and some other insects that thrive in traditionally managed, semi-natural grasslands suffer from the abandonment of traditional agricultural practises as well as the transformation of grasslands into woodland. Several species of bryophytes, amphibians, and molluscs are at risk. Prescribed burning of woodland in central and northern Sweden has, however, improved the situation for several species associated with fire and burnt wood.Of the species in the Alpine biogeographical region, the conservation status of 100% of amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 4 (75%) fish, 2 of the 8 (25%) invertebrates, 6 of the 10 (60%) mammals and 28 of the 29 (97%) of plants was reported to be favourable. 1 of the 4 (25%) and 5 of the 8 (63%) fish and invertebrates are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition, respectively. The conservation status of 1 of the 8 (13%) invertebrates is unknown and 3 of the 10 (30%) mammals were not reported. In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 1 of the 3 (33%) and 2 of the 3 (67%) mammals are favourable condition and unfavourable-bad condition, respectively. In the Marine Baltic biogeographical region, all mammals (100%) of Community Interest are in an unfavourable-bad condition. Of the species in the Boreal biogeographical region, 2 of the 8 (25%) amphibians and reptiles, 4 of the 8 (50%) fish, 11 of the 23 (48%) mammals and 27 of the 52 (52%) plants are in a favourable condition. 19 of the 52 (37%) of plants, 6 of the 8 (75%) amphibians and reptiles, 3 of the 8 (38%) fish and 27 of the 36 (75%) invertebrates are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 4 of the 23 (17%) mammals was not reported. In the Continental biogeographical region, 7 of the 20 (35%) invertebrates and 10 of the 17 (59%) mammals are in a favourable condition. 4 of the 7 (57%) of fish are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. 8 of the 12 (67%) of amphibians and reptiles, 10 of the 20 (50%) of invertebrates and 11 of the 21 (52%) of plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at the global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: it is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Biogeographical regionSpecies groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable- inadequateU2= Unfavourable- badXX= unknownNA=not reported AlpineAmphibians and reptiles 2100%00%00%00%00%2Fish 375%00%125%00%00%4Invertebrates225%00%563%113%00%8Mammals660%00%110%00%330%10Plants 2897%00%13%00%00%29Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals133%00%267%00%00%3Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Marine Baltic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0Boreal Amphibians and reptiles 225%00%675%00%00%8Fish 450%113%338%00%00%8Invertebrates617%38%2775%00%00%36Mammals1148%14%730%00%417%23Plants 2752%612%1937%00%00%52Continental Amphibians and reptiles 325%18%867%00%00%12Fish 229%457%114%00%00%7Invertebrates735%315%1050% 0%00%20Mammals1059%16%635%00%00%17Plants 733%314%1152%00%00%21','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International data; RÖDLISTADE ARTER I SVERIGE 2005 - THE 2005 REDLIST OF SWEDISH SPECIES. Ed.: Gärdenfors, U., 2005. ISBN 91-88506-30-4. Weblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html;  http://www.artdata.slu.se/english/redlist.asp; http://www.artdata.slu.se/filer/Arter_och_naturtyper_i_habitatdirektivet_lowres.pdf (Article 17 assessment)','15/02/2010','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','Sweden has the following completed species action plans: 8 for birds (all referring to species of the Birds Directive), 7 for mammals (all referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 7 for amphibians and reptiles (2 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 4 for fish (one of those referring to a species of the Habitats Directive), 34 for invertebrates (7 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive) and 30 for plants (9 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive). In addition, the following species action plans are in preparation: 5 for birds (all referring to species of the Birds Directive), 4 for mammals (3 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 2 for amphibians and reptiles, 6 for fish (2 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive), 43 for invertebrates (4 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive) and 10 for plants (3 of those referring to species of the Habitats Directive). The Swedish action plans for threatened species (Åtgärdsprogram för hotade arter) are guiding documents for authorities and other operators involved, for joint actions for the conservation of the species. The action plans are not drawn up according to the EU standards. Some of the completed action plans have not been updated, but are still valid.Bird indicators are derived from The Swedish Bird Survey, as a part of a national environmental monitoring, cf. bird monitoring schemes below. Indicators are: Common Bird Index, Breeding birds of the mountains, Breeding birds in farmland, Breeding birds of the forest, Breeding birds of the wetlands, and Breeding birds in lake and river areas. Data is included in the EU indicator \'Population trends of farmland birds\'. The Red List of Swedish Species is an account of animal, plant and fungi species whose populations in Sweden are considered not to be viable in a long-term perspective. The assessments are based on the IUCN Red List Criteria. The Red List is revised every five years. The 2005 Red List includes 3,653 multicellular species in all organism groups, of which 1,664 are classified as threatened. The Red List contains an overview of the situation for different groups of organisms: mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, wasps, butterflies and moths, beetles, flies, bugs, othopterans, neuroptera, megaloptera, rhaphidioptera, trichoptera, plecoptera, odonata, ephemeroptera, myriapods, spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions, crustaceans, echinoderms, brachiopods, molluscs, leeches and planarians, ahthozoans, vascular plants, algae, bryophytes, fungi and lichens. A separate table presents all species that are nationally protected or appear on the global Red List, in international conventions or in EU legislation. ','','Action Plans: Numbers in brackets indicate plans that concern species in the Habitats or Birds Directive.','Reference or title:Weblink:Reference or title: RÖDLISTADE ARTER I SVERIGE 2005 - THE 2005 REDLIST OF SWEDISH SPECIES. Ed.: Gärdenfors, U., 2005. ISBN 91-88506-30-4. Weblink: http://www.artdata.slu.se/english/redlist.asp','15/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective10','A10_1','','Currently, Sweden does not have a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity research. However, 84 large and small projects contained within the Environmental Research Grant (Miljöforskningsanslaget) and the Wildlife Management Fund (Viltvårdsfonden) subscribe to one or several biodiversity objectives. There is a programme funded by the Swedish Environment Protection Agency aimed at Adaptive Management of Fish and Wildlife Populations that will develop sustainable models for fish and wildlife management compatible with Sweden’s environmental objectives and with the public interest in fishing and hunting. Three other large biodiversity research programmes were completed in 2006 or 2007. ','','',' Swedish EPA Website: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/Research/','10/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective10','A10_1_2','','Sweden does not currently have a national plan for follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), but it is possible that this will be a part of ERA-net BIODIVERSA. The MA has influenced, for example, work with the Sweden\'s Environmental Quality Objectives, but not all findings of the MA are transposable to national conditions. Valuation and accounting methods are increasingly important in different types of assessments of ecosystem services, e.g. in proposals for environmental measures or exploitation projects. The in-depth evaluation of the Environmental Quality Objectives included a comprehensive economic and qualitative assessment of the cost and benefit of environmental measures. The assessment is presented in the Environmental Objectives Council’s report \"Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose\". The government and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also recently instigated a major study on marine economic information to describe current knowledge on the economic consequences of human impact on the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak, which answered what it will cost if no further action is taken, as compared with the implementation of remedial measures. The synthesis report “What’s in the sea for me?” of February 2009 gives an introduction to the findings, and there are several in-depth reports in English, see http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/GlobalMenu/Press-information/Press-Releases/Whats-in-the-sea-for-me/.','','','Reference or title: Weblink: Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No time to lose: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-1266-3.pdf   What’s in the Sea for Me?: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/GlobalMenu/Press-information/Press-Releases/Whats-in-the-sea-for-me/ ','10/02/2010','','','12/03/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective10','A10_1_6','','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The Swedish Scientific Council on Biological Diversity was established by the Government in order to is to foster contacts between scientists and policy-makers, e.g. by developing scientific documentation on biological diversity as a basis for decision-makers. The council works continuously with issues within the framework of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and relating to biological diversity in Sweden. The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM), jointly operated by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Uppsala University, is Sweden\'s national centre for co-ordinating and initiating research on biodiversity. The centre\'s main function is to conduct, initiate and coordinate research on the preservation, sustainable use and restoration of biodiversity in Sweden.','','-','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/infoThe Swedish Scientific Council on Biological Diversity: www.naturvardsverket.se/sv/Arbete-med-naturvard/Detta-ar-naturvard/Biologisk-mangfald/Vetenskapliga-radet-for-biologisk-mangfald/  (in Swedish)The Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM): www.cbm.slu.se/eng/index.php ','16/02/2010','','','na','12/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective10','A10_1_9','','Sweden has been a voting Participant in GBIF since Feb 2001. The national ‘Participant node’ for Sweden is GBIF-Sweden, set up by the Swedish Research council and extended to the Museum of Natural History, who host a portal where you can search for over 24million records with information on animals, plants and fungi in the Swedish museum collections and observational databases.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. The Swedish Museum of Natural History is a government agency that reports to the Ministry of Culture. The Research Division of the Museum is a research institute that participates in ENBI as a ‘member’ of Work Package 2: ENBI Forums. ','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','16/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','','','According to the Member State, Sweden has implemented all compulsory Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures listed in Annex III of Council Regulation No. 73/2009, including:• Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.• Protection of permanent pasture.• Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Other GAEC measure include the optional standard about minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes.','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in Sweden total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 1825.65 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013, and to 3917.17 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 1260.81 million EUR, and 2702.13 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 69.06 and 68.98 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in Sweden was 982.8 million EUR (2106.3 with co-financing) and amounted to 53.83 per cent of the EAFRD (53.77 with co-financing).There are no payments in Sweden for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture), 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) and 225 (forest-environment payments) for the period 2007 to 2013.According to reporting by the Member State, approximately EUR 30 million (SEK 300 million) from the agri-environmental schemes are paid to landowners in Natura 2000 areas, for maintenance of semi-natural grasslands. This is based on a rough estimate made by a GIS analysis undertaken by the Swedish EPA in 2008. ','',' 2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)262.793556.483Forest environment payments (225)00','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national action plan is being developed to address the conservation of genetic resources and a number of actions are already underway.The Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO) include the conservation of genetic variation of wild species, e.g. in the EQO \"A rich diversity of plant and animal life\", as well as crop varieties and livestock breeds in the EQO \"A varied cultural landscape\". On the request of the Government, the Swedish EPA proposed a national action plan for conservation of genetic variation in flora, fauna and fungi in the wild in 2008. The Swedish Board of Agriculture correspondingly worked out an action plan for long-term sustainable management of genetic resources for domestic animals in 2007. Neither of the action plans have yet been funded.The national Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants, POM, aims to insure the long-term survival and sustainable use of cultivated plant resources through e.g. inventory, collection and conservation of cultivated plants. POM has had a yearly budget of € 830,000 since 2004, and a proposal for the continuation of POM during 2010-2015 has been drawn up.In-situ conservation of livestock breeds and races, as well as gene bank activities, is funded through the Rural Development Programme. Support is given to livestock owners all over the country so that the breeds are conserved in their original environment. Support is given for a total of 21 breeds: five breeds of cattle, four breeds of goat, 11 breeds of sheep and one pig breed. 1000 farms have received approx. € 650,000 for 2007 and € 700,000 for 2008. RDP support is also given to gene bank activities conducted by the Swedish Society of Old Native Poultry (totally € 60,000 to 749 gene banks) and the Gotlandic Rabbit Society (€ 9,000 to 110 gene banks). As for crops, grassland/pasture species and their wild relatives are generally conserved in-situ through the protection and management of meadows and pasture land. In-situ conservation of tree species consists of the Swedish Forest Agency\'s clonal archives of presumably autochthonous material of oak, spruce and pine and also one archive for Ulmus glabra. The Swedish Forest Research Institute uses Multiple Population Breeding System (MPBS) as to maintain sufficient levels of genetic variation.      NordGen – the Nordic Genetic Resource Center – is a Nordic organization dedicated to the safeguarding and sustainable use of plants, farm animals and forests. The Nordic countries have been co-operating for more than 30 years on conservation of genetic resources. NordGen was established in January 2008 as a result of a merger between the Nordic Gene Bank, the Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals and the Nordic Council for Forest Reproductive Material. NordGen is mainly financed by the Nordic Council of Ministers.* Several of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives deal with conservation of genetic variation. For example, the objective \"A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life\" states that \"nationwide distribution of animal and plant species within their natural ranges will ensure sufficient genetic variation within and between populations\", and further that \"alien species or genetically modified organisms posing a potential danger to human health or threatening to deplete biological diversity in Sweden will not be introduced\". The Swedish Environmental Quality Objective \"A Varied Agricultural Landscape\" has the interim target \"Plant genetic resources and indigenous breeds\" dealing with development of a national programme for plant genetic resources, as well as long-term conservation of indigenous breeds of domestic animals.**There are about four commonly used native and alien tree species in forestry, and approximately additionally six that are moderately used.  ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Environmental Objectives Portalhttp://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/ Action plan for genetic resources for domestic animals: www.sjv.se/download/18.b1bed21121e26684180006145/rapport+070511 (in Swedish)Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants, POM: www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/SJV/trycksaker/Pdf_rapporter/ra08_32.pdf  (English summary)Swedish Forest Agency, genetic resources: www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11530  Swedish Forest Research Institute:www.skogforsk.se NordGen: www.nordgen.org/index.php/en/content/view/full/2,www.nordgen.org/ngdoc/nordgen/NAR.pdf ','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 Sweden approved 12 applications in this regard, amounting to € 0.79 million of EAFRD funding and to € 0.99 million of total expenditure, representing respectively 0.041 and 0.042 per cent of actual agri-environment payments from 2007 to 2008. ','Axis 2 payments for genetic conservation measures should include payments for local breeds.','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments provided under A2.1.1','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to reporting by the Member State, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. Biodiversity surveys and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are not applied in connection with individual afforestation or deforestation operations. However, regeneration felling on sites larger than half a hectare must be notified to the Swedish Forest Agency at least six weeks in advance. The notification must include information for example on area to be felled, regeneration methods to be used, copy of a forest map, a description of the intended conservation measures, and measures to protect the cultural heritage. Notification must also be given if the land is to be used for purposes other than timber production, i.e. if forest fuel is to be removed, if foreign tree species are planned be used, or in the event of protective ditching. The notification process offers the Forest Agency an opportunity to provide advice, information and also to reassure that the operations are done according to the current guidelines. Permanent or very long term loss of forest cover only occurs as a result of urban settlements, infrastructure (such as roads, railways etc.) and industrial activities. In those cases legal provisions such as EIAs apply to control and mitigate impacts.In Swedish forest policy, production goals and environmental goals are given equal weight. Many landowners have Green Forest management plans that contain details concerning the stands production and environmental values. Four different goal classes are used to describe where timber production dominates or when an environmental goal dominates. The establishment of a Green Management Plan may entail inventories of biodiversity.Strategic Environmental Assessment is needed for measures that may imply more general impact, such as when new methods are developed or forestry legislation or policy is altered. One example is new methods for stump-harvest, where the knowledge of environmental aspects are limited. Based on the Forestry Act – Section 32, the Forest Agency decided that the seven forest companies interested in stump-harvest had to perform an environmental assessment, which was conducted by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (see weblink).','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Swedish Forest Agency, University of Agricultural Sciences Weblink: www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11310 www.nlfak.slu.se/ShowPage.cfm?OrgenhetSida_ID=11604','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to official sources, in 2009 Sweden had a total certified forest area of 17.24 million hectares out of a total forest area of 27.53 million hectares. 9.74 million hectares were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) while the remainder was certified by the the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC) system under which 7.51 million hectares were certified. In total, 62.64 per cent of the forest area in Sweden was certified.','','Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available. ','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_selfhttp://register.pefc.cz/statistics.aspwww.pefc.se ','16/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in Sweden amounted to 1.14 million ha, representing a share of 23.9 per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. ','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.According to reporting by the Member State, the HNV-farmland indicator used in the Swedish Rural Development Programme (RDP) includes all semi-natural pastures and mown meadows, and all agriculture land in municipalities with less than five percent open land. The latter is included since all cultivated land is considered to be of importance if Sweden is to retain farmland biodiversity in areas mainly dominated by forest. According to the RDP, HNV-farmland covers about 850,000 hectares, which is approximately 27 per cent of the agriculture land in Sweden in 2008.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland','09/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_4','','According to the Member State, Sweden has implemented all compulsory Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures listed in Annex III of Council Regulation No. 73/2009, including:• Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.• Protection of permanent pasture.• Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins. Other GAEC measure include the optional standard about minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes.',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdf ','09/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. These include the provision of individual advice, environmental courses and information material for landowners, farmers and farm workers by national and regional authorities. ','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: No link','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_8','','Monitoring schemes have been put in place for the following mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact indicators: Population trends of farmland birds (regional and national level).HNV farming (regional and national level).HNV forestry (national level).Tree species composition (national level).An additional programme-specific biodiversity indicator has also been drawn relating to the area of organic farming. Furthermore, a number of indicators relating to biodiversity are used to assess the Environmental Quality Objective for \"A Varied Agricultural Landscape\", (e.g. area of pasture and area of meadows).Sweden has a variety of inventories and monitoring systems for these purposes, as described below. The National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) is a nation-wide environmental protection programme that monitors the conditions and changes in the Swedish landscape and how these changes influence biodiversity. The programme started in 2003 and is the first Swedish inventory programme that includes all types of terrestrial environments. Agricultural land as well as forests, wetlands, shores, alpine and populated environments are included. An important aim is to provide information to assess the achievement of Sweden’s national environmental objectives and the condition of the Natura 2000 network.The Swedish National Inventory of Forests (RIS) is a nationwide inventory which comprises an annual sample of all forests and soils in Sweden. The inventory provides an image of current status and changes in Swedish forests, regarding both forest production as well as environmental conditions. RIS comprises the National Forest Inventory (NFI) and the Swedish Forest Soil Inventory (MI). Information from the inventory is used for developing and evaluating environmental and forestry policies. In addition, forestry companies, organizations within the sector, and scientists use the information.Sweden is monitoring the area of semi-natural pastures and mown meadows on a regular basis. This is done on both national and regional level. These habitats constitute about half of Sweden’s HNV-farmland area (450,000 out of approximately 850,000 hectares; see comment to Action 2.1.3). For the rest of the HNV-farmland area there is no ongoing monitoring. In addition to the quantitative aspects, there is also a national monitoring scheme focusing on biodiversity in the most valuable (highest biological values) of Sweden’s semi-natural pastures and mown meadows (approximately 270,000 hectares). The latter monitoring scheme is carried out as a part of the NILS study. Sweden also monitors farmland birds (FBI), another mandatory baseline and impact indicator in the RDP.','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. ','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden: http://nils.slu.se/ Swedish National Forest Inventory: www-nfi.slu.se/    Farmland Bird Index: http://www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/birdmonitoring  ','16/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 120 million € has been added to the Swedish national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, Sweden attributed € 31 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 26 per cent of total national additional programmed funding. According to the Member State, an amount 3.67 million Euro is dedicated conservation of biodiversity  through modulation according to the Swedish report, exclusive of national co-financing. ','','These figures present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the EERP taken together. Funds for broadband could only be spent under the EERP. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP could only be spent for new challenges. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal.','Reference or title: European Commission DG Agriculture, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','09/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to reporting by the Member State, national monitoring programmes on soil biodiversity have been implemented. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are herby mandatory.The environment monitoring of farmland includes land and crop inventories, which analyse soil chemical properties in some 2,000 sampling areas in ten year intervals; and the soil compaction programme, which has running measurements of soil physical properties in six different locations in Sweden. Parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are included.','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: Monitoring of agricultural land www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Menu/State-of-the-environment/Environmental-monitoring/Programme-areas/Agricultural-land/ Soil compaction sub-programme www-mv.slu.se/Vv/Datavskap/Markpackning_07.pdf (in Swedish)Land and crop inventorieswww-jordbruksmark.slu.se/AkerWebb/MgiPub/Index.jsp?PageType=3&PageID=0 ','15/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, the majority of boreal and continental fresh water habitats in Sweden have an unfavourable conservation status (75 and 86 per cent respectively). The remaining boreal and continental fresh water habitats have a favourable conservation status. In contrast, 86 per cent of the alpine fresh water habitats in Sweden have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 14 per cent is unfavourable. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data. ','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage221390059%41%0%0%            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8620075%25%0%0%U16  U20       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7160014%86%0%0%U11 U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U16   U20       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','15/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in Sweden ammonium data demonstrated a slight increase from 0.05 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.06 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.07 mg N/l in 2003. Values are clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 0.55 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.47 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 0.56 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly above weighted average of 0.45 mg N/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden, Finland and Norway only) in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater showed no clear tendency from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 0.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 0.4 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 1 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.013 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.014 mg P/l in 2005. The latter value more or less corresponded to the weighted average of 0.015 mg P/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden, Finland and Norway only) in 2005. Phosphorus concentrations figures in lakes present an upward trend, increasing from 0.014 mg P/l in 2002 to 0.015 mg P/l in 2005, with 2005 values below the weighted average of 0.0186 mg P/l for Northern Europe (incl. Sweden and Finland only).No information on oxygen demand (BOD5) was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA).Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 Sweden had a total number of 187 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 88.2 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage had increased, though the total number of all bathing waters had decreased.','Data is OK.','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','16/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, Sweden developed three out of four biological assessment methods for rivers, with the exception of phytoplankton, and all four for the assessment of rivers. In addition, all four assessment methods for transitional waters and all three for coastal waters, including phytoplankton, macro-algae and angiosperms, and benthic invertebrates were developed.According to reporting by the Member State, Sweden does not report on phytoplankton data from rivers since this quality factor is not applicable to Swedish conditions.','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, In 2009, no information on the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive was reported by Sweden under the Water Framework Directive.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation Report','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 Sweden had a total number of 1066 IPPC installations and issued 926 permits. 140 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPPC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 Sweden met its 2010 EU Emissions Ceilings Directive targets for reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide, ammonia and volatile organic compounds. Emissions were also expected to remain below these targets levels in 2010. However, nitrogen dioxide emissions were above targets levels in 2008, but had decreased compared to the previous year. Emissions are expected to be still slightly above related ceiling in 2010. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised figures of previous years, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in Sweden the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 17 and 56 per cent respectively, considering an area of 443,660 km2 and 15,865 km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 10 and 9 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 2 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 47 per cent in 2010 and 43 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 13 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, Sweden’s gross nitrogen balance was 48 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 16 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.According to reporting by the Member State, nitrogen and phosphorus balances have been calculated for agricultural land in Sweden using the soil surface gross method every second year since 2003 (including updated data for 1995, 1999 and 2001). The method of calculation is largely adjusted to the method recommended by OECD and Eurostat. ','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html www.scb.se/statistik/MI/MI1004/2007A02/MI1004_2007A02_SM_MI40SM0701.pdf ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','According to the status of common birds provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International, between the years 1990 and 2006, Sweden’s national farmland bird indicator has decreased. In 2006 the indicator was at 61.5 per cent, a 38.5 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 14 species were assessed.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census CouncilWeblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html ','17/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 85 per cent of the boreal, 63 per cent of the alpine and 70 per cent of the continental grassland habitats in Sweden have an unfavourable conservation status. Eight per cent of the boreal, 38 per cent of the alpine and 20 per cent of the continental grassland habitats have a favourable status. The remaining 8 per cent of the boreal and 10 per cent of the continental have an unknown status. The majority of boreal and continental forest habitats in Sweden have an unfavourable conservation status (87 and 92 per cent respectively). 29 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. 13 per cent of the boreal and 57 per cent of the alpine forest habitats have a favourable status. The remaining eight per cent of the continental forest habitats have an unknown status and the remaining 14 per cent of the alpine forest habitats were unreported. With regards to the heath and scrub habitats in Sweden, all of the alpine occurrences (two) have a favourable conservation status while all of the continental occurrences (two) have an unfavourable status. 50 per cent of the boreal heath and scrub land habitats have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 50 per cent has an unfavourable status. Of the peat land habitats in Sweden 13 per cent of the boreal and 14 per cent of the continental have a favourable conservation status. A far higher percentage of alpine peat land habitats have a favourable conservation status (88 per cent). 88 per cent of the boreal, 86 per cent of the continental and 13 per cent of the alpine peat land habitats have an unfavourable conservation status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2362074%19%6%0%31            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131111085%8%8%0%U10  U211       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8530063%38%0%0%U10 U25       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage10721070%20%10%0%U10   U27       Status of forest habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage2761177%17%3%3%35            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage151320087%13%0%0%U13  U210       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7240129%57%0%14%U10 U22       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage131201092%0%8%0%U11   U211       Status of heath and scrub habitatsALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage440050%50%0%0%8            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage4220050%50%0%0%U10  U22       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage202000%100%0%0%U10 U20       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage22000100%0%0%0%U10   U22       Status of peat land habitats ALL BIONumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1490061%39%0%0%23            BorealNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8710088%13%0%0%U16  U21       AlpineNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8170013%88%0%0%U10 U21       ContinentalNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage7610086%14%0%0%U12   U24       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title ','17/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from un-assessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','22/02/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under Additional clarifications, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 report for Sweden found that  of three marine habitats assessed in the Marine Atlantic region, two had ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and one had a ‘Bad’ status (33%). The assessment of marine habitats in the Marine Baltic region also found that of the three marine habitats, two had ‘Inadequate’ status (67%) and one had a ‘Bad’ status (33%).  A total of 23 coastal habitats were assessed in Sweden—13 in the Boreal biogeographic region and 10 in the Continental biogeographic region. Dune habitats were not included as coastal habitats in either region. In the Boreal region, four coastal habitats had a ‘Favourable’ status (31%), five had an ‘Inadequate’ status (38%) and the remaining four had a ‘Bad’ status (31%). In the Continental biogeographic region, two coastal habitats  had a ‘Favourable’ status, four had an ‘Inadequate’ status (40%), and four had a ‘Bad’ status (40%). Marine species were assessed in both the Marine Atlantic and Marine Baltic regions. In the Marine Atlantic region, three species—all mammals—were assessed as follows: one had a ‘Favourable’ status (33%) and two had a ‘Bad’ status (67%).  In the Marine Baltic region, four species—all mammals—were assessed as follows: all four had a ‘Bad’ status (100%). ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%267%133%00%00%3Marine BalticMarine habitats00%267%133%00%00%3BorealCoastal habitats431%538%431%00%00%13ContinentalCoastal habitats220%440%440%00%00%10Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals133%00%267%00%00%3Marine AtlanticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticTOTAL133%00%267%00%00%3Marine BalticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticMammals00%00%4100%00%00%4Marine BalticPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine BalticTOTAL00%00%4100%00%00%4The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchusCoastal habitats did not include dune habitats (the “2000”) series for Sweden. According to the Swedish interpretation, \"coastal\" dunes can exist up to 5 km from the coast and thus no longer be influenced by the sea; the assessment of coastal habitats and dunes differs as their functions differ; as do the threats to the different types of habitats where the main threat towards dunes is regrowth. ','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','17/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','25/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_1_4','','Sweden reported that, in 2009, it had 113 surveillance stations and 132 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. Sweden has 572 coastal water bodies. Approximately 10% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates as well as assessment methods for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm. Programmes of measures for the period 2009-2015 were adopted by the five Swedish River Basin District Authorities in December 2009, along with adoption of environmental quality standards and river basin management plans. Geographically, the programmes of measures include the whole country and thus all water bodies. The programmes include a vast range of measures concerning eutrophication, physical changes, pollutants etc. and are aimed at authorities who will transpose the measures to different sectors and activities.  ','','The five Swedish River Basin District Authorities have recently submitted information concerning the programmes of measures, river basin management plans and environmental quality standards to the Swedish EPA, and will soon be reported to the European Commission through ReportNet.','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_2_en.pdfProgrammes of measures (“åtgärdsprogram”) for the period 2009-2015 (in Swedish only) from the respective River Basin District Authorities websites: www.vattenmyndigheten.se/NR/rdonlyres/1C850716-E02C-4F65-AC44-F246A47FC6A2/163150/atgardsprogram_100126_BVD.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/NR/rdonlyres/82B658FA-C77C-47EC-937B-8805A0B1BD36/0/ÅP_BH_20092015.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheten.se/NR/rdonlyres/8B036D16-5E91-4196-8538-2F796EA33D63/0/Atgardsprogram.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheterna.se/NR/rdonlyres/7C1CFA52-63E1-467B-A0BB-454AC4B485E4/162887/AP_SO_webb.pdf, www.vattenmyndigheten.se/NR/rdonlyres/D21FE02A-11AA-4A04-B368-BE4B489F507F/0/ÅP_VH_webb.pdf','09/02/2010','','','13/01/10','05/04/10'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_1_5','','No national plan/strategy exists for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). Coastal governance is very centralized, resulting in limited room for regional and local initiatives which goes beyond the national regulation. The existing \"Planning and Building Act\" governs all activities in coastal areas, and is the cornerstone for spatial planning processes. Rather strict and rigid central planning are implemented through this Act and limit local initiatives to develop economic activities in coastal areas.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:Evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe, National Reporting http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/evaluation/iczm_national_reporting_sweden.htm','09/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_2','','There are 252 coastal bathing areas in Sweden and 97.7% of these were in compliance with the mandatory water quality standards in 2008. This is a slight increase compared to the two previous years. The compliance rate with the more stringent guide values increased strongly, from 63.1% in 2007 to 83.3% in 2008. The relatively low compliance in 2007 can be explained by the fact that the summer of 2007 was exceptionally rainy for several areas which affected water quality. In terms of nutrient concentrations the majority of sampling sites in the Baltic Sea of the Swedish coast have shown no recorded change in nitrogen concentrations, but a small number (4 out of 37) have shown a decrease between 1985 and 2005. Recorded concentrations in the North Sea have also not changed over the same period, although one site has recorded an increase. Phosphate concentrations also remained relatively unchanged although five sites in the Baltic Sea and one site in the North Sea recorded a decrease between 1985 and 2005. (This data is from an EEA report that was compiled to proved comparable indicators between member states. Further information on the methodology and underlying data can be found here: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132008/IAssessment1204714151163/view_content) ','','-','','01/03/2010','','26/05/2010','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_4','','Sweden’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €22,777,001 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity (individual quotas for fishing vessels has been decided by the Swedish Government),  as well as improved gear selectivity and energy efficiency. An ITQ system is also under discussion for pelagic species. Axis 2 (€21,865,922) encourages sustainable aquaculture. Axis 3 (€38,265,362) supports the protection of aquatic fauna and flora and funding is given to pilot projects, and Axis 4 (€16,399,440) promotes the protection of natural and architectural heritage and values. A bottom-up approach is used to find the best options for strategic development in the region. ','','-','Reference or title: Weblink:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/14&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from un-assessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','22/02/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 Sweden had 1,567 vessels and 5% were involved in a serious infringement (80 vessels). A total of 8 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €484 and maximum fine of €1079.','','2007 is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_5_2','','Salmon in Swedish Baltic waters were formerly managed under the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission\'s (IBSFC) Salmon Action Plan (SAP) for the years 1997-2010, but the IBSFC ceased to exist in 2007. The plan is currently being revised. In 2008, ICES provided scientific advice on the management of Baltic Sea salmon.The Swedish eel management plan was submitted to and approved by the Commission in 2009. The National management plan for eel can be found (in Swedish) at: www.fiskeriverket.se/download/18.7c5197de123343f05d280007183/%C3%85l_f%C3%B6rvaltningsplan_bilagor_beslut_20081211.pdf.For Sweden, there is not a single national fisheries plan, but a number of watercourses have ecosystem-based fisheries management plans. There is a national Fisheries Act whose objective is to promote the sustainable and responsible management of fisheries. Action Plans have been, or are in the process of being, drawn up for a number of mainly non-commercial fish species (including the wild spawning Baltic salmon as mentioned above). For more information on action plans for threatened species see Target 1.3.1.According to the Swedish Environmental Quality Objective \"Flourishing Lakes and Streams\" at least 25 per cent of valuable and potentially valuable rivers and streams will have been restored by 2010. About 700 watercourses that have nature conservation values and/or are valuable for fish and fishing, are judged to be in need for restoration, which means that 150-200 rivers and streams should be restored by 2010. Restoration work is ongoing in all parts of Sweden. Measures include restoration of habitats as well as removal of migratory barriers. Fishing of eel is prohibited, except for certain coastal fisheries. Stocking of eel and reared salmon is conducted. However, the Swedish National Board of Fisheries\' strategy stresses that habitat improvement to enhance the natural reproduction should be considered the first-hand alternative to stocking.','','',': www.miljomal.nu/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/ ','22/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_5_3','','Sweden’s fishing capacity has been reduced in terms of number of vessels and tonnage but fishing power reduced to a lesser degree. The number of fishing vessels declined from 2,073 in 1999 to 1,474 in 2008 (29% reduction) while tonnage decreased from 50,431 to 41,784 tons (17% reduction) and fishing power declined from 236,296 to 218,197kW (8% reduction). These are clear indications of overcapacity in some fish stocks and capacity reductions of up to 50% for the demersal segment and 30% for the pelagic segment are foreseen over the period 2007-2013.This is with the aim of improving production and economic performance of the sector. ','','2008 data: 1474 vessels; 41784 tons; 208197 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_2008_902_2_en.pdf','22/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 Sweden had 1,567 active vessels. There were 14 type D breaches in this year and 2 penalties imposed with an average fine of €500. There have also been activities to help reduce by-catch, for example a bilateral agreement was reached with Denmark in 2009 to close core spawning areas to all fisheries for the Kattegat cod permanently, as well as temporarily closure of a buffer zone around core areas, to avoid direct as well as unwanted by-catch of cod. In 2006 a closure to all fisheries was established around the national park Gotska Sandön in the central Baltic Sea. The closure will protect biodiversity and the integrity of the benthos.','','2007 data is not currently available. ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdfNB. New report should be available in November 2009 with 2007 data. Please check before completing','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Swedish Waterfowl Count has undertaken regular midwinter counts of waterfowl in Sweden since 1967, as a part of the International Waterfowl Counts (IWC). The Swedish Waterfowl Count covers adequate samples of both coastal and inland sites.No specific monitoring programme for sharks exists. However, sharks are monitored within the general sea-sampling programme in order to estimate discards and by-catches (see further details in additional clarifications). Monitoring is conducted in the Kattegat (since 1996) and the Skagerrak (since 1999).','','Monitoring of by-catches of sharks as well as other species is conducted within the yearly Swedish National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data. The collection is carried out in accordance with EC 1639/2001 (2002-2004), EC 1581/2004 (2005-2008) and 2008/949/EC (2009-2013). The monitoring is carried out by scientific observers onboard commercial vessels. All species (retained or discarded) are recorded.','Reference or title: Nilsson, L. 2008. Changes in numbers and distribution of wintering waterfowl in Sweden during forty years, 1967 - 2006. Ornis Svecica 18:135-226. Weblink: Swedish Waterfowl Count www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/waterfowl/index.htm','15/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','','','09/02/2010','','','28/4/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','Sweden has 210 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.There have been some modifications required to fisheries management measures in relation to marine 2000 sites outside of territorial waters. For example, a bilateral agreement to close core spawning areas for cod in Kattegat was reached with Denmark in 2009, and partly affects the Natura 2000 site Lilla Middelgrund. Notifications were made to the European Commission by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and subsequently by the Swedish Board of Fisheries, that the bilateral agreement with Denmark would be implemented through corresponding national legislation.In addition nine marine Natural 2000 sites within Sweden’s territorial waters have required changes to fishing regulations. This has mainly been the result of marine nature reserves or National Parks in addition to the Natura 2000 designation. In four areas, protection from fishing is regulated by the Environmental Code. In the remaining five, management measures have been additionally defined by regulations under the Fisheries Act. Measures and are site specific. Trawling is regulated in all areas but still allowed in two. In three areas fishing is closed within core areas. The Swedish Board of Fisheries, Swedish EPA and County Administrative Boards are currently evaluating the need for further protective measures in coastal Natura 2000 sites.','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below: Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 263Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 6Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. ','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','22/02/2010','','','13/01/10','28/4/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective3','A3_7_1','','Sweden has established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008. The annual surveys of the Swedish Fisheries Board will realise the data requirements for indicators 1-4 in Appendix XIII. The spatial and temporal coverage of data collection for the evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector will consist of Area IIIa (Skagerrak and Kattegat) in the first and third quarters and area IIId (Baltic Sea) in the first and fourth quarters 2009 and 2010. The data collection carried out by the research vessel ARGOS will be fishery independent using standard gear, thereby fulfilling the required precision level. The Research and Development Department of the National Board of Fisheries has full access to VMS data from all Swedish vessels in all waters. Positions are reported once every hour for boats 15m or longer. Data from VMS can be aggregated at metier level 6 for environmental indicators 4, 5 and 6 and processed accordingly.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture.',' Swedish National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data 2009-2010: https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=1841&folderId=94846&name=DLFE-15014.pdf ;Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','22/02/2010','','','',''),
	('Sweden','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic index for Swedish EEZ waters in 2004 was 3.30. This represents a decrease of 0.03 since 1999 and an overall decrease of 0.31 since 1984. In the background paper on interpreting the Marine Trophic Index (Pauly and Watson, 2005), it indicates that a multispecies fishery can safely be assumed to be unsustainable if the mean Trophic Level of the species it exploits keep going down.','','From Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially overaggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.The species list used to calculate MTI for Sweden is in many parts not relevant. For example cod (Gadus morhua), which is one of the main predators, is missing, and several other species in the list are not (normally) present in Swedish waters. It is not possible to judge the significance this discrepancy has had on the result.','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015 ','01/03/2010','','','10/12/2009','12/03/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective4','A4_3','','The Swedish Environmental Code and the Planning and Building Act holds requirements concerning the use of land and water areas and on the development and preservation of the built environment, which shall be applied in spatial planning. Although the phrase \"ecological networks\" is not used, planning shall promote a purposeful structure and an aesthetically pleasing design of built-up areas, green belts, routes of communication and other constructions. Planning shall take due regard to natural and cultural values, and aim e.g. at promoting good environmental conditions and a long-lasting and effective management of land and water areas.The Environmental Quality Objective \"A Good Built Environment\" states e.g. that areas of unspoiled nature and green spaces close to built-up areas needs to be protected, and that biodiversity will be preserved and enhanced.  According to an interim target of this Environmental Quality Objective, by 2010 land use and community planning will be based on programmes and strategies for e.g. preserving, maintaining and enhancing green spaces and water bodies in urban and suburban areas for nature conservation, cultural and recreational purposes. Monitoring of progress of the interim target is conducted yearly. Spatial planning is the responsibility of municipalities, and environmental considerations can be said to be monitored by the County Administrative Boards through mandatory consultation. Municipal comprehensive plans and detailed development plans can be appealed to the County Administrative Board and further to the Government, which makes its decision efter interministerial coordination. Although legislation is in place, the ecological coherence is far from satisfactory and measures to improve ecological networks are still needed on land and in the aquatic environment.','','','National Board of Housing, Building and Planning; 2006; \"Legislation – The Planning and Building Act, The Act on Technical Requirments for Construction works, The Environmental Code with ordinances of relevance – Current wording June 1st 2004\".  http://www.boverket.se/Global/Webbokhandel/Dokument/2005/Legislation.pdf Environmental Objectives Portal, weblink: http://www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/15-A-Good-Built-Environment/','15/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism have not been formally implemented in Sweden.Municipalities are generally responsible for planning of tourism development. Moreover, tour operators that fulfill the Swedish Ecotourism Society\'s ecotourism principles can get certified as \"Nature’s Best\". ','','','','16/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Swedish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 15.9 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56, as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). However, only spending on the categories 55 and 56 are foreseen by the Swedish Structural Funds programme.','Sweden agrees with the data, however it also express concerns as it is difficult to verify the conclusion that Swedish direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased in the period 2007-2008, especially since data is not available for 2006.','No data available for 2006 (previous programming period). Detailed annual breakdown spending for biodiversity could not be identified for 2007-2008. Therefore the amount (in EUR) shown refers to the total biodiversity allocation under the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013 (categories 51, 55 and 56 as defined in annex II in Commission Regulation 1828/2006). These categories are assumed to strictly follow the total yearly allocations of the Cohesion Policy.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','09/02/2010','','','04/01/2010','25/04/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','There is no general legislation in Sweden on invasive alien species (IAS) but there are various specific laws and regulations from other sectors that may deal with IAS. The key provisions  include: The Environmental Code of which Section 8 deals with the protection of animal and plant species; Hunting Law and Ordinance on Hunting (1987:905) of which Section 41 prohibits the introduction of mammals and birds into the wild without prior authorisation from the Environmental Protection Agency; The Act on the Import of Living Animals (SFS 1994:1830) regulates for the entry and spread of animals in order to prevent the introduction/transplantation of animal diseases that would adversely affect indigenous fauna; The Ordinance on Fishing, Aquaculture and Fishing Industry (SFS 1994:1716) prohibits the stocking and introduction of fish into the wild without prior authorisation from the country administrative board; The Forestry Law (SFS 1979:429) and the ordinance on forest care (SFS 1993:106) regulates the introduction and cultivation of alien tree species; Law on Plant Protection (SFS 1995:681), Ordinance on Plant Protection and Measures Against the Spread of Plant Pests (SFS 1995:94) regulating the control and limiting the spread of plant pests that can have serious adverse effects on plant cultures, forests, other land or plants; and The Swedish Chemical Inspections regulations on chemical products and biotechnical organisms (KIFS 2004:4) regulates the introduction of species as biological control agents.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, Swedish CBD Clearing House MechanismsWeblink: http://www.biodiv.se/eng/intr-art/lagar.htm ','22/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','According to the EEA, of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 44 are present in Sweden which equates to between 0.10 and 0.25 species per 1000km2 (as last updated 30 June 2009) According to the updated information provided by the Member State, the total number and range of worst invasive alien species has since increased to 68, due to improvements in knowledge and new introductions. ','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEA, NOBANISWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity www.nobanis.org ','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_1_2','','A national strategy and action plan for IAS has been submitted to the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture in December 2008, but has of February 2010 not yet been adopted.According to the Member State, Invasive alien species (IAS) are dealt with comprehensively by the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives (EQO), which have been adopted by the Riksdag (parliament) and govern Sweden’s environmental policy. The EQO “A Rich Diversity of Plant and Animal Life” in particular deals with IAS and states that “alien species or genetically modified organisms posing a potential danger to human health or threatening to deplete biological diversity in Sweden will not be introduced”. In addition, the corresponding aim concerning IAS is valid for six other EQOs addressing specific types of nature - and the associated biodiversity – i.e. wetlands, forests, lakes and streams, the agricultural landscape, mountain areas, and the marine environment. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no linkEnvironmental Objectives Portalwww.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal.','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_1_3','','According to reporting by the Member State, Sweden ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation (23 November 2009). ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','09/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to reporting by the Member State, several elements related to early warning are under development as part of the Swedish National Strategy and Action Plan for Alien Species and Genotypes. In addition, an inventory/database of alien species is place. ','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: MS questionnaire, Naturvårdsverket. 2009. Nationell strategi och handlingsplan för främmande arter och genotyper (National Strategy and Action Plan för Alien Species and Genotypes), Naturvårdsverket rapport 5910 (comprehensive English summary)Weblink: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-5910-1.pdf ','09/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective5','A5_2_2','','According to reporting by the Member State, Regulations on precautionary measures for the cultivation of GM crops (SJVFS 2008:34) are established in Sweden through the Administrative provision of the Swedish Board of Agriculture, issued on 26th of June 2008. There are no actual bans on GMO cultivation at neither national nor regional level. However, the use of GMOs in Sweden has so far been restricted to field trials and contained use. Chapter 13 of the Swedish Environmental Code regulates the use of GMO, and is supplemented by a number of ordinances and regulations such as the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Ordinance (SFS 2002:1086) and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Ordinance (SFS 2000:271). The Swedish legislation is based on EC Directive 2009/41/EG on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, and EC Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. ','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htm www.gmo.nu/gmoenglish.4.778a5d1001f29869a7fff935.html','15/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in April 2009. Sweden has not adopted a single National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; biodiversity is incorporated into a system of environmental objectives and targets that Government has adopted. The system is assessed every four years.Sweden had paid her annual contribution to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention. As for the CBD, Sweden contributed SEK 1 million to a meeting about IPBES in 2009; and in 2008 Sweden contributed SEK 0.75 million to IPBES, SEK 1.75 million to the Working Group on ABS, and SEK 0.6 million to the technical meeting of the Expert group on traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in Hyderabad which was held in 2009. In previous years, Sweden has also supported participation of delegates from developing countries with SEK 0.5-1 million yearly.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refers to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/Environmental Quality Objectives: www.miljomal.se/Environmental-Objectives-Portal/ ','22/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, Sweden spent EUR0.24m in 2006 and EUR0.07m in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid; both figures amount to nearly 0.00% of the respective total multilateral annual aid budget.  However, Sweden has pointed out that the figures from the Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++) have found the figures from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System to be incorrect. The figures do not include bilateral aid canalized through multilateral organisations. The correct figures are: 2006 - SEK 0 million; 2007 - SEK 241 million; 2008 - SEK 252 million. Using the exchange rate for the 1st of July each year the result is 26 million Euro for 2007 and 27 million Euro for 2008. Data is not available for 2006. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. ','Reference or title: Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++); OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','05/03/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, Sweden spent EUR12.3m in 2006 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.007% of the total annual bilateral aid budget. 2008 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid. However, Sweden has pointed out that the figures from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System for Sweden have been found to be incorrect. These figures grossly underestimate relevance for biodiversity in the bilateral aid. The statistics have a serious deviation in that the majority of biodiversity-relevant programmes have not been tagged with the Rio Marker and hence do not show in the statistics. This is a general problem and means in effect that there are no complete statistics on biodiversity funding. Thus, the percentage of total bilateral aid budget would be misleading. The correct figures from the Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++) are: Sweden spent EUR10.6m in 2006, EUR9.1m in 2007 and EUR10.5m in 2008 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. ','Reference or title: Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) data of the Creditor Reporting System (the CRS++); OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','09/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective7','A7_1_4','','Sweden contributed EUR84 million to the 3rd replenishment which is 3.44 % of the total replenishment. Sweden contributed EUR92 million to the 4th replenishment which is 4.88 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF website and national information.Weblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','09/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective7','A7_2_2','','Undertaking an environment assessment is mandatory during preparation of Swedish International Development Agency\'s (Sida) contributions. When required a full-scale EIA/SEA will be undertaken.','','','','09/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective8','A8_1','','Sweden has provided funding for the CBD Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing. Sweden does not have national legislation implementing the Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing but awareness of the Guidelines has been raised. National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development, and awareness of the Agreement has been raised. The national consumption of wood products is to 100% derived from sustainable sources. A low number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with no application denied; many items were seized. There is no information on national capacity development or on support to developing countries for implementing CITES. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Legislation implementing theCBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing does not exist. However, to raise awareness information material was published in 2007 in cooperation with other Nordic Countries. ','','',' www.norden.org/sv/publikationer/publikationer/2007-739/at_download/publicationfile','22/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','In 2008, Sweden provided EUR180,190  for the meetings of the ABS Working Group.','','The exchange rate for the 2008 contribution is that of 30 June 2008.','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','22/02/2010','','','08/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','National legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources is under development. Information has been disseminated through the national Programme for Diversity of Cultivated Plants (POM) and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center (NordGen), see A.2.1.11.','','','','22/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('Sweden','Objective8','A8_1_4','',' At least 90 % of national consumption of wood products comes from sustainable sources, as all forestry production in Sweden is considered sustainable. Approximately 10 million m3 wood products are imported yearly, which corresponds roughly to 10% of the total consumption. However, statistics are not available concerning which proportion of imported wood products is derived from sustainable sources.','','In Swedish forest policy, production goals and environmental goals are given equal weight. The Swedish model for sustainable forestry assumes a mix of management directions on different areas in the range from no operations in the forests to intensive management for high timber production. The desired mix of areas managed with different objectives may vary over time as new knowledge on sustainability emerges. Also the management methods for different objectives evolve. In this setting, pointing out specific areas as not being sustainably managed is pointless. Currently, Swedish forestry policy aims at a change in the mix of management objectives towards increasing the area managed mainly for the conservation of biodiversity.','Swedish Forest Agency www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11518','16/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import and combined export and re-export documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 666 and 259, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 is 7, 5 and 1, respectively. Regarding the number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens, they were 1553 in 2007 and 574 in 2008, representing a decrease of 979. As to capacity-building at the national level and financial contributions to developing countries the information was not available. Sweden paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','','','','',''),
	('Sweden','Objective9','','','Sweden has no national strategy or action plan that adresses biodiversity adaptation to climate change. This issue is briefly addressed in government bill 2008/09:162 on climate and energy, which concludes that investigation is needed regarding measures to monitor and minimize negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Further, biodiversity adaption is adressed in the in-depth evaluation of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives, although no comprehensive strategy or action plan addressing this issue exists. ','','','The Environmental Objectives Council, 2008, Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose,  Report of the in-depth evaluation: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-1266-3.pdf ','16/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_3_2','','A National Renewable Action Plan is in development in Sweden, as well as legislation oncerning sustainability criteria biofuels and bioliquids. Requirements regarding consideration for biodiversity in biomass production for energy purposes is incorporated in e.g. the Environmental Code, Forestry Act and legislation concerning agriculture.A NREAP according to the Commission\'s model is in development by the Swedish Energy Agency. However, government bill 2008/09:163 includes an action plan for renewable energy and some decisions have already been processed by the parliament, e.g. targets for the electricity certificate system and national obejctives on 50 % renewable energy.','','','General provisions that apply to biomass energy production among other activities are included in e.g. the Environmental Code:www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/28/47/385ef12a.pdfthe Forestry Act:www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=12677 and regulations concerning environmental consideration in agriculture:www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/Forfattningar/1999/1999-119.pdf www.jordbruksverket.se/webdav/files/Forfattningar/2004/2004-062.pdf','09/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_4_1','','Sweden has no national strategy or action plan that adresses biodiversity adaptation to climate change. This issue is briefly addressed in government bill 2008/09:162 on climate and energy, which concludes that investigation is needed regarding measures to monitor and minimize negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Further, biodiversity adaption is adressed in the in-depth evaluation of the Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives, although no comprehensive strategy or action plan addressing this issue exists. ',NULL,NULL,'The Environmental Objectives Council, 2008, Sweden’s Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose,  Report of the in-depth evaluation: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/978-91-620-1266-3.pdf ','16/02/2010',NULL,NULL,'25/04/2010',NULL),
	('Sweden','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Scientific studies to support assessments of species and habitats at risk in Sweden have been and are being undertaken at universities and by the initiative of authorities. An example of a comprehensive synopsis available in English is: Swedish Commission onClimate and Vulnerability (2007).','','','Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability, 2007, Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities,Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2007:60http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/108/a/94595Swedish Commission onClimate and Vulnerability, 2007, Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities,Swedish Government Official Reports SOU 2007:60: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/108/a/94595); Lennartsson & Simonsson, 2009, Biologisk mångfald och klimatförändringar, Centrum för biologisk mångfald; Nordic Council of Ministers, 2009, Signs of Climate Change in Nordic Nature, TemaNord 2009:551Lennartsson & Simonsson, 2009, Biologisk mångfald och klimatförändringar, Centrum för biologisk mångfald.','16/02/2010','','','25/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','MandE','C1_2','','The UK developed its indicators in parallel / in advance of the SEBI set and has used data which provide information on national progress towards meeting the 2010 target.  The indicators are closely aligned, but where the UK has better information available at a national level we have capitalised on that. The European Environment Agency has details of which SEBI indicators contain UK data. See also the review undertaken by the EEA in advance of the EIONET meeting in October 2009 for a correspondence between country indicators and the SEBI indicators.  ','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the publication UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009, augmented by information provided by the UK. The indicators were updated on the website in 2008 and both web and hard copy update is in progress for publication in late May 2010. Note that information on individual national indicators is requested under the next Measure of Progress.','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009Weblink: www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','MandE','C1_2_1','','The UK developed its indicators in parallel / in advance of the SEBI set and has used data which provide information on national progress towards meeting the 2010 target.  The indicators are closely aligned, but where the UK has better information available at a national level we have capitalised on that.','','The information presented here is based on the results of the survey on SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators undertaken by the European Environment Agency in 2009 and the publication UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009, augmented by information provided by the UK. The European Environment Agency has details of which SEBI indicators contain UK data. See also the review undertaken by the EEA in advance of the EIONET meeting in October 2009 for a correspondence between country indicators and the SEBI indicators. ','Reference or title: EEA survey SEBI 2010 and National Biodiversity Indicators, 2009; UK Biodiversity Indicators in Your Pocket 2009Weblink: www.jncc.gov.uk/biyp ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','MandE','C1_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','MandE','C1_3_1','','A database allowing users to search the results from the UK surveillance and monitoring schemes is available in the Schemes and results section of the JNCC website. A summary of the results for each taxonomic group is also provided.  Further analysis of the results can be found under Analysis and trends.','','','http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3713  ','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure1','B1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Measure1','B1_1_1','','Since 2000/01 there has been a year-on-year increase in biodiversity expenditure from the public sector in real terms, resulting in an overall increase of 112%. The increases in public sector expenditure in the UK should be considered in the context of the need to increase funding, in tandem with the appropriate policy and legislative measures, to a level sufficient to meet biodiversity targets. The environmental protection expenditure account (EPEA) is a formal framework for the collection and compilation of data on environmental protection expenditure that is closely linked to the National Accounts. It is part of the wider conceptual structure for a harmonised monetary description of environmental protection activities developed by Eurostat in the early 1990s, known as the European System for the Collection of Economic Information on the Environment (SERIEE). The accounts cover all spending on environmental protection, including spending on biodiversity, which is within the domain of spending on biodiversity and landscape.  Within LIFE projects, from 2004 – 2008, the UK spent up to EUR4,386,604 per year on management for Natura 2000 sites. The UK spent up to EUR2,723,233 per year on restoration for Natura 2000 sites. ','','The information on national programmes is taken from the UK’s 4th national report to the CBD. The information on expenditure for Natura 2000 refers to the UK’s contribution to LIFE and LIFE+ Nature projects that started in the year as indicated. The allocation to management, restoration and ‘other’ is not always straightforward. Where a project was submitted by two or more countries, the national contribution was equally divided between the Member States.','Reference or title: LIFE project databaseWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm ','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Measure1','B1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Measure1','B1_1_4','','The UK’s allocation for category 51 (promotion of biodiversity and nature protection) for 2007-2013 is EUR0.07m, for category 55 (protection of natural assets) EUR29m and for category 56 (protection and development of natural heritage) EUR60m.','','The amount (in EUR) shown for 2007 refers to the allocation for the Cohesion and Structural Funds period 2007-2013. Note that the UK is unable to sign off this Measure of Progress without sight of data.','Reference or title: Data on Cohesion and Structural Funds provided by the CommissionWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=Title','Unable to sign off without sight of data','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Measure1','B1_1_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Measure1','B1_1_8','','The most recent assessment of direct spend on environmental research and training was published in 2007 (ERFF, 2007). This assessment was based on expenditure in the financial year April 2004 to March 2005 (04/05). This found that the total amount spent on Biodiversity Research by UK public bodies in 2004/05 was £33 million, out of a total expenditure on environmental research of £284 million.The expenditure was calculated by entering all publically-funded research projects into a central database and assigning a primary purpose to each project. Therefore, £33 million was the expenditure on publically-funded research projects which had biodiversity as their sole or primary purpose.  The amount for 2006 is given as approximately £33 million on the assumption that it would have been similar to the amount found in 04/05. The largest contributors are as follows (in order, largest contribution first): Natural Environment Research Council (c. £14 million), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (c £11 million),  Scottish Government (c. £3 million), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Agency (c. £2 million) and the Department for International Development (c £1 million).The expenditure from NERC and Defra, the two largest contributors has risen since the report was published. NERC expenditure on biodiversity research is given in their 08/09 NERC Annual Report http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/annualreport/2009/annualreport.pdf.•	2007/2008 - £20,665,000•	2008/2009 - £24,165,000Defra expenditure on terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity research, agri-environment research and Kew (Royal Botanic Garden) sponsorship has also risen over this period. Therefore, although it is not possible to give exact figures for more recent years, we can be confident that expenditure on biodiversity research in the UK is greater than £33 million (c. 36.5 million euros).','','The ERFF database has been updated since 2007 but the projects have not been categorised by primary purpose. It is therefore not possible at this time to provide an detailed update to the figures.','Reference or title:Weblink:Environmental Research Funders Forum (ERFF). 2007. Strategic Analysis of UK Environmental Research Activity.Weblink: www.erff.org.uk','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure2','B2_4','','The UK BAP Partnership published in October 2007 a new strategic framework for the Plan which reflects the changing context brought about by devolution, climate change, the EU 2010 target and the findings in 2005 of the Millennium Ecosystem Approach.  Entitled “Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach”, it sets out a vision and shared purpose for tackling the loss and restoration of biodiversity, the guiding principles that will be followed, the priorities for action in the UK and internationally, and indicators to monitor progress.The priorities for action are: •	protecting the best sites for wildlife;•	targeting action on priority species and habitats;•	embedding proper consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all relevant sectors of policy and decision making;•	engaging people and encouraging behaviour change;•	developing and interpreting the evidence base;•	ensuring the UK plays a proactive role in influencing the development of multilateral environmental agreements and contributes fully to their domestic delivery.','','','Reference or title:Weblink:http://defraweb/environment/biodiversity/documents/conbiouk-102007.pdf','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','','','The UK Biodiversity Action Plan has, as one of its six priorities, embedding proper consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all relevant sectors of policy and decision-making.  In England, the England Biodiversity Strategy’s Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group is the platform for taking forward this priority in the business sector.  Its vision is that businesses automatically engage in the management of and reporting on biodiversity as an integral part of its operations and processes.  The group comprises of representatives from government, business, and NGOs.  It has a series of key deliverables and indicators to measure success, such as the target for 95% of sites of special scientific interest in business ownership to be in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. The group has also commissioned research and run a stakeholder workshop to identify the tools and methodologies available to business to manage its impacts on biodiversity.  The final report of this work will be available early 2010.A number of partnerships have been set up in England, for example:The Nature after Minerals (NAM) partnership has been set up between Natural England (NE), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (the 2 funding bodies) and the Minerals Producers Association (MPA), the umbrella organisation for the quarrying and cement industries.  The aim of the partnership is to facilitate biodiversity restoration on minerals sites, as the aggregate is extracted. The project will shortly appoint two technical advisers to work alongside the industry on specific restoration projects, and a national planning adviser who will help minerals planning authorities to integrate biodiversity restoration into industry planning applications. The partnership has  regular meetings, and the project was recently the subject of a Ministerial launch/reception attended by industry and biodiversity representatives at the House of Commons, hosted by Joan Ruddock MP, the then Minister for the Environment.At a regional level, Natural England and the North West Development Agency worked in partnership to set up “Natural Economy Northwest (NENW)” which sought to maximise the economic benefits of investment in the natural environment. The Natural Economy Northwest is involved in several further partnerships to take its work forward.   For example, ENWORKS (part of the Government’s Business Link) trains existing environmental management business advisers to advise businesses on the benefits to them of engaging with biodiversity. NENW works in partnership with the SITA Trust to fund conservation projects through its Enriching Nature programme.','','It is not possible to quantify the number of partnerships because many of these cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity.  The examples above are an indication of the type of partnerships that exist.','Reference or title: Nature after Minerals NAM  Weblink: http://www.afterminerals.com/index.aspx Reference or title: Natural Economy Northwest Weblink: www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk','26/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','B3_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','B3_1_2','','There are 127 local biodiversity partnerships in England. These are not specific to farming or forestry issues, but cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity in the local area. Each work on the basis of partnership to identify local priorities and to determine the contribution they can make to the delivery of the UK’s national  biodiversity objectives. They have been facilitated through the engagement of the statutory delivery body for nature conservation, national guidance, some funding arrangements and through the overarching UK partnership approach. At regional level, in England, there are nine regional partnerships (covering the nine English regions).In England, workstreams  exist as part of the England Biodiversity Strategy, which seek to help embed consideration of biodiversity into both the agriculture and the forestry sector.  These workstreams comprise representatives of government, government agencies, conservation NGOs and respectively the farming industry, landowners and forestry industry.  In addition, there are a number of initiative-specific groups, such as those which seek to conserve and enhance hedgerows and arable field margins.','','The local biodiversity partnerships are not specific to forestry or farming issues, but cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity in each area.','Reference or title:Weblink:UK Biodiversity Action Plan website, pages on local biodiversity partnerships Weblink: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=57','','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','B3_1_5','','The Ministry for Environment, Defra has taken measures to integrate biodiversity and other considerations into the development of National Policy Statements (NPS) that Government departments are preparing for major infrastructure developments in sectors such as transport, energy, water and waste. Flagship “eco-towns” are an example of sustainable design and planning. Consultations are underway across the country. Each town should develop a strategy for conserving local biodiversityA Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and a linked legal Circular (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/2005/Defra Circular 01/2005) was published by the government of England in 2005.  It states that planning policies should aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity interests. This was followed by a good practice guide to support the policy statement; including practical examples of how local authorities can plan for biodiversity. In Wales, standardised guidance on the development of local wildlife site systems has been completed.  The guidelines can be applied to a site for evaluation by various criteria including rarity, size, naturalness/typicalness and diversity as well as position in ecological unit, potential value, fragility and educational/social value. All relevant planning bodies and authorities can act according to information about the location and interest of the site.Scotland has recently developed a new planning system called the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. The changes introduced by the Act are stated to be substantial and have the overall aim of creating a more efficient process to enable sustainable economic growth. The consolidated Scottish Planning Policy includes considerations for biodiversity, replacing the National Planning Policy Guidance publication on Natural Heritage.There is also evidence of regional and local frameworks being set up for biodiversity and planning partnerships. For instance, a Biodiversity Planning Guidance Document for Norfolk was launched by the Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership in September 2004. It is aimed at developers, development control officers and planners. It is a practical tool which has been adopted by local authorities across the region in order to raise the standards of new development by encouraging companies and planners to protect existing biodiversity and looking for ways of enhancing biodiversity. The work of local and regional biodiversity partnerships feed into the preparation of local and regional planning strategies.','','','Reference or title: UK CBD 4th National ReportWeblink: https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/Reference or title Wales Biodiversity Partnership website Weblink: http://www.biodiversitywales.org.uk/content/uploads/documents/Guidance%20Legislation/WS%20Guidance%20FinalWeb%20ver_Oct%2008Web.pdfReference or title: Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice 2006.Weblinks: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps9; and http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningbiodiversityReference or title: Norfolk Biodiversity PartnershipWeblink: http://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/BSPG%20for%20Norfolk/default.asp','26/02/2010','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10'),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','B3_1_6','','The UK Biodiversity Action Plan has, as one of its six priorities, embedding proper consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in all relevant sectors of policy and decision-making.  In England, the England Biodiversity Strategy’s Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group is the platform for taking forward this priority in the business sector.  Its vision is that businesses automatically engage in the management of and reporting on biodiversity as an integral part of its operations and processes.  The group comprises of representatives from government, business, and NGOs.  It has a series of key deliverables and indicators to measure success, such as the target for 95% of sites of special scientific interest in business ownership to be in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. The group has also commissioned research and run a stakeholder workshop to identify the tools and methodologies available to business to manage its impacts on biodiversity.  The final report of this work will be available early 2010.A number of partnerships have been set up in England, for example:The Nature after Minerals (NAM) partnership has been set up between Natural England (NE), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (the 2 funding bodies) and the Minerals Producers Association (MPA), the umbrella organisation for the quarrying and cement industries.  The aim of the partnership is to facilitate biodiversity restoration on minerals sites, as the aggregate is extracted. The project will shortly appoint two technical advisers to work alongside the industry on specific restoration projects, and a national planning adviser who will help minerals planning authorities to integrate biodiversity restoration into industry planning applications. The partnership has  regular meetings, and the project was recently the subject of a Ministerial launch/reception attended by industry and biodiversity representatives at the House of Commons, hosted by Joan Ruddock MP, the then Minister for the Environment.At a regional level, Natural England and the North West Development Agency worked in partnership to set up “Natural Economy Northwest (NENW)” which sought to maximise the economic benefits of investment in the natural environment. The Natural Economy Northwest is involved in several further partnerships to take its work forward.   For example, ENWORKS (part of the Government’s Business Link) trains existing environmental management business advisers to advise businesses on the benefits to them of engaging with biodiversity. NENW works in partnership with the SITA Trust to fund conservation projects through its Enriching Nature programme.','','It is not possible to quantify the number of partnerships because many of these cover a wide range of issues affecting biodiversity.  The examples above are an indication of the type of partnerships that exist.','Reference or title: Nature after Minerals NAM  Weblink: http://www.afterminerals.com/index.aspx Reference or title: Natural Economy Northwest Weblink: www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk','26/02/2010','','','05/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','B3_1_7','','No forums or similar platform/framework have been set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity. However, representatives of the finance sector have participated in the business and biodiversity workstream that exists under the England Biodiversity Strategy.  In addition, the British Government has been looking to foster stronger relations with the sector, particularly in light of the work being done on TEEB and on biodiversity offsets.  UK government scientific advisers have also produced material on the biodiversity footprint of UK foreign direct investment.  ','','','Reference or title:','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure3','B3_1_8','','The CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines have not been applied to projects financed by public funds.','','','','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure4','B4_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Measure4','B4_1_1','','The Muck In4Life campaign aims to increase the number and diversity of citizens in England involved in conservation volunteering.  It ties in with a major health campaign Change4Life in communicating that being active in green spaces and the natural environment, through conservation volunteering, can offer physical and health benefits to those involved, especially families, who are the main focus of Change4Life, as well as biodiversity benefits. The campaign aims to engage families, including grandparents and children age 6-11, in new volunteering opportunities through a range of partners (around 30 organisations including non-governmental organisations, charities and government delivery bodies).  Muck-in-4-life relates to the EU Biodiversity Action Plan as it is a communications campaign that seeks to build public education, awareness and participation in biodiversity.  The campaign encourages citizens to get involved in biodiversity-related volunteering activities.  A wide range of national and local conservation organisations are involved as partners in the campaign and offer a range of conservation volunteering opportunities.  The government department, DEFRA has also contributed support for capacity-building so that organisations are equipped to deal with the additional volunteers.  The Muck-in-4-life website (http://muckin4life.direct.gov.uk/) provides information for the public on the conservation opportunities available and links to partner volunteering websites.Other actions include establishing a wide partnership of nearly 300 organisations to promote the importance of biodiversity to the public during the International Year of Biodiversity in 2010.','','','Reference or title: Muck In 4 Life campaign Weblink: www.direct.gov.uk/muckin4lifeReference or title: UK biodiversity indicator on volunteering  Weblink: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4253','','','','07/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Measure4','B4_1_2','','The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (8/6/2005), Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) (10/13/2008), Countryside Council for Wales (5/8/2006), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)  (3/5/2008) and Natural England (10/1/2005) all made declarations in support of the IUCN Countdown Initiative.Some of the activities proposed in support of the Initiative included the following:The JNCC communicated that it would significantly reduce the rate of global biodiversity loss through high-quality scientific input to CoPs. It also stated that it would give advice on nature conservation in the UK\'s overseas territories, focusing on priorities identified by the inter-departmental ministerial group of biodiversity and that it would develop and implement environment-related EU policies and legislation.    The CEH stated that it was committed to conducting research and long-term, large-scale monitoring to develop improved understanding of the biological processes and interactions underlying large-scale biodiversity changes. They proposed the undertaking of integrated assessments of the impact of the land-use change, including habitat degradation, on the reproductive success and dispersal of native and invasive populations to develop better conservation strategies. They also suggested the use of advanced DNA and molecular approaches to quantify the role of genetic diversity to explain how different functional types of organism respond to environmental change. By combining their data through robust statistical analysis and modelling, their aim was to will improve knowledge of how natural resource use affects biodiversity and ecosystem function. They proposed the development of reliable indicators for assessing environmental status across physical and biological scales. Overall their goal was to provide knowledge and science-based advice to support the implementation of policies including Environment Stewardship Schemes, Biodiversity Action Plans and EU Directives.From 2006 to 2008 DEFRA committed £3.8 million to a fund administered by Natural England which supported projects run by voluntary organisations that were contributing towards halting biodiversity loss in England. This fund was called the Countdown 2010 Biodiversity Action Fund and was closely branded to the IUCN initiative. During this time, 34 projects were supported covering all nine of the regions in England, and all of the projects included actions to protect or enhance priority species and habitats (UK BAP list).A further scheme was launched using Natural England’s core funding in 2008 which will run until March 2011. This scheme has awarded £5.0 million to 38 projects in England under the same scheme name (Countdown 2010 BAF). The projects are once again run by voluntary bodies and are supporting priority species and habitats across the country. The scheme is still running and there are plans to communicate the outcomes of this scheme during the International Year for Biodiversity using the IUCN initiative branding in the outputs.','','','Reference or title: IUCN 2010 Countdown Initiative Weblink: unpublishedReference or title: Natural England Countdown 2010.Weblink: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/funding/countdown2010.aspx','We will verify once changes have been incorporated.','','','11/12/2009','16/03/10');

INSERT INTO `Narrative` (`Country`,`Objective`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Narative`,`MSComments`,`Clarifcations`,`DataSource`,`MSVerrified`,`EC1Verrified`,`EC2Verrified`,`CO1Verrified`,`CO2Verrified`)
VALUES
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_1','','See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed data.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, 2 of 4 (50%) coastal habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of remaining 2 of the 4 (50%) coastal habitats and of the single rocky habitat is unknown.In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 50% or more of all habitats are reported to be in an unfavourable-bad condition. For grasslands, forests and bogs, fens and mires all habitats are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The condition of 1 of the 16 (17%) of the rocky habitats is unknown.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, all rocky habitats are in favourable condition. The condition of all coastal habitats is reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate.In the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) coastal habitats, rocky habitats and forests are reported to be in favourable condition. 1 of 2 (50%) dunes habitats are also reported to be in favourable condition, the remaining 1 of 2 (50%) are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The condition of all Mediterranean sclerophyllous scrub habitats are reported to be inadequate. ','','An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below:','Reference or title:  Article 17 reportingWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title  and http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','As of July 2009, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has designated 623 Sites of Community Importance, with a total area of 29,066 km², totalling 6.8% of the country’s terrestrial area. There are 49 sites with a marine part; the marine SCI area totals 12,409 km². The number of Special Protection Areas is 268 with a total area of 16,253 km², totalling 6.3% of the country’s terrestrial area. The number of marine SPAs is 4, with a marine area of 901 km².','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in 3.6.3 although both are from official data sources. The percentage for marine areas is not available.','Reference or title: NATURA 2000 barometer (July 2009 update)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/index_en.htm ','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','83% of Natura 2000 sites have a management plan completed, 3% of sites have a management plan in preparation and 14% of sites do not have management plan completed or in preparation. There is no obligation to produce management plans under the Habitats Directive, although this is considered good practice. The UK has established conservation measures including appropriate management plans for SACs. Management Plans integrate the legislative provisions for both European sites and the underpinning national sites to ensure that all habitats and species present are given an appropriate level of protection and management. The plans reported under this section include ‘site management statements’ and ‘views about management’, both of which are types of document used to inform owners and occupiers of sites about the nature conservation interests of designated sites and how the statutory conservation agencies consider the qualifying interests should be managed. For marine sites, detailed management plans have been established under Regulation 33 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (‘Habitats Regulations’). For the purposes of this section comprehensive management plans have also been taken to include Forestry Commission plans (including forest design plans), National Nature Reserve plans, Natural Care Schemes with stated objectives, Marine Management Schemes, Catchment Management Plans and an Atlantic Salmon Catchment Management Plan.','','Second Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on the implementation of the Directive from January 2001 to December 2006: Annex A - General reporting format for the 2001-2006 report (Atlantic Biogeographic) RegionWeblink: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/FCS2007_General_report.pdf”','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/FCS2007_General_report.pdf”','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_1_3','','','','','','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_2_3','','In development.  A research project for the development of an indicator of habitat connectivity, based on modelling functional connectivity and landscape information from Countryside Survey is approaching completion in early 2010, which could lead to further application of the methods to assess connectivity at regional and local levels for targeting of agri environmental schemes to enhance connectivity.  Further development has yet to be confirmed. Ref WC0704 at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15618. And Completed- In 2008, a review was completed of literature giving evidence of how species move through landscapes ( eg distances moved, using stepping stones or corridors), searched for empirical evidence, which identified knowledge gaps, particularly for BAP species and also gave a comprehensive glossary of terms. Which landscape features affect species movement? A systematic review in the context of climate change. REF. CR0389, 2008 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0705_7598_FRP.pdf. Northern Ireland has an ongoing programme of expansion for its network of protected areas; ensuring better geographic representation and enhanced coherence; improving representation of previously under-represented habitats and species; and using monitoring results to assist improved management.','','',':','26.2.2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_3','','Of the 265 regularly occurring bird species in the UK, 6 are globally Near-threatened and 3 are Red-listed (one of which, the Great Auk, is extinct). Note this refers to all bird species of the UK, while the conservation status for the other taxa refers only to those of Community Interest and are listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive (see under clarification)! See under Additional clarifications below for the detailed biogeographic data for non-bird taxa.In the Marine Atlantic biogeographical region, the conservation status of 6 of the 13 (46%) mammals is favourable. 8 of the 13 (8%) mammals and 2 of the 2 (100%) plants are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. The conservation status of 1 of 1 (100%) amphibians and reptiles and 6 of the 13 (46%) mammals is unknown. In the Atlantic biogeographical region, 8 of the 22 (36%) mammals and 4 of the 18 (22%) plants were reported to be in a favourable condition. The conservation status of 6 of the 12 (50%) fish and amphibians and reptiles and 8 of the 18 (44%) plants was reported to be an unfavourable-inadequate. 33% apiece, 5 of the 15 invertebrates and 2 of the 6 amphibians and reptiles, and 5 of the 18 (28%) plants are in an unfavourable-bad condition. The conservation status of 3 of the 12 (25%) fish and 9 of the 22 (41%) mammals is unknown.In the Marine Mediterranean biogeographical region, all amphibians and reptiles and all mammals are in an unfavourable-inadequate condition. Of the species in the Mediterranean biogeographical region, 1 of 1 (100%) of mammals are in an unfavourable- bad condition.','','The conservation status of birds is presented as percentage of Least Concern, Near-threatened and Red-listed at global level of the total of regularly occurring species. Note that the information for birds, from data from BirdLife International, cannot be compared with the information for other taxa: The methodology for the other taxa is different: this is based on the conservation status report (Habitats Directive Article 17); the total only includes those taxa of Community Interest and listed in the annexes to the Habitats Directive. An analysis for the biogeographical regions follows below: Biogeographical regionSpecies group Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV= FavourableU1= Unfavourable-inadequateU2= Unfavourable-badXX= unknownNA=not reported Marine Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%1100%00%1Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals646%18%00%646%00%13Plants 00%2100%00%00%00%2Atlantic Amphibians and reptiles 117%350%233%00%00%6Fish 18%650%217%325%00%12Invertebrates320%427%533%320%00%15Mammals836%314%29%941%00%22Plants 422%844%528%16%00%18Marine MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%2100%00%00%00%2Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%1100%00%00%00%1Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0MediterraneanAmphibians and reptiles 00%00%00%00%00%0Fish 00%00%00%00%00%0Invertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Mammals00%00%1100%00%00%1Plants 00%00%00%00%00%0','Reference or title:  Article 17 reporting; BirdLife International dataWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title; http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/; http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective1','A1_3_1','RedList','See http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=54 and http://www.ukbap.org.uk/species.aspx for details of the 382 species which have had an action plan written for them.  In 2007, following a significant review, a new list of 1150 species was adopted.  The UK uses trends in populations of selected species (wild birds):  breeding farmland birds, breeding woodland birds, breeding water and wetland birds, breeding seabirds and wintering water birds as indicators. See http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3408 for a downloadable spreadsheet of conservation designations for UK fauna and flora, including new priority listing after a recent review.  Not all species now identified as a priority have an action plan. The UK has red data lists for birds, invertebrates and plants.','','',' http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3408','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective10','A10_1','','There are three main sources of publically-funded biodiversity research in the UK (ERFF 2007):1.	Research in universities and other institutions primarily  administered by the research councils;2.	Research budgets of Government Departments; and3.	Research budgets of Government Agencies.The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is the UK research council with principal responsibility for biodiversity research. NERC has a series of themed programmes addressing biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation.  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the UK Government Department with principal responsibility for biodiversity policy and research. It has a dedicated biodiversity research programme as well as agricultural and marine environment research programmes with significant biodiversity components. The Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and Government agencies in Northern Ireland have separate biodiversity research programmes.There are a number of other Government Agencies where biodiversity is the principal or significant component of their research programmes. Finally, the UK Government supports a number of other world-renowned centres of excellence in biodiversity research and management such as the Natural History Museum and the Botanic Gardens of Kew, Edinburgh and Cardiff.','','','','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective10','A10_1_2','','The UK is undertaking a National Ecosystem Assessment, assessing the terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems across the country in terms of the value that they provide to society and the economy.  This will follow the general approach of the Millennium Assessment and will report fully in the spring of 2011, with interim results being available ahead of that time.  This has been developed in consultation with the EURECA programme. The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has an extensive work programme on developing tools and other resources to allow the value of the natural environment to be better taken into account in policies, strategies and decision making.  Much of this work is summed up in progress towards our Ecosystems Approach Action Plan, published in December 2007.   ','','Much of this work is summed up in progress towards our Ecosystems Approach Action Plan, published in December 2007.   http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm and the associated introductory guide to the valuation of ecosystem services.  The latest progress reports, including how this is interacting with Biodiversity policy and research is also available on our website','Reference or title: Weblink: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/eco-actionplan.htm; http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/research.htm ','26/02/2010','','','06/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective10','A10_1_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective10','A10_1_8','','The United Kingdom’s National Biodiversity Research Platform is the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group. It exists to identify, promote and facilitate biodiversity research to support UK and individual country biodiversity action plan commitments; coordinate effective and efficient UK engagement with European biodiversity research issues, fulfilling the role of a national biodiversity research platform; contribute to effective biodiversity research networking in the UK, leading to increased interdisciplinary capacity; and support knowledge transfer activities in relation to biodiversity research.','','news items from 2009','Reference or title: EPBRS site with links to national bio platformsWeblink: http://www.epbrs.org/epbrs/static/show/info ','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective10','A10_1_9','','The United Kingdom has been a voting Participant in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) since August 2001. The ‘Participant node’ for the UK is the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), who host the NBN Gateway. The NBN Gateway acts as a ‘data warehouse’ for biodiversity information in the UK and currently holds over 40million records from organisations all over the UK.The European Network of Biodiversity Information (ENBI) is the European contribution to the GBIF. ENBI is organized into 13 Work Packages. Each separate work package is assigned a participant that acts as leader for the task, and will act as Contractor for that work package. All other participants (\'members\' in the terminology of Thematic Networks) are linked to a work package, depending on their tasks in or contributions to the work package. A total of 11 German organisations contribute to ENBI.Several organisations from the United Kingdom participate in ENBI.   The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew  are the main contractors for WP4: IPR, Copyrights & financial issues. The University of Reading, Centre for Plant Diversity & Systematics - School of Plant Sciences is the main contractor for WP5: Check lists and species banks. The Natural History Museum, Department of Entomology is the main contractor for WP6: Collections. The University of Wales, Cardiff, Dept. of Computer Science is both a contributor to WP8: Data management and a member of WP9: Interoperability and common access. The Species 2000 Secretariat is a contributor to WP5 Check lists and species banks and also a member of WP 11: Multilingual access. In addition, the following organisations participate in ENBI as ‘members’ of specific Work Packages:Natural Environment Research Council, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (member WP12: Info services on European data)Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh (RBGE) (member WP2: ENBI Forums)Freshwaterlife. Freshwater Biological Association (member WP12: Info services on European data)University of Essex, Dept. of Electronic Systems Engineering (member WP6: Collections)CAB International. Biosystematics & Molecular Biology (member WP5: Check lists and species banks)','','-','Reference or title: ENBI websiteWeblink: http://www.enbi.info/forums/homedir/partners.php','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','','','Standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.In addition there are other GAEC standards in England that may have biodiversity benefits relating to:GAEC 1 – Soil Protection Review (amalgamating the previous standards GAEC 1-4)GAEC 5 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)GAEC 6 – Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (i.e. a form of national protected area)GAEC 9 – Overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feedingGAEC 10 – Heather and grass burningGAEC 11 – Control of weedsGAEC 12 – Agricultural land which is not in agricultural productionGAEC 13 – Stone wallsGAEC 14 – Protection of hedgerows and watercoursesGAEC 15 – HedgerowsGAEC 16 – Felling of treesGAEC 17 – Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)GAEC 18 – Water abstraction (implemented from 1st January 2010)','','All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfFurther detail on each of these standards can be found under the “Guide to cross compliance in England” available on the Rural Payments Agency website at the following link: http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/293a8949ec0ba26d80256f65003bc4f7/21c99ddaeb3232a9802573aa004efa3e!OpenDocument   ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_1','','In 2010, in the United Kingdom total planned payments from the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) amounted to 4604.61 million EUR for the period 2007 to 2013 and to 8244.75 million EUR if national public expenditures were included. The amount of EAFRD hereby directed to Axis 2 was 3333.83 million EUR, and 6344.56 million EUR including co-financing. This equated to 72.40 and 76.95 per cent of total planned expenditure respectively. With regards to Axis 2 payments for supporting agri-environment schemes (measure 214), the EAFRD expenditure in the United Kingdom was 2417.46 million EUR (4463.18 million with co-financing) and amounted to 52.5 per cent of the EAFRD (54.13 per cent with co-financing). Finally, forest-environment payments (measure 225) account for 32.13 million EUR of EAFRD expenditure (0.7 per cent of EAFRD) and 61.15 million EUR of public expenditure (0.74 per cent of public expenditure).There are no payments in the United Kingdom for Axis 2 measures 213 (Natura 2000 payments related to agriculture) and 224 (Natura 2000 payments related to forests) for the period 2007 to 2013.According to reporting by the Member State, the England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 has, through its previous agri-environment schemes and the targeted element of Environmental Stewardship, made significant progress in improving the ecological condition of the highest value sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest or SSSIs).  Across the SSSI series (which includes all land-based Natura 2000 sites) the proportion of sites in target ecological condition has improved from 50% in 2000 to over 72% in 2006, following agreements made under agri-environment schemes under the first England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006 (as modified). The Programme for England 2007-2013 will build on the achievements of the previous programme, using Entry Level Schemes (ELS) and from 2010, Uplands Entry Level Schemes to continue to improve the quality of the wider farmed environment, Organic ELS to secure the additional environmental benefits associated with organic farming and Higher Level Schemes to continue to concentrate resources on the most valuable features with the most complex requirements. Environmental Stewardship will remain the principal agri-environment mechanism to deliver the three EU priorities concerning biodiversity, water, and climate change in England.','','2007+2008 monitoring intermediate data (new commitments only):The following table includes information on actual commitments on Axis 2 measures, from 2007 to 2008. Information on actual payments for the Natura 2000 forest measure is not yet available, therefore a total figure has not been provided. Public Expenditure - Cumulative payments from 2007 to year N (million EUR)Axis 2 MeasureEAFRDTotalNatura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (213)00Agri-environment payments (214)49.5776142.5064Forest environment payments (225)1.5342.451','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data extracted from official national reports, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_dg_agri&vm=detailed&sb=Title','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_10','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_11','NatStrats','A national action on farm animal genetic resources has been adopted and a number of actions are already underway. The National Standing Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources (NSC FAnGR) was established in 2008 as a UK body with participation from the devolved administrations and representation from animal geneticists, experts in conservation management, conservation Non-Government Organisations and mainstream species associations.  The Committee’s principal role is to provide advice to Government and interested parties on issues relating to farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR) and to oversee implementation of the UK’s 2006 National Action Plan on FAnGR.  The Committee and progress on the National Action Plan will be reviewed in 2011.The conservation of genetic resources in commercial tree species is promoted through the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations. In situ conservation measures are also being taken for 17 commercial tree species (with a value of 84,000 Euro). This is carried out by the formal registration of seed stands. Registered seed stands exist for the following commercial species: Ash, Beech, Cherry, Corsican Pine, Douglas Fir, Larch - European, Japanese and Hybrid, Grand Fir, Lawson\'s Cyprus, Lodgepole Pine, Noble Fir, Oak - sessile and peduncular, Scots pine, Silver Birch, Sitka spruce, Sweet Chestnut, Sycamore.Although there is no national strategy for the in-situ conservation of crop wild relatives of genetic resources and fruit and vegetable landraces, a number of projects have taken place that will help inform a future strategy or national plan including:•	A vegetable Landrace inventory of England and Wales. An initial scoping exercise for UK crop landraces (traditional varieties of crops largely developed by farmers over extended time rather than formally bred by plant breeders) indicated that there remains a significant wealth of landrace diversity in the UK, but that it is often highly geographically localized and critically threatened with extinction. The overall aim of the project is to systematically develop an inventory of English and Welsh vegetable landrace diversity to provide the baseline information needed to: a) ensure that this diversity is adequately conserved and b) promote its utilisation, both directly by local consumers of the varieties and indirectly by plant breeders to meet changing environmental and market demands, thus promoting UK food security.•	Natural England’s Higher Level Stewardship Programme encourages the maintenance of traditional orchards through 4 schemes:o	HC18 Maintenance of high-value traditional orchards o	HC19 Maintenance of traditional orchards in productiono	HC20 Restoration of traditional orchardso	HC21 Creation of traditional orchardsAlthough the Schemes in part aim to conserve historical landscapes and niche habitats for biodiversity they also encourage the preservation of rare varieties of fruit and nuts. ','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a dedicated strategy promoting the conservation of genetic diversity has been developed and/or measures have been identified in an appropriate action plan. If no separate action plan and/or strategy are in place information should be provided to what extent these issues are covered in the biodiversity strategy and/or biodiversity action plan.* Nov 2006','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: FAnGR Website  http://www.defra.gov.uk/fangr/ Vegetable Land Race project: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=1&ProjectID=16377  Traditional Orchards:Further details for 2010’s scheme in the Higher Level Stewardship handbook (section 3) are available on this web page: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NE227 ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_11','RDPPayments','Article 39 (1-4) of the Rural Development Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and Article 27 of implementing Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 offer the possibility to promote agri-environment measures which may support the rearing of “farm animals of local breeds indigenous to the area and in danger of being lost to farming”, and the preservation of “plant genetic resources naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions and under threat of genetic erosion”. According to reporting to the Commission under these Regulations, in 2008 no applications were approved in the United Kingdom in this regard, and thus no payments were made.','','Percentages have been calculated based on figures on actual agri-environment payments taken from 2007 and 2008 monitoring data provided under A2.1.1.Figures above do not include England.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished dataWeblink: No link ','Unable to sign off without sight of data','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_15','','According to the Member State, national guidelines have been developed, which specifically take biodiversity concerns with regard to afforestation and deforestation into account. The UK Forestry standard sets out that only native species of local origin will be used for planting native woodland. However, the UKFS is currently being revised, so this position may change. Non-native species are permitted for commercial use. A felling license is required to remove trees. If it is considered that this may have a significant impact and Environmental Impact Assessment is required.According to reporting by the Member State, planning tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment, (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and biodiversity surveys (generally advised for protected species) are used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations. The application of EIA is limited to a minimum area of 5 ha for afforestation and 1 ha deforestation. These figures are for Forestry Commission England. The areas are less (2 ha and 0.5 ha respectively) in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or National Scenic Areas (NSA). In designated areas all applications would require an EIA. SEAs are used at the higher strategic level. A license may also be required if the afforestation or deforestation will impact on an EPS.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates the stage of development and/or or implementation of national guidelines addressing biodiversity concerns related to afforestation and deforestation, e.g. planting of non-native species, land use change etc., as well as the stage of development or implementation of planning tools used for plans, programmes and projects related to afforestation and deforestation operations.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: UK Forestry Standard and Forests and Biodiversity Guidelines (to be published in Autumn 2010), Country Forestry and biodiversity strategies. WWW.forestry.gov.uk ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_3','ForestCert','According to the Member State, in 2009 the United Kingdom had a total certified forest area of 1,283,000 hectares out of a total forest area of 2.841 million hectares. All of the certified forest area in the United Kingdom was certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), accounting for 45.1 per cent of the total forest area.','',' Figures refer to information about forest area certified to two major certification systems, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC). Additional certification systems are included if relevant information was available.According to the Member State, given the lack of agreement between the type of woodland and extent between FSC and that which is likely to be classified as HNV Forestry, the country is unable to sign off the MOP. The primary driver for woodland managers to seek certification is to ensure woodlands managed for commercial interests are managed sustainably. The motivation to attain certification for those woodlands with a high biodiversity value is less as commercial timber production may not be their primary motivation for management. There is no requirement for woodlands with high ecological value, which are likely to reflect the HNV definition, to be certified. In fact, woodlands with the highest ecological interest are very unlikely to be certified as requirements may conflict with management objectives.','Reference or title: European Commission unpublished data; FSC website, PEFC websiteWeblink: http://www.fsc.org/facts-figures.html?&L=t%A8arget%3D_self; http://register.pefc.cz/statistics.asp','Unable to sign off for the reasons given above.','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_3','HNV','According to the high nature value (HNV) farmland report published by the European Environmental Agency and Joint Research Center in 2008, HNV farmland in the United Kingdom amounted to 5.16 million ha, representing a share of 26.7% per cent of HNV farmland in farmed area. According to reporting by the Member State, original work in the UK on extent of semi-natural land cover that is dependant upon Hugh Nature Value Farming is still valid, but in England will underestimate the true extent. This measure relates low intensity or extensive farming to high nature value, but many HNV features exist on otherwise intensively managed farmland because of the approach that the UK has adopted in supporting the retention of patches of semi-natural habitat within farming systems.  The practical definition of HNV farming is still under development and has yet to be resolved.','','High nature value farmland describes the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices, according to Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994).The EEA and JRC report calculated the extent of HNV farmland for each NUTS 2 area in the EU-27.The area of farmed land was calculated as the total land area belonging to the CLC agricultural classes (the 11 ‘agricultural’ classes of Corine level 3 and parts of class 3.2.1 ‘natural grasslands’) plus identified HNV farmland outside these classes. It should be stressed that the results were neither intended nor suitable for evaluating the impact of rural development measures at national or regional level.','Reference or title: EEA/JRC High nature value farmland, MS questionnaire','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_4','','Standards for Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures that have been implemented include:•	Minimum livestock stocking rates and/or appropriate regimes.•	Protection of permanent pasture.•	Retention of landscape features including, where appropriate, hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated and field margins.•	Establishment and/or retention of habitats.In addition there are other GAEC standards in England that may have biodiversity benefits relating to:GAEC 1 – Soil Protection Review (amalgamating the previous standards GAEC 1-4)GAEC 5 – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)GAEC 6 – Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (i.e. a form of national protected area)GAEC 9 – Overgrazing and unsuitable supplementary feedingGAEC 10 – Heather and grass burningGAEC 11 – Control of weedsGAEC 12 – Agricultural land which is not in agricultural productionGAEC 13 – Stone wallsGAEC 14 – Protection of hedgerows and watercoursesGAEC 15 – HedgerowsGAEC 16 – Felling of treesGAEC 17 – Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs)GAEC 18 – Water abstraction (implemented from 1st January 2010)',NULL,'All beneficiaries receiving aid in the name of improving the environment and the countryside are required to comply with the regulatory obligations on management (in the areas of health, the environment and animal welfare) and the good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC) laid down in the Regulation on the single payment Regulation (EC) No 73/2009). The following Measure of Progress includes information to which extent GAEC measures, as referred to in Article 5 of the Regulation, have been implemented in a country.','Reference or title: EC report on cross compliance, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cross_compliance/full_text_en.pdfFurther detail on each of these standards can be found under the “Guide to cross compliance in England” available on the Rural Payments Agency website at the following link: http://www.rpa.gov.uk/rpa/index.nsf/293a8949ec0ba26d80256f65003bc4f7/21c99ddaeb3232a9802573aa004efa3e!OpenDocument   ','26/02/2010',NULL,NULL,NULL,'14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_6','','Training or advisory services have been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity. Information on such events is advertised by Natural England on their website in relation to Environmental Stewardship (see links below).','','The following Measure of Progress refers to broadening extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the framework of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) National Strategy Plans and National and Regional Rural Development Programmes.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/landmanagementadvice/events/default.aspx ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_8','','According to the Member States’ response monitoring schemes have been or are being put in place for HNV forestry. Monitoring has not been out in place for HNV farming (the HNV farming definition is still being clarified), but surrogate figures are available, based upon extent of semi-natural land cover and designated nature conservation areas. Tree species composition is not being monitored.No response is provided relating to the monitoring of population trends of farmland birds, but the UK has long-established a detailed bird monitoring schemes and England has a specific farmland bird indicator. Figure: Breeding farmland birds index for the UKThe breeding farmland birds index for the UK (19 species) was 47 per cent lower in 2008 than its 1970 level. Most of the decline in the farmland birds index occurred between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s, but the index increased by 2 per cent between 2007 and 2008.The indicator has been compiled in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), principally the Common Birds Census (from 1966 to 2000) and the BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey (from 1994 to 2008). ','','This Measure of Progress indicates progress regarding the mandatory baseline and impact indicators as well as additional programme-specific indicators related to biodiversity, to establish a Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/national/20.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wildlife/kf/wdkf03.htm  ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_1_9','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health check in 2008, a total of 482 million € has been added to UK’s national Rural Development Programme. The amount of resources thereby generated should be allocated to “new challenges”, including biodiversity. According to the approval of amendments to Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) in January 2010, the United Kingdom attributed € 235 million in additional funding to ‘biodiversity’, amounting to 49% per cent of total national additional programmed funding.','','Following the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) Health Check in 2008, the levels of compulsory modulation have risen for all Member States.  Figures above present the overall distribution of the funds from the Health-Check of the Common Agriculture Policy - CAP (including voluntary modulation and the additional funds for Germany and Sweden) and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) taken together. Funds coming from the Health-Check of the CAP may only be spent on the new challenges including biodiversity. The numbers have been rounded to the first figure after the decimal by official sources.','Reference or title: European Commission DG AgricultureWeblink: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/102&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en','Unable to sign off without sight of data','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_2_1','','According to the Member State, national monitoring programmes have been implemented with regard to soil biodiversity, and parameters related to soil faunistic or microbiological activity are mandatory.The Countryside Survey is an audit of the natural resources of the UK’s countryside. The Survey has been carried out at regular intervals since 1978, and the UK is therefore able to detect gradual and subtle changes that occur over time. The soils work package for the last (2007) survey included indicators of invertebrate diversity, and research is now being undertaken to scope out further indicators of soil biodiversity for inclusion in future monitoring programmes.  ','','Soil biodiversity refers to all organisms living in the soil, directly or indirectly effecting soil formation. Monitoring programmes can be based on the interpretation and combined evaluation of various parameters. This can include indicators of soil type, physical and chemical parameters as well as one or more indicators of soil fauna and related to microbial and enzymatic activities. The Measure of Progress should indicate the stage of development or implementation of related monitoring programmes or the development of related indicators.','Reference or title: MS questionnaireWeblink: www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_3','','According to the Article 17 Habitats Directive report 2001-2006, 25 per cent of the Atlantic fresh water habitats in the United Kingdom have a favourable conservation status; the remaining 75 per cent have an unfavourable status. See under ‘Additional clarifications’ below for the detailed data.','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for fresh water habitats.Status of freshwater habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage8620075%25%0%0%U11  U25       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Details on Protected Areas can be found in Annex D in each of the environment agency links below:Anglian RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/anglian/Intro.aspx Dee RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/dee/Intro.aspx Humber RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/humber/Intro.aspx Northumbria RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northumbria/Intro.aspx North West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northwest/Intro.aspx Severn RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/severn/Intro.aspx Solway Tweed RBD: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx South East RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southeast/Intro.aspx South West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southwest/Intro.aspx Thames RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/thames/Intro.aspx Western Wales RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/westernwales/Intro.aspx  ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_3','FWQuality','According to European Environment Agency data, in the United Kingdom oxygen demand (BOD5) figures showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, falling from 1.78 mg O3/l in 2002 to 1.45 mg O3/l in 2005. Figures were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 2.47 mg O3/l in 2005. Ammonium data demonstrated a decrease from 0.17 mg N/l in 2002 to 0.08 mg N/l in 2005. Values were clearly lower than the European weighted average of 0.41 mg N/l in 2005.Data on concentrations of nitrate in rivers showed a downward trend from 2002 to 2005, decreasing from 5.03 mg N/l in 2002 to 4.91 mg N/l in 2005, with a peak of 5.41 mg N/l in 2004. Figures were clearly above weighted average of 3.74 mg N/l for Western Europe in 2005.Concentrations of nitrate in groundwater generally decreased from 2002 to 2005, amounting to 27.6 mg NO3 /l in 2002 and 18.5 mg NO3/l in 2005, with a peak of 29.1 mg NO3/l in 2004. Data on concentrations of phosphorus in rivers showed an upward trend from 2002 to 2005, values amounting to 0.325 mg P/l in 2002 and 0.346 mg P/l in 2005, being at the lowest level of 0.239 mg P/l in 2004.  The 2005 value was clearly above the weighted average of 0.114 mg P/l for Western Europe in 2005. No information on phosphorus concentrations in lakes was available.','','Large quantities of organic matter (microbes and decaying organic waste) can result in reduced chemical and biological quality of river water, impaired biodiversity of aquatic communities, and microbiological contamination that can affect the quality of drinking and bathing water. Sources of organic matter are discharges from wastewater treatment plants, industrial effluents and agricultural run-off. Organic pollution leads to higher rates of metabolic processes that demand oxygen. This could result in the development of water zones without oxygen (anaerobic conditions). The transformation of nitrogen to reduced forms under anaerobic conditions in turn leads to increased concentrations of ammonium, which is toxic to aquatic life above certain concentrations, depending on water temperature, salinity and pH (EEA).Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to water bodies from urban areas, industry and agricultural areas can lead to eutrophication. This causes ecological changes that can result in a loss of plant and animal species (reduction in ecological status) and have negative impacts on the use of water for human consumption and other purposes. The environmental quality of surface waters with respect to eutrophication and nutrient concentrations is an objective of several directives: the Water Framework Directive, the Nitrate Directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, the Surface Water Directive and the Freshwater Fish Directive. In future years, phosphorus concentrations in lakes will be highly relevant to work under the Water Framework Directive (EEA). Note: Data above represent averages across a number of stations across a country and sometimes draw on a very different number of samples between countries. In addition, the average national nitrate concentration in one country may be strongly influenced by another country or countries upstream. Published EEA data only include Member States series with observations from minimum 7 years.','Reference or title: European Environment Agency data and maps on waterWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biochemical-oxygen-demand-bod5-and-total-ammonium-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1992-and-2006http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/nitrate-concentrations-in-rivers-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/phosphorus-concentrations-in-rivers-left-ortophosphate-and-lakes-right-total-phosphorus-between-1990-and-2005-in-different-regions-of-europe Further details of Environment Agency data can be found at the links below.  Anglian RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/anglian/Intro.aspx Dee RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/dee/Intro.aspxHumber RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/humber/Intro.aspx Northumbria RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northumbria/Intro.aspx North West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northwest/Intro.aspx Severn RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/severn/Intro.aspx Solway Tweed RBD: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx South East RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southeast/Intro.aspx South West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southwest/Intro.aspx Thames RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/thames/Intro.aspx Western Wales RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/westernwales/Intro.aspx ','Unable to verify without sight of all data','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_3','InlandBathing','According to reporting in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality Directive, in 2008 the United Kingdom had a total number of 3 bathing waters which complied with more stringent guide values regarding physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of testing. This corresponded to 25 per cent of all inland bathing waters. Compared to previous years, the percentage decreased.According to reporting by the Member State, in 2009 4 inland bathing waters passed guideline standard (33.3%).  From 2012 UK will reduce the number of parameters being monitored to 2 (E.coli and intestinal enterococci) , in line with the requirements of the revised Bathing Water Directive.','','The results presented are based on sampling carried out by the national authorities in all EU Member States and checked against a set of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters. These include testing for the presence of coliform bacteria normally found in faeces and other sources, residues of petrol-based mineral oils, foam from detergents and toxic acids such as phenol. Other not obligatory tests can be conducted to verify the presence of salmonella, the colour of the water or the acidity (pH) of the bathing water.','Reference or title: Reporting to the EC in the framework of the Bathing Water Quality DirectiveWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_3_1','BioAsses','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the United Kingdom developed three out of four biological assessment methods for transitional waters and nearly all three for coastal waters (regarding macro-algae and angiosperm assessment this depended on the district). No phytoplankton assessment was available for rivers and fish fauna analysis was either developed or undeveloped for lakes or partially under development or not developed for rivers, depending again on the districts. ','','The monitoring programmes for surface waters should cover the ecological and chemical status of natural water bodies, and the ecological potential and chemical status for heavily modified or artificial water bodies, according to the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The assessment of the ecological status is based on biological quality elements as well as supporting hydromorphological, chemical and physico-chemical quality elements. Good ecological status is generally based on the composition and abundance of species and is defined for each water category and each biological quality element individually (WFD).','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#second ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_3_1','Stations','According to the second implementation report of the Water Framework Directive in 2009, the number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under the Habitats and Birds Directive amounted to 1560 in the United Kingdom.','','It should be noted that according to the format agreed by the Commission and the Member States, the monitoring of protected areas needs to be reported under the Water Framework Directive only if it has not been done under other Directives. ','Reference or title: WFD Implementation ReportWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/index_en.htm#secondSee details on plans and programmes in the links below:Anglian RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/anglian/Intro.aspx Dee RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/dee/Intro.aspx Humber RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/humber/Intro.aspx Northumbria RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northumbria/Intro.aspx North West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/northwest/Intro.aspx Severn RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/severn/Intro.aspx Solway Tweed RBD: http://www.sepa.org.uk/water/river_basin_planning.aspx South East RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southeast/Intro.aspx South West RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/southwest/Intro.aspx Thames RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/thames/Intro.aspx Western Wales RBD: http://wfdconsultation.environment-agency.gov.uk/wfdcms/en/westernwales/Intro.aspx  ','','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_4_1','','According to a monitoring report on the permitting progress, in 2008 the United Kingdom had a total number of 3980 IPPC installations and issued 3976 permits. 4 permits were still outstanding. ','','“Installation” is defined as a stationary technical unit where one or more activities listed in Annex I of the IPPC Directive are carried out; and any other directly associated activities which have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an effect on emissions and pollution.\"Permit\" means part or whole of a written decision (or several such decisions) granting authorisation to operate all or part of an installation, subject to certain conditions which guarantee that the installation complies with the requirements of the IPPC Directive. It is important to note that while some Member States issue one permit for each installation, some issue more than one permit per installation and others issue single permits covering more than one installation.The IPPC Directive allows a competent authority to bring existing installations into compliance “by reconsidering and, where necessary, updating” the conditions to which the installations were already subject. The initial Measure of Progress included information on permits reconsidered and updated to take environmental conditions into account. However, these data have not been included due to inconsistencies of information and the risk of misinterpretation. To guarantee an appropriate assessment of progress in the future, a related question on the number of permits that had to specifically address the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directive might be included.  ','Reference or title: Monitoring of Permitting Progress for existing IPCC installationsWeblink: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/reporting/library?l=/ippc/ippc_permitting/monitoring_09076i3pdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_4_2','','According to NECD reporting, in 2008 the United Kingdom’s emissions of ammonia, sulphur oxides and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) were already lower than the relevant ceilings. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides were still well above the targets set. The United Kingdom is expected to meet its NECD 2010 objectives for three pollutants, but not nitrogen oxides, though slight improvements to previous years have taken place. ','','The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2001/81/EC) sets ceilings for each Member State for emissions within their boundaries of ammonia, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and non-methane volatile organic compounds. These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication, and ground-level ozone. The ceilings must be met by 2010.According to NECD reporting requirements, for the main pollutants NOX, SO2, VOCs (c), NH3 sources such as domestic aviation (cruise), international aviation (cruise) and international maritime were not included in the national total of emissions. Emissions from road transport are calculated on the basis of fuel sold or consumed.Emission projections for 2010 are based on the “with measures” scenario which takes into account all currently implemented and adopted policies and measures.Note: Data submitted by the Member State in 2009, including revised 2007 figures, have not yet been officially validated. Figures above are based on “fuel sold”.','Reference or title: NECD Directive ReportingWeblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/implem_nec_directive.htm','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','According to European Environment Agency data, in 2000 in the United Kingdom the percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and eutrophication amounted to 39 and 26 per cent respectively, considering an area of 8,1815km2 and 9,2244km2. Predictions on acidification for 2010 and 2020 indicate a decrease to 19 and 15 per cent, assuming that current (2008) policies and measures will be fully implemented (CLE scenario). According to the maximum feasible reduction scenario (MFR), in 2020 the risk of acidification will be reduced to 7 per cent. On eutrophication, the CLE scenario envisages a reduction to 19 per cent in 2010 and 17 per cent in 2020. The MFR scenario foresees a decrease to 9 per cent of natural ecosystem area at risk in 2020.','','This information is based on an analysis carried out by Hettelingh J-P, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2008) within “Critical load, dynamic modelling and impact assessment in Europa: CCE Status Report 2008”, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. ','Reference or title: EEA core set indicatorsWeblink: http://ims.eionet.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20091007131526/IAssessment1245763350536/view_content','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','A2_4_3','','According to OECD data, the United Kingdom’s gross nitrogen balance was 43 kg nitrogen per hectare of total agricultural land between 2002 and 2004, a decrease of 23 per cent compared with 1990 to 1992 levels.','','The gross nitrogen balance calculates the difference between the nitrogen inputs entering a farming system (i.e. mainly livestock manure and fertilisers) and the nitrogen outputs leaving the system (i.e. the uptake of nutrients for crop and pasture production).According to the Member State, in terms of the figures on Nitrogen balance the following applies•	The soil nitrogen balance approach provides a useful high level measure of the environmental pressures from nitrogen loadings.  However it does not tell the fate of the N surplus so we do not know whether these loadings result in damage to water or losses to air as nitrous oxide or ammonia.•	There is not a strong link between pesticide use and the nitrogen balance so it is surprising  to see the two elements within this one indicator•	The nitrogen balance uses a large range of data and we are still seeking to refine and improve the estimates for the UK.  These early estimates by OECD should be treated with caution and more recent estimates are significantly higher (85 kg/ha for 2007).•	Having said that, the OECD figures are likely to be fairly robust in terms of long term trends and the 23% fall will likely be much more reliable than the absolute levels quoted.','Reference or title: Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries since 1990, MS questionnaireWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_33793_40374392_1_1_1_1,00.html https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/ace/research/pdf/nutrientbalance.pdf ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','Objective2','FarmBirds','Between the years 1990 and 2006, the United Kingdom’s national farmland bird indicator has shown a general decrease. In 2006 the indicator was at 68.7 per cent, a 31.3 per cent decrease from the 1990 baseline. 17 species were assessed.Please consult A2.1.8 for UK’s national farmland birds indicator.','','Individual national species indices are produced by annually operated national breeding bird surveys from 22 European countries that cover different periods and are obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). These national species indices are computed using a software package named TRIM which allows for missing counts in the time series and yields unbiased yearly indices and standard errors using Poisson regression. The most recent report provided by the European Census Council and Birdlife International presents the combined population trends of 135 common bird species based on data collected from 21 European countries (pan-European level), covering the period 1980–2006. It should be noted that different baselines exist and that the 1990 baseline is presented in this report (where available). The most current version of the combined indicator does not cover AT, CY, EL, LT, LU, MT, RO, SI, SK. In addition, the indicator includes information on the percentage of change over the last 10 years and the last 20 years.','Reference or title: Status of common bird monitoring, European Bird Census Council Weblink: http://www.ebcc.info/country.html','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective2','Objective2','OverallCondition','','','A break down of conservation status at the biogeographical level is shown below for each habitat type.Status of grassland habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U10  U29       Status of forest habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage1010000100%0%0%0%U10  U210       MediterraneanNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage101000%100%0%0%U10 U20       Status of heath and scrub habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage6510083%17%0%0%U10  U25       Status of peat land habitatsAtlanticNumber OccurrencesU1+U2NumbersFVNumbersXXNumbersNANumbersU1+U2PercentageFVPercentageXXPercentageNAPercentage99000100%0%0%0%U10  U29       ','Reference or title: HD Article 17 reportWeblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/  ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.','','-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','26/02/2010','na','','10/12/2009','na'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_1','','Detailed reporting by biogeographic regions is provided under ‘Additional clarifications’, below. Article 17 Reports require Member States to report every six years assessing the conservation status of species and habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The Second Article 17 Report for the United Kingdom provided information on the status of marine habitats in the Marine Atlantic and Marine Mediterranean regions. In the Marine Atlantic region, five habitats were assessed—two had a ‘Bad’ status (40%) and three had an ‘Unknown’ status (60%). In the Marine Mediterranean region, two marine habitats were assessed—one had a ‘Favourable’ status (50%) and the other had an ‘Inadequate’ status (50%). Coastal habitats were assessed in the Atlantic and Mediterranean biogeographic regions. In the Atlantic region 11 coastal habitats were assessed, two had an ‘Inadequate’ status (18%) and the remaining nine had a ‘Bad’ status (82%). One coastal habitat was assessed in the Mediterranean region and it had a ‘Favourable’ status.Marine species were assessed in both the Marine Atlantic and Marine Mediterranean regions. A total of 16 marine species, including reptiles, mammals and plants, were assessed in the Marine Atlantic region—six had a ‘Favourable’ status (38%), three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (19%), and seven had an ‘Unknown’ status (44%). A total of three marine species were assessed in the Marine Mediterranean region: two reptiles and a mammal. All three had an ‘Inadequate’ status (100%).','','‘An analysis for the biogeographic regions follows below:Habitats:Biogeographic region HabitatNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticMarine habitats00%00%240%360%00%5Marine MediterraneanMarine habitats150%150%00%00%00%2AtlanticCoastal habitats00%218%982%00%00%11MediterraneanMarine habitats1100%00%00%00%00%1Species:Biogeographic region Species groupNumber of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrencesPercentage of number of occurrences Number of occurrences [TOTAL]  FV=FavourableU1=Inadequate U2= BadXX= UnknownNA= Not reported Marine AtlanticAmphibians & reptiles00%00%00%1100%00%1Marine AtlanticFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine AtlanticMammals646%18%00%646%00%13Marine AtlanticPlants00%2100%00%00%00%1Marine AtlanticTOTAL638%319%00%744%00%16Marine MediterraneanAmphibians & reptiles00%2100%00%00%00%2Marine MediterraneanFish00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanInvertebrates00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanMammals00%1100%00%00%00%1Marine MediterraneanPlants00%00%00%00%00%0Marine MediterraneanTOTAL00%3100%00%00%00%3The following were considered ‘marine’ habitats and species, based on the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity’s guidance.Marine Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMarine Species:Gorgonacea - Coralliidae Corallium rubrum Docoglossa - Patellidae Patella ferruginea Mytiloida - Mitylidae Lithophaga lithophaga Pinna nobilis Decapoda - Scyllaridae Scyllarides latus Echinothuroida - Diadematidae Centrostephanus longispinus Nemalionales - Corallinaceae Lithothamnium coralloides Phymatholithon calcareum Carnivora - Phocidae Halechoerus grypus Monachus monachus Phoca hispida botnica Phoca vitulina All other seals (Phocidae) excluding P. h. Saimensis which only occurs in the Saimaa Lake system of Eastern Finland Carnivora - Cetacea Tursiops truncatus Phocoena phocoena All other dolfins and whales Chelonia – Cheloniidae Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Lepidochelys kempii Eretmochelys imbricata Chelonia - Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriaceaSpecies that may also be attributed to one or several marine regions in addition to the terrestrial biogeographical region(s): Petromyzoniformes - Petromyzonidae Lampetra fluviatilis Petromyzon marinus Acipenseriformes - Acipenseridae Acipenser sturio Acipenser naccarii All other sturgeons (Acipenseridae)Clupeiformes - Clupeidae Alosa alosa Alosa fallax All other Alosa spp Salmoniformes - Coregonidae Coregonus oxyrhynchus','Reference or title: Source: Article 17 Reporting:Weblink: http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/ and http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007&vm=detailed&sb=Title Checklist of habitats/species reported and their overall conservation status-explanatory note: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-2007/ms-reports_checklists/explanatory_timepdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d','29/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_1_4','','The UK reported that, in 2009, it had 384 surveillance stations and 460 operational stations for monitoring surface water in coastal areas. The UK has 578 coastal water bodies. Approximately 10% of coastal water bodies are included in surveillance monitoring. It has methods available for monitoring phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates. Information concerning a method for monitoring macroalgae and angiosperm was incomplete or being developed.The UK reported that a programme of measures for coastal areas under the WFD had been adopted.','','-','Reference or title: ‘Monitoring programmes for coastal areas under Water Framework Directive’ Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/implrep2007/pdf/sec_2009_415_en.pdf  annex: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/ ','26.02.10','','','13/01/10','05/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_1_5','','In the UK each of the four administrations carries out their own ICZM functions. The British-Irish Council (Environment) Integrated Coastal Zone Management subgroup meets regularly to share best practice and to ensure that delivery mechanisms are integrated where administration boundaries meet. In England, the implementation of ICZM within England falls to the UK Government and is led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The document ‘A strategy for promoting of an integrated approach to the management of coastal areas in England’ was published in January 2009. The Strategy’ briefly explains the variety of work being taken forward by the UK Government which will contribute to the implementation of ICZM. The Strategy contains a vision for the process of coastal management and sets this set of objectives:•	To integrate coastal policies and provide a clear strategic direction to coastal managers;•	To ensure a consistent, joined-up approach to regional and local planning and decision making;•	To promote the benefits of coastal local initiatives which bring together coastal stakeholders;•	To promote awareness and understanding of the value of the coast and the issues facing it; and•	To improve the quality and co-ordination of information about the coast to improve management practices.In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland is responsible for leading on ICZM. ICZM is being delivered through a 20 year strategy. The Strategy ‘An Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy for Northern Ireland -2006 – 2026’ was launched in June 2006. The strategy adheres to the ICZM principles and outlines around 50 objectives relating to the three pillars of sustainable development as well as several on integration. In Scotland, the Scottish Government produced ‘Seas the opportunity:  A strategy for the long term sustainability of Scotland’s Coasts and Seas in 2005. This built upon the Scottish Coastal Forum’s strategy for Scotland’s coast and inshore waters and marine elements of the Scottish Biodiversity strategy. The Scottish Ministers introduced the Marine (Scotland) Bill into the Scottish Parliament in April 2009 and it is anticipated that it will complete parliamentary scrutiny early 2010.  The legislation will include provisions which will enable ICZM through Scottish Marine Regions.In Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government\'s strategy Making the Most of Wales’ Coast 2007 outlines the values of ICZM including the 8 principles described in the EU recommendation. The Strategy explains how these principles are being put into practice in Wales through promoting and supporting partnership working, including the Wales Coastal &  Maritime Partnership, the Welsh Assembly Government’s key advisory body, and regional coastal forums.  ','','England:Under each Objective of the Strategy were a series of actions and an overview of the relevant work already being taken forward. This included aspects of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill (which became an Act in November 2009), such as the marine planning provisions but the reform and streamlining of the marine consents regime. It also included the Local Democracy, Economic Regeneration and Construction Bill (became an Act in November 2009) which will provide for the integration of regional strategies into a single integrated regional strategy, a combination of the regional planning strategy, regional economic strategy and other regional strategies, and also enables greater participation from the local level in the development of this regional strategy. The Strategy also contains a commitment to work with stakeholders to review the effect of the work, to identify any further actions, and to publish a review two years after publication.Northern Ireland: A key aspect of the implementation of the Strategy was the establishment of a Northern Ireland Coastal and Marine Forum (CMF).  This is an independent, non-statutory body made up of a cross-section of interests ranging from local government, business, agriculture, fishing and environmental bodies.   The Forum aims to provide meaningful stakeholder input into strategic policies affecting the coastal area, as well as raising awareness on Integrated Coastal Zone Management. It also provides expert advice, co-ordinates research, and provides support towards the achievement of the strategy objectives. It is also responsible for monitoring progress and reporting against the strategy objectives and targets. Good progress is being made in implementing the strategy and the CMF first report to Government on progress is due early 2010.Under its remit to promote an understanding of ICZM in Northern Ireland, the Forum has undertaken a number of activities.  They include the development of a website (www.coastalmarineni.org) and production of the following documents for public circulation and an article in NIEA’s magazine, The Coast, describing the approach to ICZM in Northern Ireland.•	A brochure describing the EU principles of ICZM, the Northern Ireland Strategy and the work of the Forum.   •	The second describes the maritime cultural heritage of the Northern Ireland Coast and is designed as a brochure and poster. In addition,.The second area of activity in awareness-raising has been in the organisation of a number of events to promote ICZM.  These included:•	A conference on ‘Planning Challenges and Opportunities for Ireland’s Coast’ was jointly organised with ICONet, the Irish Coastal Network.  This event, attended by over 100 delegates was held in the City Hotel, Londonderry on April 10-11 2008.  The conference, which was opened by the Minister of the Environment, focused on the emerging role of marine spatial planning in the regulation of human activities and interactions. This was examined from European, national and local perspectives. A representative of DG Mare gave a keynote presentation.•	A Conference entitled “The Coast: Are we Managing” was jointly organised with the Strangford Lough Management Advisory Group in November 2008.  It was attended by over 100 delegates, most of whom were directly involved in aspects of coastal management in a local authority or government capacity.•	In addition, the Forum convened a number of workshops on specific themes within ICZM.  These included:•	A workshop on ICZM indicators was held in March 2007 facilitated by Clive Gilbert of the EU expert Group on indicators, and a representative of the European Environment Agency who gave an overview of the recent EEA Report on the State of Europe’s Coastal Environment.  This was attended principally by CMF and NI government representatives. A workshop on marine data collection and storage was organised at Crawfordsburn in Februrary 2009.  This involved NI government departments plus invited speakers from MEDIN and the Channel Coast Observatory.  It was designed to stimulate discussion on coastal data collection, storage and sharing with particular reference to the INPSIRE Directive and other initiatives.  Scotland: The Scottish Ministers launched a consultation on Scotland’s first marine bill ‘Sustainable Seas for All’ in July 2008. The consultation included details on ICZM and regional planning through Scottish Marine Regions.  A majority of the respondents believed that the Scottish Marine Regions should be responsible for ICZM and that it should be guided by the EU eight principles of ICZM.The Bill will introduce legislation to ensure the sustainable management of Scotland’s coasts and seas to balance the competing interests for use and protection of the sea.  There will be a three tier approach to marine planning.  International, EU and national interests will be met through the National Marine Plan while regional marine planning and ICZM will be met through Scottish Marine Regions.  The Scottish Ministers agreed to publish the range of characteristics upon which Scottish Marine Regions will be created.  The Scottish Coastal Forum, carried out a stakeholder workshop in March 2009 to advise Scottish Ministers of the views on how the Scottish Marine Regions should be formed.  Wales: The Welsh Assembly Strategy outlines the issues Wales’ coast faces - from tourism and fisheries to conservation and climate change -and it sets out how ICZM can be used to tackle these. The strategy also explains some objectives that aim towards achieving ICZM ideals focusing on: promoting ICZM at national and local levels; policy integration; integrated planning and decision-taking; better information; promoting awareness of the value of the coastal zone and of ICZM; joining up with our neighbours; and monitoring the ICZM process.Annual progress reports are being produced; the latest is at http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/consmanagement/marinefisheries/iczm/progress/?lang=e Good progress is being made in implementing the strategy, including the work by the Wales Coastal & Maritime Partnership on indicators. The aim of the indicators is to provide a way of consistently reviewing the progress of ICZM across Wales. They will be considered by the Welsh Assembly Government in its review of the strategy scheduled for 2010, which will focus on how IZCM can be integrated with the marine planning functions under The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (UK wide legislation).','England: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/iczm/iczm-strategy-england.pdf; Northern Ireland: http://www.doeni.gov.uk/iczm_document-2.pdf Scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/08/26102543/25444;Wales: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/consmanagement/marinefisheries/iczm/welshstrategy/?lang=en','26/02/2010','','','16/03/10',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_2','','The UK has 596 coastal bathing areas. In 2008, 95.9% of these complied with mandatory guidelines on water quality. This was a decrease compared to 2007 (96.5%) and 2006 (99.6%). However in 2009 the situation improved and 97.6% of bathing waters reached the mandatory guidelines. In 2008 69.5% of the bathing waters met the more stringent guide values, which is also a decrease from 2007 (76.4%) and 2006 (80.4%).  However, in 2009 the situation again improved and 80.4% of bathing waters reached the stricter voluntary guidelines. 2006 data was good as it was an exceptionally dry year where as 2008 was an exceptionally wet summary and a number of bathing waters were affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture and urban sources. In terms of nutrient concentrations in coastal waters off the UK, there has been no recorded increase in concentrations of nitrogen or phosphate between 1985 and 2005.','','','','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Bathing Water Quality 2006 data can be obtained from mid-term review country profiles.Weblink: 2007 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2008.html (national reports can be useful for text and trends) orhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2008/en_summary.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p26)2008 season: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report_2009.html (for national reports) or http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-bathing/report2009/report.pdf (Summary data, by country - Table 2, p28)',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter time oxidised nitrogen concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3386',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Reference or title: Trends in mean winter orthophosphate concentrations in the Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Greater North Sea, the Skagerrak and part of the Mediterranean in 1985-2005 (2004 if no data in 2005). Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007Weblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu; http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3387',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_2_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_2_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_4','','UK’s operational programme (2007-2013) for fisheries includes a number of environmentally friendly measures. Funding includes both measures targeted specifically towards improving environmental performance and other measures but it is not currently possible to distinguish the two (i.e. not all funding is for environmentally friendly measures).Total funding for Axis 1 is €73,960,645 and includes measures such as reducing over-capacity and improving gear selectivity. Axis 2 (€57,566,891) encourages the use of aqua-environmental measures in aquaculture. Axis 3 (€87,882,476) promotes the sustainable exploitation of resources and the minimisation of environmental impacts, and Axis 4 (€21,126,088) supports the diversification out of fisheries. ','','The UK is not convinced that this is a useful indicator since it has not been possible to distinguish funding going specifically to promote environmentally friendly fishing.','Reference or title: Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/press_releases/2008/com08_61_en http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/structural_measures/operational_programmes_en.htm ','','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_5','','11% of catches in EU waters still originate from unassessed stocks. Overall, 46% of assessed stocks are outside safe biological limits (SBL). Of the assessed commercial stocks in the NE Atlantic, about one third is outside SBL. This ranges from 8% (Baltic Sea) to 80 % (Irish Sea). This is a mixed picture compared to the last assessments carried out in 2005 (2003–2004 data) in which 22–53% of stocks were outside safe biological limits. Pelagic stocks like herring and mackerel are doing better in general than demersal stocks like cod, plaice and sole. In the Mediterranean, about half of the assessed stocks are fished outside SBL. The range is from 44% to 73% (up from 10–20% in the 2005 assessment), with the Aegean and the Cretan Sea being in the worst condition.',NULL,'-','Reference or title: Status of the fish stocks in ICES and GFCM fishing regions of Europe in 2006, EEA. [User agrees to display a link to the EEA web site http://www.eea.europa.eu and to acknowledge the source as follows: Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, 2007]Weblink: http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20041007132227/IAssessment1199788344728/view_content ','26/02/2010','na',NULL,'10/12/2009','na'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_5_1','','The number of infringements of the Common Fisheries Policies illustrates the degree to which the EU is achieving plans to attain sustainable fisheries management. In 2006 the UK had 6,761 vessels and 2.5% were involved in a serious infringement (170 vessels). A total of 169 penalties were imposed with an average fine of €5,271 and maximum fine of €26,380.','','2007 data is not currently available.   ','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which serious infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf ','26/02/2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_5_2','','In the UK, the Environment Agency is responsible for regulation and management of all inland fisheries in England and Wales. The UK has specific management plans for Salmon and Eel populations, and habitat restoration is undertaken as part of these plans. Removal of migratory barriers is undertaken for eels and is planned for Salmon (May 2011). Stock enhancement is not directly undertaken but is achieved through reducing fishing effort. Salmon Management Plan: Salmon Action Plans (SAPs) are the means by which the Environment Agency (EA) aims to meet the objectives of its National Salmon Management Strategy (launched in 1996) at a local level. The programme of SAPs for the 62 principal salmon rivers in England and Wales was completed in April 2004. The SAPs set specific spawning targets for individual rivers, against which stock and fishery performance are assessed. This has been advocated by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) to facilitate salmon management in the international context.  Each river\'s SAP contains a range of actions to help achieve spawning targets, such as reducing exploitation, improving habitat and water quality and minimising obstructions to migration.Eel Management Plan: Council Regulation (EC) No. 1100/2007 establishes measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. The UK submitted 15 Eel Management Plans (EMP) to the European Commission, covering the River Basin Districts, as defined under the Water Framework Directive, in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.  These plans outline the current situation and how the UK intends to achieve the targets that are required by the EU Regulation. The Eels Order will provide the Environment Agency with the necessary powers to regulate the eel fisheries and improve their passage both up- and down-stream. Measures in the plan will: reduce fishing pressure (through closed seasons); introduce a scheme to trace eel catches; require installation of eel passes and screens; and require fishers to submit data on catches and on the destination of sold stock. The UK’s EMPs have yet to be approved by the European Commission; however clearance is expected in January. Related actions: Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009: The UK will use the Act to give new powers to the Environment Agency to conserve and manage migratory and freshwater fish, including powers to make emergency byelaws to respond to unforeseen threats to fish stocks as well as powers to introduce a new regulatory systems for the movement of live fish where necessary to protect national and local biodiversity. The current fishing licensing regime will also be modernised, through the introduction of an authorisation scheme for some fishing activities. The related powers, penalities and obligations of the Agency will also be modified.EU Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC: The River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) for England & Wales were approved for publication on the 22nd of December 2009. These RBMPs will ensure that statutory agencies, businesses, public sector bodies and individuals work together to protect the water environment and address significant impacts by co-ordinating all aspects of water management. This will enable the UK to meet its obligations of aiming to achieve Good Ecological Status for water bodies.','','','Reference or title: Weblink:Salmon management plan: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/33965.aspxEel management plan: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/freshwater/fishman.htm#EELS','26/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_5_3','','UK’s fishing capacity has reduced consistently from 1999 to 2008. Vessel numbers have decreased from 7865 to 6777 (14% reduction); tonnage from 267,571 to 212,878 tons (20% reduction); and fishing power from 974,881 to 859,699kW (12% reduction). Decommissioning schemes have led to the removal of 380 vessels, 127,067Kw and 40,452 gross tonnage between 1997 and 2007. More recently, the Marine and Fisheries Agency initiated a £5m fishing vessel decommissioning Scheme for the South West of England in 2007, mainly for the removal of 8 beam trawlers over 10m. In 2008/9 a decommissioning scheme was also conducted for the under-10m fleet, removing 65 vessels (457 tonnes). As well as decommissioning schemes there has also been voluntary departure from the industry due to economic conditions. The operational programme for fisheries 2007-2013 indicates an expectation of a further reduction of UK’s total fleet capacity by 10-15% by 2015.  ','','2008 data: 6777 vessels; 212878 tons; 859699 kW. ','Reference or title: Fleet capacity by MS (number of vessels, power, tonnage)Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleetstatistics/index.cfm?lng=enUK Fleet Report sent to contractors by Member State on 26.2.2010','26/02/2010','','','10/12/2009','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_6','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_6_1','','Type D infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy concern the use or presence of prohibited fishing gear or methods that are likely to have significant impacts on by-catch affecting the conservation status of marine species and habitats. In 2006 the UK had 6,761 active vessels. There were 61 type D breaches in this year and 61 penalties imposed with an average fine of €570. The UK is undertaking a number of specific actions to reduce by-catch or harm to non-target species. This includes: A ban on the use of tooth dredges within Scallop fisheries to reduce impact on the benthic environment A number of actions to reduce cetacean by-catch including regulation to protect porpoises, dolphins and whales; and research and monitoring to better understand fisheries responsible for high levels of cetacean by-catch and mitigation measuresWorking alongside RFMOs to reduce sea-bird by-catch by UK vessels operating in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans; Implementation of the EC Shark Plan of Action through monitoring; research;  reducing in special fishing permits for finning; and related fisheries and management measures (e.g. setting TACs; listing species on CITES where justified; and working through RFMOs to implement shark action plan. A UK-wide report is currently in preparation for publication in July 2010 which will include a section on a scientific assessment of the current status of benthic habitats. The UK Government will publish a response to the report which will detail any planned courses of action to address the problems highlighted.','','2007 data is not currently available.','Reference or title: COM(2008) 670: Reports from MS on behaviours which seriously infringed the rules of the CFP 2006Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/com_08_670_en.pdf','26.02.2010','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_6_2','','Seabird monitoring:  The UK has carried out significant amounts of seabird monitoring, both at colonies and at sea.  The Seabirds at Sea programme stated in 1979, and the Seabird monitoring programme (including productivity counts) in 1986.  See www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4461.  Monitoring seabird by-catch: There is no official by-catch monitoring programme, however data is collected in relation to seabird by-catch.  Since 2003, as part of its data collection in relation to discards (600 observer days per year) CEFAS has collected data on observed seabird by-catch.  This data is presently logged but not externally published.   For UK vessels mitigation measures are in place to prevent the by catch of seabirds by long line vessels fishing in certain areas of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. UK is working within the Management organisations responsible for these oceans to strengthen the measures both in terms of the mitigation devices that should be used and to broaden the sea areas to which they are applicable.The UK is aware that a lack of data at the EU level in relation to the extent and location of seabird by-catch remains a problem and is fully supportive of the need to improve this.  The UK will push for data collection to be a key part of the EU Seabird by-catch Plan of Action. The UK supports fully the need for an EU Seabird By-catch Plan of Action and has strongly encouraged the EU Commission to bring this forward as soon as possible in 2010.   The UK feels strongly that a plan of action is needed urgently so that there can be proper discussion and consultation throughout the community.  The Plan must follow best practice technical guidelines and be wide in its scope so as to address seabird by-catch by EU vessels regardless of where they are fishing.  Shark by-catch monitoring:  Commercial landings information (to species-level where possible) is collected by the MFA (soon to become the Marine Management Organisation (MMO)), and this organisation also assists with the enforcement of EC regulations, including the non-retention policy for various threatened elasmobranch species. (See further information on actions to protect sharks in Target 3.6.1). ','','','Reference or title:Weblink:www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4461 http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/fisheries/protect/sharks.htm','26/02/2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_6_3','Inshore','','','NOTE: The number of marine 2000 sites within territorial waters that have required changes in fisheries measures is an estimate based on information given by the UK. ','Reference or title:Weblink:http://www.cumbriasfc.org.uk/contents/images/File/cockle%20closure%20notice%202008.pdfhttp://www.nsfc.org.uk/byelaws.html','26.02.2010','','','10/5/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_6_3','Offshore','UK has 105 marine Natura 2000 sites based on the presence of certain habitats and species (see clarification below). However, there are different ways of defining marine sites and methods used by the UK suggest there are 154 European Marine sites with marine components consisting of: 76 inshore SACs and 78 inshore SPAs. The UK also has 5 offshore Sites of Community Interest and is working to designate additional sites over the next two years to complete the Natura 2000 network. Outside of territorial waters, the Darwin Mounds (in the north west of Scotland) are sites where there have been specific fisheries measures put in place to provide protection from the effects of trawling of deep-water coral reefs. In 2003 and 2004 the Commission adopted under emergency procedures two Commission Regulations (EC) 1475/2003 and (EC) 263/2004. In 2004 these measures were made permanent (Council Regulation (EC 602/2004)). Within territorial waters, a number of marine natura 2000 sites have had fisheries management introduced.  Types of management measures are listed below. There are also fisheries management measures which have been undertaken, for which the primary purpose was fisheries management, but may have had positive implications for biodiversity. However further analysis would be required in order to give details of these. Several and Regulating Orders.Several and Regulating Orders are granted by Defra which restrict access to/by the owner/s of the Order rather than open access to all fishermen. Because Orders are regarded as subject to the provisions of the Habitats Directive, an appropriate impact assessment is carried out (where necessary) before an Order is granted. As a result fisheries management measures has been modified within some Orders to avoid adverse impacts on marine 2000 sites. Examples of marine natura 2000 sites which overlap with Several and/or Regulating Orders include: Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA, Essex Estuaries SAC, the Wash and North Norfolk SAC, the Wash SPA, Foulness, Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA and the Thames Estuary Marshes SPA. Within these sites measures have included: i) Total Allowable Catch (TAC) which does not reduce populations below a level from which they can provide sufficient food for SPA birds; ii) limitations on the numbers, location and frequency of boats fishing to prevent damage to sensitive habitat features; and iii) limitations on the type, location and size of fishing gear used to avoid adverse impacts on SAC habitats and site features. Other licence applicationsApplications for licences required for some fishing activities, for example, those under the Coast Protection Act (CPA) or Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) – required for the use of infrastructure in shellfish culture – are also subject to the provisions of the Habitats Regulations. For a licence to be granted, it must be demonstrated that the proposal will not cause an adverse effect to marine natura 2000 site features. SFC byelawSea Fisheries Committees have powers to implement byelaws for the conservation and management of local stocks and have some limited powers to implement byelaws to protect features of conservation interest. These powers will be increased by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 when SFCs are replaced with Inshore Fishery and Conservation Authorities in Aril 2011. Examples are provided below: Flamborough Head SAC is designated for several features including reefs and sea caves. In 2007, it was identified that 70-90% of the site was subject to some degree of trawling activity. In order to prevent damage to the reef a new byelaw was introduced in 2008 to manage trawling activity; establishing a non-trawl zone; introducing a special permit scheme limiting the number of licences available to trawl within the SAC; issuing licenses based on the demonstration of a track record; and the prohibition of beam trawling and multi-rig trawling.   Longer-term plans to monitor the condition of the site are currently being developed.Ministerial OrdersThe Fal and Helford candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was identified in 1996 under the Habitats Directive and has subsequently been designated for a number of priority habitats and features.  The features include sandbanks and maerl bed communities.  Beds of maerl, (the collective name for several species of calcified red seaweed) are of particular value because of the diversity of species they support. Historically, fishing activity in the Fal & Helford Bay had been low, but in 2006 significant increase in scallop dredging in the Bay led to calls for greater protection of the SAC.  Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee with the help of the local fishing community developed a Voluntary Agreement, which provided a degree of protection to the SAC throughout 2007 and 2008 through limited scallop dredging activity in the months of November and December only. However, to afford permanent protection to the SAC, the UK put in place a Statutory Instrument (SI) to prohibit dredging for shellfish and demersal trawling in the outer part of the Fal and Helford SAC.  The Order came in force on 1st October 2008.  To assess the impacts and consequences of the proposed SI, Defra carried out a six-week public consultation from 7 March to 18 April 2008.  The Order is currently being enforced by British sea-fishery officers but no monitoring has been undertaken to assess the extent to which the prohibition has been beneficial to the scallop stocks and marine habitats and features within the SAC. The Solway Firth Special Area of Conservation & Special Protection Area was designated in October 1996. A byelaw was introduced to protect the site by Cumbria SFC (Byelaw 18) which temporarily bans the taking of shellfish. Lundy Special Area of Conservation was designated in January 1996. Devon SFC introduced byelaws to protect the site which includes a ‘No Take Zone’ and the prohibition of trawling and netting. Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation was designated in January 1996. North Eastern SFC is introducing byelaws to protect the site which will be implemented within the next 6 months. The Humber Estuary candidate Special Area of Conservation & Special Protection Area, were designated in August 2007. North Eastern SFC introduced XXIV Humber Estuary Cockle Fishery Byelaw to protect the site.Coquet Island Special Protection Area was designated July 1995. Northumberland SFC introduced Byelaw 4: Fixed engines, to protect the site.Tweed Estuary Special Area of Conservation was designated in March 2001. Northumberland SFC has created byelaws regarding:•	Application and Saving for Scientific Purposes•	Trawling and Size of Vessels•	Fixed Engines•	Purse Seine Net•	Protection of ‘V’ Notched Lobsters•	Berried (Egg Bearing) or Soft Shelled Crab (Cancer pagurus) or Lobster (Homarus gammarus)•	Parts of Shellfish•	Prohibition on Use of Edible Crab (Cancer pagurus) for Bait•	Redepositing of Shellfish•	Marking of Fishing Gear and Keep Boxes•	Dredges•	Permit to Fish for and Sell Lobsters, Crabs, Velvet Crabs, Whelks and Prawns•	Multi-rigging, Pair Trawling and Pair Seining    ','','At present there is no single agreed definition for Marine Sites. Due to different definitions of ‘Marine Sites’ adopted by different EC Services, the figures presented here for marine Natura 2000 sites might differ from the figures provided in (1.1.1) although both are from official data sources.The method used here was the presence/absence of the habitats/species below:  Habitats:• 1110: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time• 1120: Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae)• 1160: Large shallow inlets and bays• 1170: Reef• 1180: Submarine structures made by leaking gases• 8330: Submerged or partially submerged sea cavesMammals:• 1364: Halichoerus grypus• 1366: Monachus monachus• 1938: Phoca hispida bottnica• 1365: Phoca vitulina• 1349: Tursiops truncates• 1351: Phocoena phocoenaAmphibians and Reptiles:• 1224: Caretta caretta• 1227: Chelonia mydasFishes:• 1100: Acipenser naccarii• 1101: Acipenser sturio• 1102: Alosa alosa• 4127: Alosa tanaica• 4120: Alosa caspia normani• 1989: Alosa caspia vistonica• 1103: Alosa fallax• 1099: Lampetra fluviatilis• 1095: Petromyzon marinusIt is also possible to define the marine sites by their geographic location and define whether they are within or outside of territorial waters depending on where their centre point lies. This gives the following data: Marine sites within territorial waters: 119 Marine sites outside of territorial waters: 5Another way of defining marine sites provides the data presented in Target 1.1.1. DG ENV and DG MARE have completed a guidance document for Member States on how to request for fisheries management measures for marine N2000 sites under the CFP (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf). The Commission is responding to Member States requests regarding fisheries management measures for Natura 2000 sites.','DG ENV provided number of N2000 sites with a marine component and a link to the guidance document for MS wanting to integrate fisheries measures into N2000 sites. MS have been asked for further detail on fisheries measures within marine N2000 sites.','The UK has not verified this measure of progress as they do not agree with the method used to define marine sites. ','','','13/01/10','10/5/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_7','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','A3_7_1','','The UK has proposed a National Programme for Collection of Fisheries Data for 2009-2009. Under Module V: Module of evaluation of the effects of the fishing sector on the marine ecosystem, the UK will collect data for ecosystem indicators listed in Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008. For ecosystem indicators 1-4, the UK will use IBTS coordinated trawl surveys in the North Sea and North East Atlantic to collect the required data to support development of these indicators. Additional data will be collected on coordinated beam trawl surveys. For ecosystem indicators 5 – 7, VMS speed and position data for fishing vessels with LOA in excess of the 15m statutory minimum are currently logged by the UK authorities using a 2-h transmission interval. Spatial resolution is better than the 2n.mile grid cell specified by the DCR. Algorithms for filtering data to include only positions during fishing, and to link individual records to the UK Fleet Activity Database to identify fishing gear and other métier-related variables are currently under continuous development within the UK.  CEFAS and FRS have completed their separate development of algorithms linking VMS data to log-book records for all vessels > 15m, and have moved towards implementation.                         Further development will entail efficiency improvements and harmonisation of methods rather than additions to functionality. In view of Lot 2 - Development of tools for logbook and VMS data analysis (Studies for carrying out the common fisheries policy - Open call for tenders No MARE/2008/10), this subsequent development will take place within the international context of that contract, and report with respect to its agreed timelines.  For ecosystem indicator 8 the UK at-sea observer programmes carried out by AFBI, FRS and CEFAS will provide estimates of discarding rates of commercially exploited species by fleet métier.   By-catches of seabirds, reptiles and marine mammals are recorded during these trips.   For ecosystem indicator 9 fuels costs will come from the economic survey. This will be related to the information on fishing activity of the vessel during the corresponding period of economic activity, taking into account period of non-fishing related time at sea (e.g. time spent on pipeline guard duty, support for oil and gas rig operations, etc.) to allow fuel consumption and fishing activity to be directly compared.  Account will be taken of the differing levels of fuel intensity in cases where vessels report using more than one type of fishing gear to ensure adequate accuracy in the estimation of this indicator at the métier level In addition to the indicators above, the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has funded a 5-year research programme at CEFAS (2007 - 2012; Project code MF-10-1) to develop and pilot an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF), supported by indicators and management tools. Specifically, it will involve (i) the development, testing and reporting of indicators that allow managers and stakeholders to assess the status of the ecosystem and the impacts of fishing, and (ii) the development of decision tables that allow managers and stakeholders to see the effects of different management options and to choose among them. The form of indicators required by the DCR will be investigated in the project. The project will focus on the development of a pilot application of the EAF in the southwest of England.  The project will establish the links between these indicators of ecological state and indicators of fishing pressure (effort and mortality), as measured for the main fisheries in the southwest and taking account of environmental variation and change. From knowledge of the links, the project will determine the management actions needed to achieve the desired values of indicators and hence the desired state of vulnerable species, vulnerable habitats, and the fish community. This information will be used to develop decision tables that allow managers and stakeholders to see the consequences of different management options for the fishery, target species, and other parts of the ecosystem. Although some DCR time is included by the UK in Financial Tables C to deal with specific requests for data and analysis, it is expected that considerable additional development of the ecosystem indicator approach will take place within the Defra contract MF10-1.','','Appendix XIII of Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 Adopting a multiannual community programme pursuant to council regulation (EC) no 199/2008 Establishing a community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy defines environmental indicators to measure the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem. These indicators are: 1) Conservation status of fish species; 2) Proportion of large fish; 3) Mean maximum length of fishes; 4) Size at maturation of exploited fish species; 5) Distribution of fishing activities; 6) Aggregation of fishing activities; 7) Areas not impacted by mobile bottom gears; 8) Discarding rates of commercially exploited species; and 9) Fuel efficiency of fish capture','Data Collection Programme National Proposals 2009, https://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library?p_p_id=20&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&_20_struts_action=%2Fdocument_library%2Fview&_20_folderId=94845 Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:346:0037:0088:EN:PDF ','26/02/2010','','','','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective3','Objective3','MeanTrophic','The mean marine trophic level for UK EEZ waters (not including Overseas Territories) was 3.44 in 2004. This represents an increase of 0.03 since 1999, and an overall increase of 0.01 since 1984. ','','Not including OTsFrom Pauly (2005):Trophic levels (TL) express the position of an animal in a food web, relative to the primary producers (which have a definitional TL of 1). TL can be calculated from:TLi = j TLj × DCij where TLj represents the fractional trophic levels of prey j, and DCij represents the fraction of j in the diet of i. Using catch data, and TL estimates for species (or groups thereof ), mean TL and, hence, Marine Trophic index values, can be computed, for each year k from:Mean TLk = i (Yik x TLi) / i Yik where Yi refers to the landings of species (group) i, as included in fisheries statistics. [Note that, ideally, mean TL should be based on catches - i.e., all animals killed by fishing (landings + discards) – rather than only on the landings included in most fisheries statistics. This is ignored here, where we deal only with landings]. Mean maximum length (ML) is calculated similarly to mean TL, by weighting by the catches.The fishing-in-balance (FiB) index is defined as:FiBk = log[Yk x (1/TE)TLk] – log[Y0 x (1/TE)TL0]where all parameters and subscripts are defined previously, except TE, the mean transfer efficiency (specific to an ecosystem, often set at 0.1), and 0, which refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index. This definition implies that the FiB index:Does not change (remains = 0) if TL changes are matched by ‘ecologically correct’ changes in catch;Increases (>0) if: either ‘bottom up effect occurs, e.g., increase in primary production, or if geographic expansion of the fishery occurs (and the ‘system’ definition has in fact changed);Decreases (<0) if the fisheries withdraws so much biomass from the ecosystem that its functioning is impaired.Experience indicates that the MTI is very sensitive to fisheries catches being accurate, and particularly not being taxonomically and spatially over aggregated. Thus, the Sea Around Us project team are working on disaggregating the catch statistics for many countries. Until this is completed for all countries for which this is necessary, it cannot guaranteed that the catch database of the Sea Around Us, mapped by countries’ EEZ, LME and High Sea areas, will allow accurate MTI trends to be computed. Trends of MTI and related indices are thus offered mainly for indicative purpose, and must always be interpreted with caution, especially when the underlying catch statistics are unreliable.The UK also indicate that the UK has not adopted the Marine Trophic Index at UK level. We have a long history of fisheries research, providing us with more robust data to calculate changes in the seas around the UK. After wide consultation with the scientific community we have adopted an alternative indicator on Marine Ecosystem Integrity. This is based on the proportion of large fish in standardised samples from research vessels. The indicator is available here: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4248.’','Reference or title: Mean marine trophic level, from Sea Around Us Project and Convention on Biological Diversity.Weblink: http://www.seaaroundus.org/sponsor/cbd.aspx Pauly (2005): The Marine Trophic Index: a new output of the Sea Around Us website. Sea Around Us project newsletter, Issue 29: http://www.seaaroundus.org/newsletter/Issue29.pdfPauly, D, and Watson, R. (2005) Background and interpretation of the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity, Trans R Soc London B BIol Sci 360: 415-423: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=966015  ','29/04/2010','','','10/12/2009','06/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective4','A4_3','','The statutory system of development control in the UK has for some years taken an holistic approach to balancing competing sectoral requirements. Government issues national planning policy statements which provide a framework within which local planning authorities are expected to undertake their functions. These statements are material issues or planning authorities and can be taken into account by the Courts in looking at any challenges to planning authorities’ decisions. Planning policy guidance on the natural environment is currently under revision, with an updated version issued in early 2010 for consultation. This will stress the need for planning authorities to give due weight to designated sites, including Natura 2000 sites where mandatory Artilce 6 appropriate assessments are required, species and wider biodiversity interests.The Planning Act 2008 set up a new body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will make decisions on some major infrastructure projects. The Commission’s work will be framed by National Policy Statements, which, similar to national planning policy guidance, will be material issues for the Commission and will contain the same policies on the protection of the natural environment as are included in national planning policy guidance for local planning authorities( including Article 6 appropriate assessment for Natura 2000 sites).The UK suite of nationally designated sites is regarded as virtually complete but policies in relation to those sites are under consideration in relation to the need to adapt to the anticipated changes that climate change will bring for those sites and the interests for which they have been designated. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan process is also looking at the scope for the restoration of some habits and species','','','UK Planning Act:  http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyimplementation/reformplanningsystem/planningbill/UK Biodiversity Action Plan:http://www.ukbap.org.uk','26/02/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective4','A4_4_1','','The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the UK government department responsible for supporting and promoting the tourism industry in England, published a strategy paper in 2007 entitled “Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond”, which among other things stressed the importance of taking a sustainbale approach to tourism and fully integrating sustainbaility into policies and practices. This was followed  in March 2009 with a new national framework for sustainable tourism” Sustainable Tourism in England: A framework for action’ which set out six key challenges that the tourism industry must address to become sustainble. The Framework recognises that tourism uses a large amount of environmental resources and that there is potential to reduce this by ensuring that all new tourism policies and strategies are designed so that they have minimum impact on the environment. It also stresses the importance of ensuring that local communities benefit and are not disadvantaged by tourism in their areas, are consulted about tourism developments, and can benefit from jobs created by tourism. Progress against these challenges will be monitored on a regular basis with a full review with stakeholders in 2012. VisitEngland, the UK’s national marketing body, also provides help and advice for businesses to help them to meet their environmental responsibilities through “Green Start”. The programme  also encourages tourism businesses to join accreditation schemes such as the Green Tourism Business Scheme and the David Bellamy Conservation Awards. All of these activities support the visions and goals set out in the CBD guidelines.','','UK is note able to answer this question as the planning of tourism development is taken forward at the regional and Devolved Authority levels and it is not possible to gather information at that level of detail. ','www.green-business.co.ukwww.davidbellamyconservation.org.ukwww.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Tourism/tourism_policy/sustainable_development_of_tourism.htmwww.tourismtrade.org.uk/aboutvisitbritain/whatwedo/sustainabletourism.asp?url=/greenwww.tourismtrade.org.uk/aboutvisitbritain/whatwedo/stlinks.aspwww.ukbap.org.uk/','26/02/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective4','Objective4','','In the reporting period 2007-2008, and with the assumption detailed hereunder, Great Britain direct spending under the Cohesion and Structural Funds for biodiversity noticeably decreased. Its global allocation for biodiversity is EUR 89 millions (categories 51, 55 and 56).','Unable to sign off without sight of data ','No data available for 2006. Estimates of 2007 and 2008 are under the estimate that biodiversity spending strictly follows the planned 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy annual spending provided by DG REGIO. The annual data from MSs on biodiversity spending under current cohesion policy are expected to be available in early February 2010. This information will be completed by the Contractor from Official sources.','Cohesion Policy Direct spending on biodiversity, provided by DG Environmenthttp://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/env/biodiversity_action_plan/library?l=/2010_bap_report/database_prefilling/data_from_regio&vm=detailed&sb=TitleCohesion Policy (2007-2013), division by resources per programming year, per MS.http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-recto.pdf','Unable to sign off without sight of data ','','','04/01/2010','06/04/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_1','AlienLegal','The United Kingdom does not have general legislation in place in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). However, it does have specific legislation that addresses the issues of import, possession and trade, introduction and control and eradication of IAS. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) prohibits the introduction of animals into the wild that are not normally resident in the UK (or are not regular visitors in a wild state) or that are listed in Schedule 9 to the Act. This also applies to the planting of plants listed in Schedule 9 to the Act. Two Acts added to the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981): the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (England and Wales) and the Nature Conservation Act 2004 (Scotland) prohibit the trade and possession for the purpose of trade of specified non-native species (plants or animals including seeds, eggs, etc.) Article 15 of the Wildlife Order 1985 of Northern Ireland contains similar provisions to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 provides provisions for possibly prohibiting the importation and keeping of non-indigenous mammalian species. The Act also contains explicit provisions for possibilities to control / eradication of non-indigenous mammals, i.e. a reference to  destruction of any mammalian species covered by the Act or an Order made under it. The import, possession and  release of certain fish species in England, Wales and Scotland is prohibited under the Import of Live Fish Act 1980, while section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 prohibits the introduction into any English or Welsh waters, of any fish or fish spawn without written consent from the water authority. In Scotland, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Act 2003, as amended by the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007) stipulates that all introductions and transfers of fish into Scottish inland waters require consent from the appropriate authority. Furthermore, the Import of Live Fish Scotland Act 1978 and the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) Scotland Orders prohibit or licence the import, possession or release of non-native fish species.  Finally, in Scotland there are also proposals to provide powers to control invasive non-native species through a Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill.  These include proposed powers for specified persons to enter land, control or eradicate (or require control) of invasive non-native species.','','The following Measure of Progress indicates current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding their coverage of issues such as import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS. General legislation refers to legislation addressing all aspects of IAS. Specific legislation refers to regulations addressing only certain aspects, e.g. plant pests in Plant Health legislation.  ','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy, MS questionnaireWeblink: no link','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_1','AlienSpecies','Of the ‘163’ worst invasive alien species identified by the EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on trends in invasive alien species, 63 are present in the United Kingdom which equates to between 0.25 and 0.7 species per 1000km2.','','The EEA/SEBI2010 Expert Group on invasive alien species (IAS) identified 163 out of 10,000 alien species as ‘worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity’. These species have been proven to be highly invasive and damaging to native biodiversity in at least part of their European range. The severe impacts of these species range from competition with native species, affects on human health and causing damage to economic activities. The number of worst IAS per 1000 km2 is presented as a range, as species occurrence may differ markedly depending on the regional level.The list of \'worst invasive alien species threatening biodiversity\' is based on expert opinion expressed at the SEBI 2010 expert group on invasive alien species. Current information is only a preliminary estimate of the number of worst invasive species in European countries. These country figures are only rough indications of the actual impact, which may differ markedly between species and regions.','Reference or title: SEBI 10 EEAWeblink: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/assessing-biodiversity ','26/02/2010','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_1_2','','The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain was launched on the 28th May 2008 by the Non-Native Species Programme Board following a non-native species policy review in 2003. The Strategy covers England, Scotland and Wales and sits alongside their respective national biodiversity strategies.  This gives IAS a specific focus.  The actions in the Strategy are documented in an Implementation Plan with a priority rating and progress status which is periodically reviewed.A similar review was carried out in Northern Ireland in coordination with the Government of Ireland to produce an All-Ireland-Review. With regards to the introduction of alien marine species for targeted fisheries, the UK government follows the principles and measures outlined in the ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms. Knowledge on the presence of non-native species in UK Overseas Territories has been assessed and summarised by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC Report 372, 2006). It is not clear whether invasive alien species are comprehensively dealt with as part of a national/sub national biodiversity strategy or action plan. As regards the Overseas Territories (which are outside the EU with certain exceptions) - the UK Government has adopted a biodiversity strategy for the territories in 2009, with IAS is one of the strategic priorities for action.','','The following Measure of Progress specifies whether a national strategy and/ or action plan specifically related to IAS has been developed. If this is not the case, it should specify whether the topic is comprehensively addressed in the national biodiversity strategy or action plan.','Reference or title: Technical Support to EU IAS Strategy and progress status of the Implementation Plan of the GB Non-native Species Framework StrategyWeblink: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/index.cfm?sectionid=55    ','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_1_3','','The United Kingdom has not ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation. However, according to the recent information from the Member State, the UK intends to ratify and implement the Convention at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, the UK in favour of the Convention and chaired the diplomatic conference and associated working group that developed the Convention text.  ','','The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states, representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. The convention has so far been ratified by 22 states that represent 22.65 per cent of world tonnage (as on 28th February 2010).  ','Reference : International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ConventionsWeblink: http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=247','UK will sign off once  changes have been incorporated','','','','14/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_1_4','','According to the Member State, a dedicated IAS database and rapid response framework are under development in the UK. Some previous research work has already documented information on the presence of non-native and invasive non-native species and work began in January 2009 on development of a GB Non-native Species Information Portal (GB NNSIP). This is currently a 3 year project and if successful, it would also be intended to form the basis for a focal point for networking information and, in due course, for creating an early warning system.  It would also generate alerts/incident lists for a rapid response mechanism.A GB rapid response framework is being developed that will form the basis of an operational agreement between relevant Government departments and their related agencies in Scotland, England and Wales for the implementation of rapid response.  It is proposed that a rapid response core group would act as an operational co-ordination mechanism while the GB Non-native Species Programme Board acts as the overarching policy co-ordination mechanism.','','The Community is committed under the Biodiversity Action Plan to establish an early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries, taking into account biogeographical regions. The following Measure of Progress indicates the extent to which such a system has been developed or implemented at the national level and the areas covered. In addition, it should provide information on the existence of  national/sub-national data centre or database on IAS.','Reference or title: ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective5','A5_2_2','','In the UK the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops is being considered at regional level.  The relevant authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have each undertaken a public consultation on proposed coexistence measures for their respective territories, while the authority in Scotland is reserving its position on this issue.  Further research is being done in the UK to obtain evidence to better inform coexistence policy, and the UK authorities will want to take due account of the crop-specific guidance that is being produced by the European Coexistence Bureau established by the Commission.  As commercial GM cultivation is not expected in the UK for some years at least, there are no immediate plans to implement the regional coexistence measures that have already been proposed.    According to unofficial sources such as the “GMO free Europe” initiative, there are no formal or informal GMO-free regions in the UK.','','According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for coexistence.In April 2009, the Commission adopted a second report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. “GMO free Europe” is an initiative of the Foundation on Future Farming, and is linked to GENET, a European network of non-governmental non-profit organisations engaged in the critical debate of genetic engineering, founded in 1995.','Reference or title: EC Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming.Weblink: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/coexistence/index_en.htmGMO free Europehttp://www.gmo-free-regions.org/ (last accessed 11/05/2010)  ','26/02/2010','','','14/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective6','A6_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective6','A6_1_1','','The 4th National Report to the CBD was submitted in May 2009. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan was launched in 1994. Between 2004 and 2007, its targets and priority habitats and species were reviewed. Following devolution, the four countries have adopted their own biodiversity strategies: England (2002), Scotland (2004), Wales (2006), Northern Ireland (2002).The UK had paid her annual contributions to CBD, CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention and World Heritage Convention.','','For the contributions to the CBD General Trust Fund and to the Ramsar Convention, the exchange rate of 30 Sep 2009 is used. For the contribution to the World Heritage Convention, the exchange rate of 1 July 2008 is used. The figures for CBD, CMS, AEWA and World Heritage Convention refer to contributions that have taken place, while the figure for Ramsar refers to the allocated contribution for 2009.','Reference or title: Information on Parties’ contributions at convention websites Weblink: https://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/contributions.shtml?tab=2http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_documents_overview.htm http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop4_docs/meeting_docs_pdf/mop4_21_income_expenditures_2006_2008.pdfhttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_02_e.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_1','','According to the OECD markers, the UK spent EUR0.07m in 2007 on biodiversity-related multilateral aid spending, which amounts to nearly 0.00% of the total multilateral aid spending. The OECD marker does not show any biodiversity-related multilateral aid spending by the UK for 2006.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. See also the clarification under the next Measure of Progress on bilateral aid.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','20/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_1_3','','According to the OECD markers, the UK spent EUR8.9m in 2006 and EUR1.4m in 2007 on biodiversity-related bilateral aid, which amounts to 0.001% and nearly 0.00%, respectively, of the total biodiversity-related bilateral aid budget.','','The figures provided in this assessment have been extracted from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW). The data presented above may differ from data available to and/or presented by Member States. The exchange rate used is for the 1st of July each year. Data for 2008 are not available yet. Biodiversity-related aid is defined as activities that promote at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species or genetic resources), or fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources. Figures shown relate to bilateral aid, and do not include multilateral contributions to GEF, UNEP and other organisations active in the field of biodiversity. Also, it should be noted that figures are based on indications of the policy objectives of bilateral aid activities, though the biodiversity objective will often be less than the total value of such activities. Policy objectives are reported by donors through “markers” which do not allow exact quantification of aid activities’ contribution to the objectives. Thus, the figures are approximate.','Reference or title: OECD DAC Creditor Reporting SystemWeblink: http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3343,en_2649_34447_42396496_1_1_1_1,00.html and http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_1_4','','The UK contributed EUR193.23million to the 3rd replenishment which is 7.93% of the total replenishment. The UK contributed EUR202.37million to the 4th replenishment which is 9.47 % of the total replenishment.','','For the 3rd replenishment the exchange rate of 19 September 2002 was used. For the 4th replenishment the exchange rate of 19 October 2006 was used where applicable. Data for the 5th replenishment are not available.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_1_6','','Substantial funding for overseas territories is provided through the Darwin Initiative. In addition, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and International Development Department co-fund a €1.1 million per annum Overseas Territories Environment Fund (OTEF), much of whose funds eventually go towards biodiversity aims.','','It is difficult to quantify exactly the annual level of funding by the UK towards biodiversity in the OTs, because such statistics are not collected centrally. However, we can say that, in addition to the OTEF run by FCO and DFID, which provides between half a million and one million Euros per annum towards OT projects with a biodiversity focus, Darwin is contributing an increasing amount year on year, devoting from 2009-10 at least an earmarked figure of €1.7 million towards OT biodiversity per annum.','Reference or title: GEF websiteWeblink: http://www.gefweb.org/default.aspx','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_2','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_2_2','','   The SEA Directive is transposed into United Kingdom law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, and in Scotland by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.  The requirements for EIA come from a European Directive (85/33/EEC as amended by 97/11/EC) and have been transposed into domestic legislation by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293)','','','Reference or title: Weblink: ','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective7','A7_2_5','','Examples exist of EIAs being carried out - St Helena has done an EIA for a Wharf Improvement Project, which is EDF-funded.','','','','26/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective8','A8_1','','While the UK has not provided funding for the ABS Working Group and no national legislation implementing the CBD Guidelines on Access & Benefit-sharing exist, public awareness of the Guidelines is being raised through informing stakeholder groups, the promotion of the Bonn Guidelines by the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and information on Defra webpages. Similarly, no legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exists, but awareness is being raised: The contracts for the main gene banks funded by Defra require the use of the SMTA for annex 1 material and genebanks are encouraged to use the SMTA for other GRFA; and Defra also promotes the use of the SMTA by other genebanks at the meeting of its stakeholder group, the UKPGRFA. The annual proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources is estimated to have risen from 67% in 2006 to 88% in 2009. A large number of import, export and re-export documents for trade in CITES specimens was issued in 2007 and 2008, with several applications denied, and several items seized. National capacity for implementing CITES has been developed and support to developing countries for implementing CITES has been provided. The contributions to the CITES Trust Fund were paid.','','This is a summary of the Measures of Progress under objective 8. ','All the other Measures of Progress under objective 8.','','','','13/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective8','A8_1_3','BenefitShare','The UK does not have national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exists. However, the UK has national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing; •	Stakeholder groups are informed of progress of ABS negotiations at 6 monthly meetings.•	The Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) Kew promote use of Bonn Guidelines in their training courses and material. •	Defra’s web pages reference the Bonn Guidelines','','','Reference or title:Weblink: http://www.kew.org/data/cbdbotanists.html http://defraweb/environment/quality/biodiversity/geneticresources/index.htm','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective8','A8_1_3','CBD','The UK has not provided funding for the ABS Working Group.','','','Reference or title: Reports of CBD ABS Working GroupWeblink: http://www.cbd.int/meetings/  ','26/02/2010','','','09/12/2009','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective8','A8_1_3','GeneticResource','The UK does not have legislation on implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. However, the UK has implemented national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources: •	The contracts for the main gene banks funded by Defra require the use of the SMTA for annex 1 material and genebanks are encouraged to use the SMTA for other GRFA. •	Defra also promotes the use of the SMTA by other genebanks at the meeting of its stakeholder group, the UKPGRFA.','','','','26/02/2010','','','','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective8','A8_1_4','','The UK government developed a definition for sustainable timber and timber derived product sources in the context of its public procurement policy on timber. The Government’s Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET) has assessed available forest certification schemes and found the two major international certification schemes the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) as meeting the UK government’s sustainability criteria. Timber and timber derived products sourced from FSC and PEFC certified forests are therefore accepted as being from sustainable sources. The proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources can be reflected by the current availability of certified material on the UK market. In 2006, a study initiated by the UK Timber Trade Federation (TTF) showed that 66.7% of all domestically produced and imported wood in 2005 was certified. This study was followed up in 2009 and showed that the proportion of certified timber had now risen to 83.6% of all domestically produced and imported wood in 2008. This report is available here: http://www.ttf.co.uk/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=7D2AC347-5C05-4AAB-B7A9-B78C70CE77EC Based on the percentages in this report, the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources are estimated to be in 2006: 67%, 2007:76%, 2008:84% and 2009:88%. ','','It should be noted that these percentages reflect what has been purchased by the timber trade industry only, however the trend and proportion is expected to be indicative for other wood consuming industries such as the furniture and paper industry.  In early 2009, Defra undertook a pilot study to look at the reporting of timber procurement by government bodies.  The pilot study focused on Defra and its agencies and considered different processes and methods which served as the basis for the recommendations suggested.   The report was published in July 2009 and the full recommendations can be found here:  http://www.proforest.net/cpet/implementation-in-practice/timber-reporting-pilot-study.Central Government departments are estimated to purchase 20% of all timber bought in the UK.  This figure rises to 40% when including LA’s and other government bodies. (according to EAC figures 2006)Defra and the Central Point of Expertise in Timber (CPET) are working with the Timber Trade Federation and WWF on a joint approach to encourage local authority uptake and implementation of a timber procurement policy. ','Reference or title:Weblink:Reference or title: UK Timber Industry Certification, Timber Trade Federation, Nov 2009Weblink: http://www.ttf.co.uk/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=7D2AC347-5C05-4AAB-B7A9-B78C70CE77EC','26/02/2010','','','13/05/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective8','A8_1_8','','The number of import, export and re-export applications documents issued in 2007 and 2008 was 31.065, 4158 and 15926, respectively. The number of import, export and re-export applications that were denied in 2007 and 2008 is 30, 12 and 7, respectively. The number of seizures and confiscations of CITES specimens was 360 for 2007 and 431 for 2008, representing a net increase in seizures of +71. As to capacity-building at the national level, activities to enhance CITES implementation at the national level: computerisation. Other national-level capacity-building activities by national CITES authorities include: Staff of Scientific Authority, Staff of Management Authority and Staff of enforcement authorities were provided with oral/written advice, technical assistance and training. Specific capacity building activities provided include regular CITES training for Police and Customs authorities in Metropolitan UK and HM Wildlife Inspectorate , UK Border Agency (UKBA) enforcement training given to UKBA detection officers, police, MA’s and SA’s,  training given to Wildlife Inspectorate staff on CITES plants issues and post CoP14 changes. Assistance was given to India in the establishment of their Wildlife Crime Bureau. Enforcement training (Indian forestry officials and Polish enforcement officers) CITES & plants issues (Trinidad and Tobago), general CITES plants enquiries from EU member states. UKBA enforcement has provided CITES enforcement training (including working with the UK Scientific Authority on technical training on timber issues) in Poland x 2, Romania x 2, Slovakia x 2, Cayman Islands and China. As part of the UK/India Sustainable Development Dialogue (SDD). Defra has contributed financially to the development of a training plan for Indian wildlife law enforcers including a module on illegal trade in CITES specimens. SDD funding was also made available to fund an exchange trip of Indian officials to the UK to exchange good practice and gain knowledge of CITES implementation in the UK. Coordination of police efforts to target wildlife crime is undertaken by the UK\'s National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). The priorities for the Unit are set annually and have consistently included CITES. The Unit liaises with the UK MA and the UKBA as well as the Defra and NWCU coordinated Partnership Against Wildlife Crime forum of Government and Non-Governmental stakeholders in carrying out intelligence based enforcement activities. The SDD inspired work with India involved the NWCU directly and its officers visited India as part of the processes.  Additionally, in 2009-2010 Defra initiated an enforcement focussed exchange programme with China, again under the SDD progrogramme.  Scientific Authority and licencing training additionally took place in 2009 with Monserrat. Payments to the CITES Trust Fund in recent years has totalled:  2008 €206,427.86 ; 2009 € 252, 372.3  ;2010 €242,813.08.  Additional voluntary sums have been given in 2008 and 2009. The UK paid her contributions to the CITES Trust Fund in 2008, with no contributions in arrears. Voluntary sums, in addition to the annual payment to the CITES Trust Fund were given in 2008 and 2009.','','All information here refers to the biennial period of 2007 and 2008 combined. The numbers of seizures refer to seized and confiscated specimens only (not including figures provided in kilograms or litres). For the financial contribution, the exchange rate of 31 December 2008 was used.','','26/02/2010','','','12/01/2010','13/05/2010'),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','','','In December 2008 Defra published a set of climate change adaptation principles which are being adopted across all the workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) in order to embed climate change adaptation.  Once fully implemented EBS will become the Adaptation Strategy for Biodiversity for England.The forthcoming Defra Climate Change Plan notes the importance of the linkages between sectors, especially the inter-relationship between Biodiversity and Food, Farming and Forestry. The Plan has developed 5 adaptation principles with the first one being that any adaptation action must be sustainable i.e. our responses should not add to climate change or limit the ability of other parts of the natural environment to adapt. The Plan has 3 clear priorities - enhancing the resilience of ecosystems, building adaptive capacity, and securing the basics for human well-being.The UK is an active member of the EU AD Hoc working group on climate change and biodiversity with representation by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee as well as government.  UK hosted the first meeting of the CBD AD Hoc technical experts group on climate change and biodiversity and provided one of the co-chairs for the process.  Findings have been fed into the Copenhagen UNFCCC processIn Northern Ireland, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill (2010) is currently progressing through the NI Assembly.  This will include a statutory biodiversity responsibility for the first time in NI.The NI Biodiversity Group reviewed the delivery of Biodiversity in NI in 2009 and provides further guidance of climate change impacts.','','Climate Change Adaptation Principles published in 2008 and though their integration into the various workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy is building into a comprehensive approach.Scotland\'s Climate Change Adaptation Framework was published in December 2009. This framework sets the strategic direction and contains a number of sector summaries including - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience, Agriculture, Forests and Forestry. This is supplemented by Scottish Natural Heritage\'s (SNH) Climate Change and the Natural Heritage – SNH\'s Approach and Action Plan.  This sets out the strategic priorities and the key actions for delivering them over the next few years.  This was published on 21 July 2009. The statement makes clear SNH\'s concern about climate change being the most serious risk to the natural heritage over coming decades. It sets out SNH\'s strong support for mitigation and adaptation measures, and identifies our objectives with respect to each.Northern Ireland (NI) are working towards a Northern Ireland climate change risk assessment and adaptation strategy.The Climate Change Strategy for Wales (due for publication mid-2010) will contain targets for integrating adaptation measures within biodiversity action. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is promoting the use of the adaptation principles through the Local BAPs and has collated exemplars of local adaptation projects addressing biodiversity to assist the sharing of knowledge and development of best practice.   In addition, many of the environmental agencies in England and the Devolved Administrations are developing their own climate change action plan e.g. NI Environment Agency is taking forward its own climate change action plan in relation to its Natural Heritage work, following an assessment of risk; in England agencies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England producing plans for later in 2010. Defra has supported research to provide guidance on landscape scale initiatives and demonstration of application of the EBS adaptation principles in a series of case studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains) that will report in 2010. Defra has also initiated a project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change. It will be based on selected habitats and case studies and report in 2011. ','An illustration of the biodiversity adaptation actions being undertaken by the Environment Agency in England is given at:http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/108363.aspxCase studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains), REF WC059:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16830&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Cambrian%20Mountains&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#DescriptionOther study (REF WCO775):http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17123&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=West%20Weald&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Defra project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change (REF. WC 0751): http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16732&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Priority%20habitats&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description','19/03/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_1_1','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_3','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_3_2','','1.The UK Biomass Strategy published in May 2007 provides a framework for increasing sustainable supply of biomass for heat, power, transport fuels and renewable materials. The Strategy makes clear that underlying aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without harming the environment, whilst maximising benefits to biodiversity, agriculture and employment. A UK Renewable Energy Strategy was published in July 2009, and provides updated details of UK’s approach to biomass sustainability (see in particular chapter 4 of the document ).2. In accordance with Article 4 of the EU ‘s Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009), UK  is developing  a NREAP which will include biomass. 3. The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) introduced in April 2008, is one Government’s key tools for promoting the use of  transport biofuels. The scheme is administered by the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA). To encourage suppliers to source sustainable biofuels, suppliers are required to submit reports on both the net GHG saving and the sustainability of the biofuels they supply, in order to receive Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates (RTFCs). These reports address the direct impacts arising from biofuel cultivation that are potentially within the influence of companies sourcing or producing biofuels though effective supply chain management. The RFA separately monitors the potential indirect impacts of biofuel production such as indirect land use change or changes to food and other commodity prices. Sustainability standards are expected to become  mandatory by 2011, in accordance with the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive.','','','The UK Biomass Strategy (May 2007) and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009)Weblink: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/explained/bioenergy/policy_strat/policy_strat.aspxRFA website:  http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/reportsandpublications/carbonandsustainabilityguidance.cfm','26/02/2010','','','06/04/2010',''),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_4','',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_4_1','','In December 2008 Defra published a set of climate change adaptation principles which are being adopted across all the workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS) in order to embed climate change adaptation.  Once fully implemented EBS will become the Adaptation Strategy for Biodiversity for England.The forthcoming Defra Climate Change Plan notes the importance of the linkages between sectors, especially the inter-relationship between Biodiversity and Food, Farming and Forestry. The Plan has developed 5 adaptation principles with the first one being that any adaptation action must be sustainable i.e. our responses should not add to climate change or limit the ability of other parts of the natural environment to adapt. The Plan has 3 clear priorities - enhancing the resilience of ecosystems, building adaptive capacity, and securing the basics for human well-being.The UK is an active member of the EU AD Hoc working group on climate change and biodiversity with representation by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee as well as government.  UK hosted the first meeting of the CBD AD Hoc technical experts group on climate change and biodiversity and provided one of the co-chairs for the process.  Findings have been fed into the Copenhagen UNFCCC processIn Northern Ireland, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill (2010) is currently progressing through the NI Assembly.  This will include a statutory biodiversity responsibility for the first time in NI.The NI Biodiversity Group reviewed the delivery of Biodiversity in NI in 2009 and provides further guidance of climate change impacts.',NULL,'Climate Change Adaptation Principles published in 2008 and though their integration into the various workstreams of the England Biodiversity Strategy is building into a comprehensive approach.Scotland\'s Climate Change Adaptation Framework was published in December 2009. This framework sets the strategic direction and contains a number of sector summaries including - Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience, Agriculture, Forests and Forestry. This is supplemented by Scottish Natural Heritage\'s (SNH) Climate Change and the Natural Heritage – SNH\'s Approach and Action Plan.  This sets out the strategic priorities and the key actions for delivering them over the next few years.  This was published on 21 July 2009. The statement makes clear SNH\'s concern about climate change being the most serious risk to the natural heritage over coming decades. It sets out SNH\'s strong support for mitigation and adaptation measures, and identifies our objectives with respect to each.Northern Ireland (NI) are working towards a Northern Ireland climate change risk assessment and adaptation strategy.The Climate Change Strategy for Wales (due for publication mid-2010) will contain targets for integrating adaptation measures within biodiversity action. The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is promoting the use of the adaptation principles through the Local BAPs and has collated exemplars of local adaptation projects addressing biodiversity to assist the sharing of knowledge and development of best practice.   In addition, many of the environmental agencies in England and the Devolved Administrations are developing their own climate change action plan e.g. NI Environment Agency is taking forward its own climate change action plan in relation to its Natural Heritage work, following an assessment of risk; in England agencies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England producing plans for later in 2010. Defra has supported research to provide guidance on landscape scale initiatives and demonstration of application of the EBS adaptation principles in a series of case studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains) that will report in 2010. Defra has also initiated a project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change. It will be based on selected habitats and case studies and report in 2011. ','An illustration of the biodiversity adaptation actions being undertaken by the Environment Agency in England is given at:http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/108363.aspxCase studies (West Weald and Cambrian Mountains), REF WC059:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16830&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Cambrian%20Mountains&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#DescriptionOther study (REF WCO775):http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=17123&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=West%20Weald&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Defra project to assess the legislation for protected sites and methods of monitoring favourable condition against  the implications of climate change (REF. WC 0751): http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16732&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Priority%20habitats&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description','19/03/2010',NULL,NULL,'06/04/2010',NULL),
	('United Kingdom','Objective9','A9_4_3','','Defra and partners sponsored an assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on species and habitats, which included an assessment of the level of risk to BAP Habitats based on expert opinion. This England Biodiversity Strategy Towards Adaptation to Climate Change report was used to inform other strategic documents such as the Forestry Strategy and also led to further research focused on meeting needs indicated by the risk assessment, such as the impact on wetlands and coastal habitats.  Defra developed the UK Climate Programmes, the latest is UKCP 09, which provides probabilistic models of future climate change scenarios, which have been used in research projects to assess the likely impacts of climate change on biodiversity, both species and habitats.Earlier versions of UKCP were used to assess impacts on 50 selected species associated with particular habitats (MONARCH).Defra commissioned a research project that uses the UKCP09 projections to develop the tools and to identify risks to wetland habitats near the English coast as a result of climate change and sea level rise, which included an assessment of the ease of re-creation of these habitats. It will report in 2010.Defra commissioned a project to assess the impacts of climate change on the ornithological interest of SPAs, which will report in 2011. Defra and UK partners also commissioned an project to detect signals of impacts of climate change on species range and abundance, in the BICCO-net Project, that will deliver through 2010 to 2011 and provide valuable information for improved modelling of possible future changes and this guide decisions on providing for adaptation.Natural England have several projects to assess risk and determine priority action. Many of the Defra projects were reported in the last BAP round. • Defra is a founding partner of the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership, which provides a coordinating network for UK scientists and policy makers.• High level annual reports convey the key messages to decision makers, backed up with more detailed analysis. These reports are a unique and innovative approach towards working with a wide range of partners and communicating with a wide range of decision makers.• Along with issues such as melting Arctic sea ice, one of the key issues that this year’s report (launched on 28 April) gets across is increased.','','All parts of the UK have undertaken at least a preliminary assessment of habitats and species at risk.For example Northern Ireland Environemnt Agency is working with government and GB colleagues to ensure outputs of UK projects are relevance to Northern Ireland. In mplementing the Water Framework Directive Climate Change issues have been incorporated into the first phase of the River Basin Management Plans (Dec 2009); and further collaboration will be part of the ongoing development of these plans. In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) has carried out research (in collaboration with partners) to map functional networks for a range of habitats, and hence to identify existing connectivity. These maps are being used range of projects to inform conservation action. In particular they are being used to explore the degree to which protected sites are functionally connected, and hence form an interactive series rather than a compilation of independent sites. This information is being employed to target action to improve connectivity within, for example, the new agri-environment scheme, Glastir. They are also being used to help develop a strategic ‘green infrastructure’ within the Wales Spatial Plan; a number of pilot projects in southeast Wales are taking these ideas forward. ICCW are also undertaking an assessment of climate change vulnerability of terrestrial sites within the European and national site networks. This assessment has been based on a qualitative assessment for habitat and species features combined with consideration of site condition, identified management issues, habitat connectivity and an evaluation of the size and vulnerability of the soil carbon store within the sites in Wales. The outputs from this work will be used to inform selection of sites that should be a priority for adaptation actions. It will also provide a resource for local staff to inform management decisions. CCW has also used the UKCIP02 climate change projections data to assess the vulnerability of key coastal SACs, such as Bosherston Lakes and Dyfi Estuary,  to sea-level rise in separate projects. Finally, Wales CCW has, using professional judgement (based on the advice of the Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group  methodology), assessed quantitatively risk (H/M/L) for all species that are features on European and national designated sitesNorthern Ireland is considering the impacts of the latest climate change projections - UKCIP09. Consideration is being given to undertaking an assessment for the whole of Ireland.Scotland has reported on the state of biodiversity in 2010.','REF: Mitchell et al., 2007, CR0327: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC02019_5259_FRP.pdfhttp://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php and http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=287Monarch project:http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?id=330&option=com_content&task=view REF WC0726/CR0422:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16071&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=Developing%20tools%20to%20evaluate%20the%20consequences%20for%20biodiversity%20of%20options%20for%20coastal%20zone%20adaptation%20to%20climate%20change&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description ‘Chainspan’, REF CC0750:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16731&FromSearch=Y&Status=2&Publisher=1&SearchText=British%20Trust%20for%20Ornithology&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Descriptionhttp://www.bicco-net.orgNatural England, RP122, ‘Priorities for woodland conservation’, RP295 ‘Are the population dynamics of seabirds in the west of Britain driven by climate change ?’ and RP296 ‘Impacts of climate and land use change on the UK cuckoo population’ link:  http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/research/biodiversity.aspxUK BAP round:http://www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk/plans/target.asp?X=%7B74525FA3-4F13-4076-8402-9A8CDD1D3272%7D&AP=%7B0DA0A0F4-F82F-4B50-A07E-C5BAB622D2EA%7D&EBS=1ocean acidification:http://www.mccip.org.uk/elr/default.htmScotland state of biodiversity: http://www.snh.org.uk/scottish/2010yearofbiodiversity.asp','19/03/2010','','','06/04/2010','');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `Narrative` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table objectives
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `objectives`;

CREATE TABLE `objectives` (
  `id` varchar(25) NOT NULL,
  `name` varchar(100) DEFAULT NULL,
  `description` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `headline` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `policy_area` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
  `order` int(2) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `policy_area` (`policy_area`),
  KEY `name` (`name`),
  KEY `order` (`order`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `objectives` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `objectives` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `objectives` (`id`,`name`,`description`,`headline`,`policy_area`,`order`)
VALUES
	('A1','Objective1','To safeguard the EU\'s most important habitats and species','Biodiversity loss of most important habitats and species halted by 2010, these habitats and species showing substantial recovery by 2013',1,1),
	('A10','Objective10','To sustainably strengthen the knowledge base for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, in the EU and globally','',4,10),
	('A11','Measure1','Ensuring adequate financing for biodiversity','',4,11),
	('A12','Measure2','Strengthening EU decision making for biodiversity','',4,12),
	('A13','Measure3','Building partnerships for biodiversity','',4,13),
	('A14','Measure4','Building public education, awareness and participation for biodiversity','',4,14),
	('A15','MandE','Monitoring, evaluation and review','',4,15),
	('A2','Objective2','To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU countryside','In wider countryside (terrestrial, freshwater, brackish water outside Natura 2000 network), biodiversity loss halted by 2010 and showing substantial recovery by 2013.',1,2),
	('A3','Objective3','To conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in the wider EU marine environment','In wider marine environment (outside Natura 2000 network), biodiversity loss halted by 2010 and showing substantial recovery by 2013',1,3),
	('A4','Objective4','To reinforce compatibility of regional and territorial development with biodiversity in the EU','Regional and territorial development benefiting biodiversity, and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented and minimised or, where unavoidable, adequately compensated for, from 2006 onwards.',1,4),
	('A5','Objective5','To substantially reduce the impact on EU biodiversity of invasive alien species (IAS) & alien genotypes','Negative impacts on EU biodiversity of IAS and alien genotypes prevented or minimised from 2010 onwards.',1,5),
	('A6','Objective6','To substantially strengthen effectiveness of international governance for biodiversity and ecosystem services','',2,6),
	('A7','Objective7','To substantially strengthen support for biodiversity and ecosystem services in EU external assistance','',2,7),
	('A8','Objective8','To substantially reduce the impact of international trade on global biodiversity and ecosystem services','',2,8),
	('A9','Objective9','To support biodiversity adaptation to climate change','Potential for damaging impacts, related to climate change, on EU biodiversity substantially reduced by 2013',3,9);

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `objectives` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table policy_areas
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `policy_areas`;

CREATE TABLE `policy_areas` (
  `id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `name` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
  `description` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `name` (`name`),
  CONSTRAINT `policy_areas_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`id`) REFERENCES `objectives` (`policy_area`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `policy_areas` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `policy_areas` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `policy_areas` (`id`,`name`,`description`)
VALUES
	(1,'Policy area 1','Biodiversity and the EU'),
	(2,'Policy area 2','The EU and global biodiversity'),
	(3,'Policy area 3','Biodiversity and climate change'),
	(4,'Policy area 4','The knowledge base');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `policy_areas` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table progress_measures
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `progress_measures`;

CREATE TABLE `progress_measures` (
  `id` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `mop` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `text` text,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`,`mop`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `progress_measures` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `progress_measures` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `progress_measures` (`id`,`mop`,`text`)
VALUES
	('A10_1','','Is there a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity researchIf ‘No’, is biodiversity research incorporated into other national programmes?'),
	('A10_1_2','','The CBD considered the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) evaluation at the 9th Conference of Parties (COP) meeting. This led to decision COP IX/15: Follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Please respond to the queries below regarding Member State engagement in the follow up activities.'),
	('A10_1_6','',NULL),
	('A10_1_8','','Has a national biodiversity platform been created to ensure that biodiversity research and outcomes are reflected in policy development and implementation? \r\nIf yes, has the national biodiversity platform been updated in the past year? \r\nIf no, are there plans to develop such a platform?'),
	('A10_1_9','','-Please indicate level of participation in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).\r\n -Please indicate level of participation in European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI).'),
	('A1_1','',NULL),
	('A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat','How complete is the Natura 2000 network?'),
	('A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan','What is the percentage of Natura 2000 sites with a management plan completed or in preparation?'),
	('A1_1_2','',NULL),
	('A1_1_3','','Indicate the number of complaints/infringements (legal cases) related to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive'),
	('A1_2','',NULL),
	('A1_2_3','','Are tools in place or developed to support ecological connectivity?'),
	('A1_3','','What is the conservation status of birds (% of species - green, amber and red)?'),
	('A1_3_1','ActionPlan','ndicate the number of action plans per species group'),
	('A1_3_1','BirdIndicator','Has your country developed indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes?'),
	('A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring','Does your country have active common bird monitoring schemes'),
	('A1_3_1','RedList','Do Red Data lists exist?'),
	('A2_1','',NULL),
	('A2_1_1','','Use of opportunities for targeted funding of N2000/biodiversity from rural development policy budget'),
	('A2_1_10','',NULL),
	('A2_1_11','NatStrats','National strategy or action plan on conserving genetic resources\r\n\r\nProjects promoting the in-situ conservation of genetic diversity'),
	('A2_1_11','RDPPayments','RDP payments for genetic conservation measures'),
	('A2_1_12','','Use of opportunities for targeted funding of N2000/biodiversity from rural development policy budget in outermost regions'),
	('A2_1_15','','Afforestation and deforestation and their potential impact on biodiversity'),
	('A2_1_3','ForestCert','Forest under certification'),
	('A2_1_3','HNV','Share of high nature value (HNV) farmland areas.'),
	('A2_1_4','','What Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented in your country?'),
	('A2_1_6','','Have training or advisory services been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity'),
	('A2_1_8','','COMMON MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK :\r\nMonitoring schemes for mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact as well as additional programme-specific indicators relevant for biodiversity'),
	('A2_1_9','','What was the amount of resources generated by additional rates of modulation that has been allocated to the new challenge ‘biodiversity’?'),
	('A2_2','',NULL),
	('A2_2_1','','Monitoring programmes for soil biodiversity and development of related indicators.'),
	('A2_3','FWHabitatStatus','Overall condition assessment of freshwater habitats (favourable conservation status)'),
	('A2_3','FWQuality','Freshwater quality'),
	('A2_3','InlandBathing','EU inland bathing waters meeting the non-mandatory guide levels of the Bathing Water Directive'),
	('A2_3_1','BioAsses','Overview of development of biological assessment methods in the MS for all water categories'),
	('A2_3_1','Stations','Number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under relevant EU legislation and reported under Water Framework Directive.'),
	('A2_4','',NULL),
	('A2_4_1','','Number of existing installations where IPPC permits have been reconsidered and updated to ensure that local environmental conditions are taken into account'),
	('A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk','Percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and of eutrophication'),
	('A2_4_2','Emission','Comparison of Member States Emission ceilings with Member States current emissions and WM projections 2010'),
	('A2_4_3','','Nitrogen balance expressed as kg nitrogen\r\nper hectare of total agricultural land'),
	('A3_1','','Status of habitats and species'),
	('A3_1_4','','Has the Member State established a programme/monitoring of measures for coastal areas under the WFD'),
	('A3_1_5','','Please indicate the stage of development or implementation of the plan or strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, if one exists. This should build on the information that was available in the 2006 ICZM evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ evaluation_iczm_report.pdf'),
	('A3_2','BathingWater','Indicate the percentage of bathing waters that met the EU minimum and guideline standards in 2007, and 2008 if available'),
	('A3_2','Nitrogen','Change in winter oxidised nitrogen concentrations in coastal and open waters 1985-2005'),
	('A3_2','Phospate','Change in winter orthophosphate concentrations in coastal and open waters 1985-2005'),
	('A3_2_1','',NULL),
	('A3_2_2','',NULL),
	('A3_4','','Indicate the amount spent by the Member State under the Operational Programme for fisheries 2007-2013. Examples of environmentally-friendly measures:\r\nAxis 1: Gear to reduce impacts (reducing discards, increasing selectivity, technology investments to reduce impact on sea bed, ecosystems & non-commercial species); Axis 2: aquaculture methods which reduces negative impacts or enhances positive effects on the environment; Axis 3: Selective fishing methods, reducing by-catch.'),
	('A3_5','','Percentage of stocks withinand outside safe biological limits'),
	('A3_5_1','','Number of serious infringement procedures by year'),
	('A3_5_2','','Please indicate which diadromous species (species with a lifecycle that includes both marine and freshwater phases) you currently have a management plan for, and any other actions that are being undertaken that would promote diadromous species, but are not necessarily included in a management plan.'),
	('A3_5_3','','Fleet capacity'),
	('A3_6','',NULL),
	('A3_6_1','','Please indicate the number of active vessels, total number of infringements, number of type D infringements, total number of penalties, and average and maximum fines imposed for 2006 and 2007 if available.'),
	('A3_6_2','','Do you have a monitoring programme for sharks or seabirds? Enter Y/N.\r\nIf Yes, please indicate the first year of implementation (or expected implementation) and the number of years the programme is expected to run for.'),
	('A3_6_3','Inshore','Please indicate whether and for how many N2000 sites with a marine component within 12nm of the coast fisheries management measures have been modified or defined, and provide some descriptive text.'),
	('A3_6_3','Offshore','How many marine N2000 sites has the MS established?For offshore sites (>12nm), please use data from DG MARE to indicate the number of N2000 sites for which a formal request has been made to the Commission to modify fisheries management measures'),
	('A3_7','',NULL),
	('A3_7_1','','Has the Member State established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) that includes sampling/monitoring design for collecting ecosystem data to assist with assessing the impact of the fisheries sector on the marine ecosystem'),
	('A4_3','','Consider clear references to the inclusion of ecological coherence and functioning in spatial planning'),
	('A4_4_1','','Please consider if the implementation of the CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism is included in legislation, guiding documents and practices in relation to tourism and related activities.'),
	('A4_5_1','',NULL),
	('A5_1','AlienLegal','Current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS'),
	('A5_1','AlienSpecies','Number of worst invasive alien species registered per country'),
	('A5_1_2','','National strategy and/ or action plan on Invasive Alien Species (IAS)'),
	('A5_1_3','','Has the country ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation'),
	('A5_1_4','','National/sub-national data centre or database on IAS\r\n\r\nIAS early warning and information system, including rapid response mechanisms, incidents lists as well as focal point network and national coordination mechanism'),
	('A5_2','',NULL),
	('A5_2_2','','Has legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming been adopted?'),
	('A6_1','',NULL),
	('A6_1_1','','Has your country submitted the 4th national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity? And Is a National Biodiversity Strategy or Action Plan (NBSAP) in place or under development.\r\nContributions to Secretariats/Trust Funds (in EUR)'),
	('A7_1','','Annual spending on biodiversity-related multilateral aid'),
	('A7_1_3','','Annual spending on biodiversity-related bilateral aid'),
	('A7_1_4','','Contribution to the GEF replenishment'),
	('A7_1_6','',NULL),
	('A7_2','',NULL),
	('A7_2_2','','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects'),
	('A7_2_5','',NULL),
	('A8_1','','The MS actions under this target fully implemented by 2010, showing impact on biodiversity of EU trade significantly reduced by 2010'),
	('A8_1_3','BenefitShare','Does national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exist? And Have any national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing been implemented?'),
	('A8_1_3','CBD','Indicate the provision of funds for the CBD Access & Benefit-sharing Working Group'),
	('A8_1_3','GeneticResource','Does national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exist? And Have national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources been implemented?'),
	('A8_1_4','','What is the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources (%)?'),
	('A8_1_8','','-Number of import applications denied during the last reporting cycle compared to the number of import documents issued\r\n-Development of national capacity (summarise information from MS biennial reports)\r\n-Financial contributions to developing countries for CITES implementation (summarise information from MS biennial reports)\r\n-Financial contributions of MS to the CITES Trust Fund (latest figure available)\r\n\r\n-Number of export and re-export certificates/permits denied during the last reporting cycle compared to permits issued\r\n-Change in the number of seizures as a percentage of total trade for the last two reporting periods (net change)'),
	('A9_1','',NULL),
	('A9_1_1','','Annual anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents (excl. LULUCF).'),
	('A9_3','',NULL),
	('A9_3_2','','National strategy and/ or action plan on biomass and implementation of sustainability criteria'),
	('A9_4','',NULL),
	('A9_4_1','','National biodiversity adaptation strategy and/or action plan'),
	('A9_4_3','','Scientific studies to support assessments of species and habitats at risk and identification of habitats and species most at risk.'),
	('B1_1','',NULL),
	('B1_1_1','','-Does a national programme identifying long-term goals and the allocation of funding (both COM and MS co-funding) for the related biodiversity activities exist?\r\n-What is your country’s expenditure for management or restoration of Natura 2000 sites?'),
	('B1_1_2','',NULL),
	('B1_1_4','','Indicate cohesion and structural funds for projects directly or indirectly providing biodiversity benefits in all MS’ operational programmes (in EUR)'),
	('B1_1_7','',NULL),
	('B1_1_8','','Please indicate amount of national funding allocated for European and national biodiversity research activities and programmes for the years indicated.'),
	('B2_4','','Has a new national environmental policy or strategy been created, or an existing policy or strategy updated, in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’?'),
	('B3_1','',NULL),
	('B3_1_2','','How many farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships have been facilitated by MS at the local, regional and national levels? Please indicate number of partnerships'),
	('B3_1_5','','Does MS have a forum or similar platform/framework set up for biodiversity and planning partnership at local, regional, national levels? Please indicate Y/N against each box'),
	('B3_1_6','','How many forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships?'),
	('B3_1_7','','How many forums or similar platform/framework set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity'),
	('B3_1_8','','Have the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines been applied to projects financed by public funds'),
	('B4_1','',NULL),
	('B4_1_1','','Has a communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) been developed at the national level? And Has a communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) been developed at the national level'),
	('B4_1_2','','What is the amount of funding by the MS for the supporting the 2010 countdown initiative? And Have the national Environment Ministries made a declaration supporting the implementation of joint actions under the 2010 countdown initiative?'),
	('C1_2','','Indicate the extent to which the full suite of SEBI and national indicators is developed and applied'),
	('C1_2_1','','Indicate national/sub-national biodiversity indicators'),
	('C1_3','',NULL),
	('C1_3_1','','Please identify the number of monitoring schemes per habitat type and species group and provide additional details. Use the ‘others’ line to report on schemes that cover other types/groups or more than one type/group.'),
	('Objective2','FarmBirds','Trends in common farmland bird species'),
	('Objective2','OverallCondition','Overall condition assessment of agricultural, grassland, shrub and forest habitats (favourable conservation status)'),
	('Objective3','MeanTrophic','Mean marine trophic level'),
	('Objective4','spending','Has there been an increase in Biodiversity spending under Cohesion and Structural funds since 2006?');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `progress_measures` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table QuestionsText
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `QuestionsText`;

CREATE TABLE `QuestionsText` (
  `ID` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `Ident` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MOP` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Action` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `MSAction` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `FullText` text,
  `MOPText` text,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`),
  KEY `ID` (`ID`),
  KEY `Ident` (`Ident`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=127 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `QuestionsText` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `QuestionsText` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `QuestionsText` (`ID`,`Ident`,`MOP`,`Action`,`MSAction`,`FullText`,`MOPText`)
VALUES
	(1,'A1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A1.1: Natura 2000 network established, safeguarded, designated and under effective conservation management by 2010, 2012 in marine',NULL),
	(2,'A1_1_1','Natura2000Compleat',NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.1.1: Accelerate efforts to finalise the Natura 2000 network including: complete terrestrial network of Special Protection Areas (SPA) [by 2006, 2008 for marine]; adopt lists of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) [by 2006, 2008 for marine]; designate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and establish management  priorities and necessary conservation measures for SACs [by 2010, 2012 for marine]; establish similar management and conservation measures for SPAs [by 2010, 2012 for marine]. MS Action: Propose sufficient SCIs; designate SACs; prepare, adopt and implement site management priorities and measures.','How complete is the Natura 2000 network?'),
	(3,'A1_1_1','Natura2000Plan',NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.1.1: Accelerate efforts to finalise the Natura 2000 network including: complete terrestrial network of Special Protection Areas (SPA) [by 2006, 2008 for marine]; adopt lists of Sites of Community Importance (SCI) [by 2006, 2008 for marine]; designate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and establish management  priorities and necessary conservation measures for SACs [by 2010, 2012 for marine]; establish similar management and conservation measures for SPAs [by 2010, 2012 for marine]. MS Action: Propose sufficient SCIs; designate SACs; prepare, adopt and implement site management priorities and measures.','What is the percentage of Natura 2000 sites with a management plan completed or in preparation?'),
	(4,'A1_1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.1.2: Ensure adequate financing provided to Natura 2000 implementation from Community sources (notably Rural Development funds, Cohesion and Structural Funds, Pre-Accession Instrument, Life-III, Life+) and MS sources, accessible to those who manage Natura 2000 sites, with focus on optimising long-term  conservation benefits as well as priority awareness raising and networking initiatives [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Commit adequate national co-financing; identify national priorities for co-financing; develop national programmes for allocation of financing; disburse funds (national and Community) to beneficiaries; monitor cost effectiveness of actions financed (in terms of biodiversity outcomes); audit expenditure.',NULL),
	(5,'A1_1_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.1.3: Transpose fully [by 2006] Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive into national legislation and planning policies and ensure subsequent timely implementation; where appropriate (i.e. where development proposals cannot avoid damage to Natura 2000 sites, but proceed for reasons of overriding public interest) ensure special effort for adequate design and implementation of compensatory measures [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Fully transpose and implement Art 6 including: avoid where possible deterioration or disturbance of sites by developmental activities; assess potential impacts of proposed plans or projects likely to have a significant impact on sites, involving general public where appropriate; if deterioration or disturbance likely, assess whether overriding public interest justifies proceeding; if proceeding, take necessary compensatory measures to maintain coherence of network','Indicate the number of complaints/infringements (legal cases) related to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive'),
	(6,'A1_2_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.2.3: Assess [by 2008] and substantially strengthen [by 2010] coherence, connectivity and resilience of the protected areas network (Natura 2000 and non-Natura protected areas) by applying, as appropriate, tools which may include flyways, buffer zones, corridors and stepping stones (including as appropriate to neighbouring and other third countries), as well as actions in support of biodiversity in the wider environment (see also actions under objectives 2, 3 and 9). MS Action:  Participate in assessment; apply measures to strengthen coherence and connectivity.','Are tools in place or developed to support ecological connectivity?'),
	(7,'A1_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A1.3: No priority species in worsening conservation status by 2010; majority of priority species in, or moving towards, favourable conservation status by 2013.','What is the conservation status of birds (% of species - green, amber and red)?'),
	(8,'A1_3_1','ActionPlan',NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.3.1: Implement [2006 onwards], at EC or MS level as appropriate, existing species action or management plans for species under threat and review and update as necessary; elaborate [2006 onwards] and implement [2007 onwards] additional species action or management plans for a wider range of species under threat - including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish, invertebrates and plants; ensure monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of plans. MS Action: Implement EC plans at national level, develop and implement national level plans.','ndicate the number of action plans per species group'),
	(9,'A1_3_1','BirdIndicator',NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.3.1: Implement [2006 onwards], at EC or MS level as appropriate, existing species action or management plans for species under threat and review and update as necessary; elaborate [2006 onwards] and implement [2007 onwards] additional species action or management plans for a wider range of species under threat - including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish, invertebrates and plants; ensure monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of plans. MS Action: Implement EC plans at national level, develop and implement national level plans.','Has your country developed indicators derived from common bird monitoring schemes?'),
	(10,'A1_3_1','RedList',NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.3.1: Implement [2006 onwards], at EC or MS level as appropriate, existing species action or management plans for species under threat and review and update as necessary; elaborate [2006 onwards] and implement [2007 onwards] additional species action or management plans for a wider range of species under threat - including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish, invertebrates and plants; ensure monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of plans. MS Action: Implement EC plans at national level, develop and implement national level plans.','Do Red Data lists exist?'),
	(11,'A1_3_1','BirdMonitoring',NULL,NULL,'Action: A1.3.1: Implement [2006 onwards], at EC or MS level as appropriate, existing species action or management plans for species under threat and review and update as necessary; elaborate [2006 onwards] and implement [2007 onwards] additional species action or management plans for a wider range of species under threat - including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fish, invertebrates and plants; ensure monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of plans. MS Action: Implement EC plans at national level, develop and implement national level plans.','Does your country have active common bird monitoring schemes'),
	(12,'Objective2','OverallCondition',NULL,NULL,'Headline Target: In wider countryside (terrestrial, freshwater, brackish water outside Natura 2000 network), biodiversity loss halted by 2010 and showing substantial recovery by 2013.','Overall condition assessment of agricultural, grassland, shrub and forest habitats (favourable conservation status)'),
	(13,'Objective2','FarmBirds',NULL,NULL,'Headline Target: In wider countryside (terrestrial, freshwater, brackish water outside Natura 2000 network), biodiversity loss halted by 2010 and showing substantial recovery by 2013.','Trends in common farmland bird species'),
	(14,'A2_1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.1 Allocate, at MS initiative, within each national/regional Rural Development (RD) Programme, adequate Community and MS co financing to measures available under all three axes of the RD Regulation which are directly or indirectly supportive of nature and biodiversity [2006/07 and any subsequent revisions]. MS Action: Ensure adequate MS funds to make up any shortfall in funds provided by EC co-financing','Use of opportunities for targeted funding of N2000/biodiversity from rural development policy budget'),
	(15,'A2_1_3','HNV',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.3 Define criteria and identify [2006-07] high-nature-value farmland and forest areas (including the Natura 2000 network) threatened with loss of biodiversity (with particular attention to extensive farming and forest/woodland systems at risk of intensification or abandonment, or already abandoned), and design and implement measures to maintain and/or restore conservation status [2007 onwards]. MS Action: Define criteria in order to capture all farm and forest land of high value for biodiversity, identify HNV areas, and develop measures to address threats.','Share of high nature value (HNV) farmland areas.'),
	(16,'A2_1_3','ForestCert',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.3 Define criteria and identify [2006-07] high-nature-value farmland and forest areas (including the Natura 2000 network) threatened with loss of biodiversity (with particular attention to extensive farming and forest/woodland systems at risk of intensification or abandonment, or already abandoned), and design and implement measures to maintain and/or restore conservation status [2007 onwards]. MS Action: Define criteria in order to capture all farm and forest land of high value for biodiversity, identify HNV areas, and develop measures to address threats.','Forest under certification'),
	(17,'A2_1_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.4 Ensure effective implementation of cross-compliance (which provides a baseline for most of the measures of Axis 2 of the Rural Development Regulation) in ways that benefit biodiversity [2007-2013]. MS Action: Ensure CAP National Strategy Plans and National and Regional RDPs reflect this need.','What Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) measures have been implemented in your country?'),
	(18,'A2_1_6',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.6 Broaden extension services, farm advisory systems and training actions to farmers, landowners and farm workers to strengthen biodiversity-related implementation in the next rural development programming [2007 onwards], including support from the LEADER axis. MS Action: Ensure CAP National Strategy Plans and National and Regional RD Programmes reflect this need.','Have training or advisory services been specifically designed to support the uptake of Axis 2 measures of benefit to biodiversity'),
	(19,'A2_1_8',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.8 Implement the common monitoring and evaluation framework and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive requirements where applicable for rural development programmes, including the definition of indicators in a way that impact of measures on biodiversity is assessed [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Use mandatory indicators, and draw up additional programme-specific indicators as needed.','COMMON MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK :\r\nMonitoring schemes for mandatory biodiversity related baseline and impact as well as additional programme-specific indicators relevant for biodiversity'),
	(20,'A2_1_9',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.9 Encourage that implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy first pillar benefits biodiversity, notably through mandatory cross compliance, decoupling (single farm payments) and by encouraging take-up of modulation by the Member States\r\nMS Action: Use the instruments of the CAP first pillar (decoupling, cross-compliance) to promote biodiversity actions and increase modulation possibilities and redirection of first pillar resources to biodiversity actions through Rural Development.','What was the amount of resources generated by additional rates of modulation that has been allocated to the new challenge ‘biodiversity’?'),
	(22,'A2_1_11','NatStrats',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.11 Strengthen measures to ensure conservation, and availability for use, of genetic diversity of crop varieties, livestock breeds and races, and of commercial tree species in the EU, and promote in particular their in situ conservation [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Identify and implement measures.','National strategy or action plan on conserving genetic resources\r\n\r\nProjects promoting the in-situ conservation of genetic diversity'),
	(23,'A2_1_11','RDPPayments',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.11 Strengthen measures to ensure conservation, and availability for use, of genetic diversity of crop varieties, livestock breeds and races, and of commercial tree species in the EU, and promote in particular their in situ conservation [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Identify and implement measures.','RDP payments for genetic conservation measures'),
	(24,'A2_1_12',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.12 Exploit opportunities under the CAP [2007-2013] to implement all above actions in the Outermost Regions. MS Action: (FRANCE, SPAIN, PORTUGAL ) Take account of biodiversity needs in design of CAP National Strategy Plans and National and Regional RD programmes for outermost regions.','Use of opportunities for targeted funding of N2000/biodiversity from rural development policy budget in outermost regions'),
	(25,'A2_1_15',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.15 Assess potential impact on biodiversity of plans, programmes and projects for afforestation (or, should the case arise, deforestation); adjust accordingly in order to ensure no overall long term negative impact on biodiversity [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Make assessments; adjust afforestatation/ deforestation plans accordingly.','Afforestation and deforestation and their potential impact on biodiversity'),
	(26,'A2_2_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.2.1 Identify geographical risk areas for factors affecting soil biodiversity (soil sealing, loss of organic matter, soil erosion, etc.) [by 2009].MS Action: Identify risk areas','Monitoring programmes for soil biodiversity and development of related indicators.'),
	(27,'A2_3','FWQuality',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.2.3 Substantial progress made towards \'good ecological status\' of freshwaters by 2010 and further substantial progress made by 2013.','Freshwater quality'),
	(28,'A2_3','FWHabitatStatus',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.2.3 Substantial progress made towards \'good ecological status\' of freshwaters by 2010 and further substantial progress made by 2013.','Overall condition assessment of freshwater habitats (favourable conservation status)'),
	(29,'A2_3','InlandBathing',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.2.3 Substantial progress made towards \'good ecological status\' of freshwaters by 2010 and further substantial progress made by 2013.','EU inland bathing waters meeting the non-mandatory guide levels of the Bathing Water Directive'),
	(30,'A2_3_1','Stations',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.3.1 Ensure implementation of operational monitoring programmes [by 2006] and publication of River Basin Management Plans and establishment of River Basin District Programmes of Measures [by 2009] and that these Plans and Programmes of Measures are fully operational [by 2012], in line with provisions of the Water Framework Directive. MS Action: Develop, adopt and implement monitoring programmes, plans and programmes of measures.','Number of monitoring stations in protected areas defined under relevant EU legislation and reported under Water Framework Directive.'),
	(31,'A2_3_1','BioAsses',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.3.1 Ensure implementation of operational monitoring programmes [by 2006] and publication of River Basin Management Plans and establishment of River Basin District Programmes of Measures [by 2009] and that these Plans and Programmes of Measures are fully operational [by 2012], in line with provisions of the Water Framework Directive. MS Action: Develop, adopt and implement monitoring programmes, plans and programmes of measures.','Overview of development of biological assessment methods in the MS for all water categories'),
	(32,'A2_4_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A2.4.1 Significantly reduce point source pollutant pressures on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems through strengthening implementation of relevant Directives, notably on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Large Combustion Plants, Waste Incineration, Urban Waste Water Treatment (cf action 3.2.1 ) [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Implement directives at Member State level.','Number of existing installations where IPPC permits have been reconsidered and updated to ensure that local environmental conditions are taken into account'),
	(33,'A2_4_2','Emission',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.4.2 Significantly reduce airborne eutrophicating and acidifying pollution of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in line with Thematic Strategy on Air Quality [2006 onwards]; revise National Emissions Ceiling Directive [by 2007]. (cf action 3.2.2 ) MS Action: Implement Thematic Strategy and NEC Directive at Member State level.','Comparison of Member States Emission ceilings with Member States current emissions and WM projections 2010'),
	(34,'A2_4_2','EcoAtRisk',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.4.2 Significantly reduce airborne eutrophicating and acidifying pollution of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in line with Thematic Strategy on Air Quality [2006 onwards]; revise National Emissions Ceiling Directive [by 2007]. (cf action 3.2.2 ) MS Action: Implement Thematic Strategy and NEC Directive at Member State level.','Percentage of natural ecosystem area at risk of acidification and of eutrophication'),
	(35,'A2_4_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action:  A.2.4.3 Significantly reduce pollution of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems from agricultural sources (notably pesticides, nitrates) through measures in line with Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, pesticides and biocides legislation, Nitrates Directive [2006 onwards]. (cf action 3.2.3). MS Action: Implement Thematic Strategy provisions and legislation at Member State level.','Nitrogen balance expressed as kg nitrogen\r\nper hectare of total agricultural land'),
	(36,'Objective3','MeanTrophic',NULL,NULL,'Headline Target: In wider marine environment (outside Natura 2000 network), biodiversity loss halted by 2010 and showing substantial recovery by 2013','Mean marine trophic level'),
	(37,'A3_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: 3.1 - Substantial progress achieved by 2010 and again by 2013 towards \'good environmental status\' of the marine environment','Status of habitats and species'),
	(38,'A3_1_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.3.1.4  Ensure timely implementation of the Water Framework Directive as it applies to coastal areas [2006 onwards] MS action: Develop, adopt and implement monitoring programmes, plans and programmes of measures – as applicable for coastal areas','Has the Member State established a programme/monitoring of measures for coastal areas under the WFD'),
	(39,'A3_1_5',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.3.1.5  Ensure timely implementation and review of the EU Integrated\r\nCoastal Zone Management Recommendation [2006 onwards] MS action: Implement, participate in review','Please indicate the stage of development or implementation of the plan or strategy for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, if one exists. This should build on the information that was available in the 2006 ICZM evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ evaluation_iczm_report.pdf'),
	(40,'A3_2','BathingWater',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.3.2 ‐ Principle pollution pressures on marine biodiversity substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013','Indicate the percentage of bathing waters that met the EU minimum and guideline standards in 2007, and 2008 if available'),
	(41,'A3_2','Nitrogen',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.3.2 ‐ Principle pollution pressures on marine biodiversity substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013','Change in winter oxidised nitrogen concentrations in coastal and open waters 1985-2005'),
	(42,'A3_2','Phospate',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.3.2 ‐ Principle pollution pressures on marine biodiversity substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013','Change in winter orthophosphate concentrations in coastal and open waters 1985-2005'),
	(45,'A3_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: 3.4 - Substantially enhanced funding provided to environmentally-friendly fisheries management from 2007 onwards','Indicate the amount spent by the Member State under the Operational Programme for fisheries 2007-2013. Examples of environmentally-friendly measures:\r\nAxis 1: Gear to reduce impacts (reducing discards, increasing selectivity, technology investments to reduce impact on sea bed, ecosystems & non-commercial species); Axis 2: aquaculture methods which reduces negative impacts or enhances positive effects on the environment; Axis 3: Selective fishing methods, reducing by-catch.'),
	(46,'A3_5',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: 3.5 - Stock levels maintained or restored to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield, where possible no later than 2015','Percentage of stocks withinand outside safe biological limits'),
	(47,'A3_5_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.5.1 - Prepare plan of action to attain maximum sustainable yield, prepare and implement stock recovery plans as soon as needed for any stocks outside safe biological limits, and management plans to maintain other stocks at safe biological levels [2006 onwards]  MS Action: Enforce CFP measures','Number of serious infringement procedures by year'),
	(48,'A3_5_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.5.2 - Develop, adopt and implement restoration programmes for diadromous species (e.g. trout, salmon, sturgeon) [2006 onwards] MS Action: Enforce CFP measures and take initiatives outside the CFP: restoration of habitats, removal of migratory barriers, stock enhancement','Please indicate which diadromous species (species with a lifecycle that includes both marine and freshwater phases) you currently have a management plan for, and any other actions that are being undertaken that would promote diadromous species, but are not necessarily included in a management plan.'),
	(49,'A3_5_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.5.3 - Adjust fishing capacity to improve balance between fishing capacity and available fish stocks MS Action: Enforce CFP measures and use fisheries funds to favorise capacity adjustment','Fleet capacity'),
	(50,'A3_6_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.6.1 - Implement technical measures to help ensure favourable conservation status of marine species and habitats which are not commercially exploited, aimed at the reduction of unwanted bycatch and of damage to the benthos [2006 onwards] MS Action: Enforce CFP measures','Please indicate the number of active vessels, total number of infringements, number of type D infringements, total number of penalties, and average and maximum fines imposed for 2006 and 2007 if available.'),
	(51,'A3_6_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.6.2 - Adopt Community Plans of Action for the conservation of sharks and seabirds and implement progressively thereafter MS Action: Enforce CFP measures','Do you have a monitoring programme for sharks or seabirds? Enter Y/N.\r\nIf Yes, please indicate the first year of implementation (or expected implementation) and the number of years the programme is expected to run for.'),
	(52,'A3_6_3','Offshore',NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.6.3 - Identify, define, adopt and enforce fisheries measures required for Natura 2000 sites in the marine environment [by date of designation] MS Action: Identify and define fishery measures, as appropriate, needed within the management plans of N2000 sites','How many marine N2000 sites has the MS established?For offshore sites (>12nm), please use data from DG MARE to indicate the number of N2000 sites for which a formal request has been made to the Commission to modify fisheries management measures'),
	(53,'A3_6_3','Inshore',NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.6.3 - Identify, define, adopt and enforce fisheries measures required for Natura 2000 sites in the marine environment [by date of designation] MS Action: Identify and define fishery measures, as appropriate, needed within the management plans of N2000 sites','Please indicate whether and for how many N2000 sites with a marine component within 12nm of the coast fisheries management measures have been modified or defined, and provide some descriptive text.'),
	(54,'A3_7_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.7.1 - Make periodic assessments [2006 onwards] of the progress of the Common Fisheries Policy in incorporating environmental protection requirements (with particular reference to biodiversity) MS Action: Collect the data necessary to give scientific support to the indicators used in the reports','Has the Member State established a multi-annual plan Data Collection Framework (DCF) that includes sampling/monitoring design for collecting ecosystem data to assist with assessing the impact of the fisheries sector on the marine ecosystem'),
	(55,'Objective4','spending',NULL,NULL,' Headline Target: Regional and territorial development benefiting biodiversity and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented and minimised or, where unavoidable, adequately compensated for, from 2006 onwards.','Has there been an increase in Biodiversity spending under Cohesion and Structural funds since 2006?'),
	(56,'A4_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: 4.3. - Ecological coherence and functioning strengthened through spatial planning from 2006 onwards.','Consider clear references to the inclusion of ecological coherence and functioning in spatial planning'),
	(57,'A4_4_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 4.4.1 - CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism promoted, adopted and implemented as appropriate by key stakeholders [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Implement best practice','Please consider if the implementation of the CBD Guidelines on Sustainable Tourism is included in legislation, guiding documents and practices in relation to tourism and related activities.'),
	(58,'A5_1','AlienSpecies',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.5.1 Impact of IAS on biodiversity in the EU substantially reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.','Number of worst invasive alien species registered per country'),
	(59,'A5_1','AlienLegal',NULL,NULL,'Target: A.5.1 Impact of IAS on biodiversity in the EU substantially reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.','Current national/sub national legislation addressing Invasive Alien Species (IAS), in particular regarding import/export, possession/trade, introduction to the wild and control/eradication of IAS'),
	(60,'A5_1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.5.1.2 Encourage Member States to develop national strategies on invasive alien species [by 2007] and to implement them fully [by 2010]. MS Action: Develop national strategy.','National strategy and/ or action plan on Invasive Alien Species (IAS)'),
	(61,'A5_1_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.5.1.3 Encourage ratification and implementation by Member States of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation [2006 onwards].MS Action: Ratify and implement.','Has the country ratified the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments under the International Maritime Organisation'),
	(62,'A5_1_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A 5.1.4 Establish early warning system for the prompt exchange of information between neighbouring countries on the emergence of IAS and cooperation on control measures across national boundaries [by 2008].MS Action: Adopt system in Council, implement system at national level.','National/sub-national data centre or database on IAS\r\n\r\nIAS early warning and information system, including rapid response mechanisms, incidents lists as well as focal point network and national coordination mechanism'),
	(63,'A5_2_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.5.2.2 Ensure protection of biodiversity as part of measures to protect human health and environment in relation to the deliberate release into the environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Ensure at national level in line with requirements of the authorisation.','Has legislation on co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming been adopted?'),
	(64,'A6_1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.6.1.1: Press for effective worldwide implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, decisions of the Conference of the Parties including thematic and cross-cutting programmes of work, and other related international and regional biodiversity agreements (e.g. Bonn, Berne, AEWA, Ramsar, UN Fish Stocks Agreement) and promote greater synergies between these [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Work at EU, global and regional levels for enhanced effectiveness in CBD implementation by streamlining operations of CBD, coordinating action between related multilateral environmental agreements, working towards integrated outcome-based reporting, establishing global partnership with key stakeholders.','Has your country submitted the 4th national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity? And Is a National Biodiversity Strategy or Action Plan (NBSAP) in place or under development.\r\nContributions to Secretariats/Trust Funds (in EUR)'),
	(66,'A7_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A .7.1 Financial Resources flowing annually to projects directly benefiting biodiversity has substantially increased in real terms','Annual spending on biodiversity-related multilateral aid'),
	(67,'A7_1_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A .7.1.3 Enhance MS funds earmarked for biodiversity in MS bilateral development cooperation programmes in support of implementation of the CBD, Millennium Development Goals and other programmes relevant for biodiversity in developing countries. MS Action: Check and ensure that resources are available to implement the recommendations in the R/CEP through biodiversity projects or mainstreaming biodiversity concerns in other relevant projects.','Annual spending on biodiversity-related bilateral aid'),
	(68,'A7_1_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.7.1.4 Enhance the overall contribution of EU MS for biodiversity through a substantial 4th replenishment of the GEF based on the agreed policy priorities. MS Action: Continue to press in GEF replenishment negotiations and through bilateral contracts for a substantial replenishment based on the agreed policy priorities.','Contribution to the GEF replenishment'),
	(69,'A7_2_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A 7.2.2 Systematically carry out ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects funded by EU in partner countries and ensure actions are identified and implemented to prevent and mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity in a timely manner MS Action: Check and ensure that SEAs and EIAs are systematically carried out on relevant development strategies, programmes and projects.','Ex-ante strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of relevant strategies and programmes and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of relevant projects'),
	(70,'A8_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A8.1: Impact on biodiversity of EU trade significantly reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.','The MS actions under this target fully implemented by 2010, showing impact on biodiversity of EU trade significantly reduced by 2010'),
	(71,'A8_1_3','CBD',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.8.1.3: Promote full implementation of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) arising out of their Utilisation, and other agreements relating to ABS such as the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources – and continue to contribute to negotiation of an international regime on ABS according to the mandate adopted at the 7th Conference of the Parties of the CBD [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Ensure effective implementation of the Bonn Guidelines at national level, in particular by enhancing awareness of stakeholders. Effectively participate in and contribute to EU preparations for international ABS negotiations. Effectively contribute to ongoing negotiations of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.','Indicate the provision of funds for the CBD Access & Benefit-sharing Working Group'),
	(72,'A8_1_3','BenefitShare',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.8.1.3: Promote full implementation of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) arising out of their Utilisation, and other agreements relating to ABS such as the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources – and continue to contribute to negotiation of an international regime on ABS according to the mandate adopted at the 7th Conference of the Parties of the CBD [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Ensure effective implementation of the Bonn Guidelines at national level, in particular by enhancing awareness of stakeholders. Effectively participate in and contribute to EU preparations for international ABS negotiations. Effectively contribute to ongoing negotiations of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.','Does national legislation implementing the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing exist? And Have any national activities that raise awareness of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access and Benefit-sharing been implemented?'),
	(73,'A8_1_3','GeneticResource',NULL,NULL,'Action: A.8.1.3: Promote full implementation of the CBD Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) arising out of their Utilisation, and other agreements relating to ABS such as the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources – and continue to contribute to negotiation of an international regime on ABS according to the mandate adopted at the 7th Conference of the Parties of the CBD [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Ensure effective implementation of the Bonn Guidelines at national level, in particular by enhancing awareness of stakeholders. Effectively participate in and contribute to EU preparations for international ABS negotiations. Effectively contribute to ongoing negotiations of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.','Does national legislation implementing the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources exist? And Have national activities raising awareness of the Material Transfer Agreement of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources been implemented?'),
	(74,'A8_1_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.8.1.4: Maximise the proportion of EU consumption of wood products deriving from sustainable sources [by 2010]. MS Action: Ensure implementation of CITES provisions for listed timber species and support capacity building in range states. Review of other timber species with criteria for listing. Participate in Community-level analysis of options for further legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber into the EU (as foreseen in FLEGT action plan). Encourage private and public sector procurement policies favouring wood products from sustainable sources.','What is the proportion of national consumption of wood products derived from sustainable sources (%)?'),
	(75,'A8_1_8',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A8.1.8: Support capacity-building and implementation of CITES provisions to ensure that trade in CITES species is effectively regulated and controlled and not detrimental to the conservation of the species in range states [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Ensure that EC CITES Regulations are adequately implemented and enforced including the imposition of adequate sanctions for infringements of the Regulations. Support of CITES programmes and programmes in range states to ensure effective implementation of CITES to trade in species on sustainable levels.','-Number of import applications denied during the last reporting cycle compared to the number of import documents issued\r\n-Development of national capacity (summarise information from MS biennial reports)\r\n-Financial contributions to developing countries for CITES implementation (summarise information from MS biennial reports)\r\n-Financial contributions of MS to the CITES Trust Fund (latest figure available)\r\n\r\n-Number of export and re-export certificates/permits denied during the last reporting cycle compared to permits issued\r\n-Change in the number of seizures as a percentage of total trade for the last two reporting periods (net change)'),
	(76,'A9_1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.9.1.1 Commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol respected [2006 onwards].MS Action: Comply with Kyoto burden-sharing target as laid down in Kyoto Protocol ratifying decision (2002/358/EC).','Annual anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in million tonnes of CO2 equivalents (excl. LULUCF).'),
	(77,'A9_3_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.9.3.2 Ensure that implementation of EU Biomass Action Plan takes due account in assessments, where relevant, of impacts on biodiversity, in particularly on high-nature-value farmland and forests, in order to achieve ecological sustainability of biomass production [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Carry out sustainability impact assessments, ensure decision-making takes account of findings in relation to biodiversity impacts in order to prevent and minimise negative impacts','National strategy and/ or action plan on biomass and implementation of sustainability criteria'),
	(78,'A9_4_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.9.4.1 Develop a comprehensive programme of priority actions to support biodiversity adaptation to climate change in the EU [by 2008]. MS Action: Participate in development of programme.','National biodiversity adaptation strategy and/or action plan'),
	(79,'A9_4_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.9.4.3 Make a preliminary assessment of habitats and species in the EU most at risk from climate change [by 2007], detailed assessment and appropriate adaptation measures prepared [by 2009], commence implementation [by 2010].MS Action: Contribute to assessment through regional and site specific climate impact assessment.','Scientific studies to support assessments of species and habitats at risk and identification of habitats and species most at risk.'),
	(80,'A10_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A10.1: Research findings on biodiversity and ecosystem services has substantially advanced our ability to ensure conservation and sustainable use by 2010 and again by 2013','Is there a national research programme dedicated exclusively to supporting biodiversity researchIf ‘No’, is biodiversity research incorporated into other national programmes?'),
	(81,'A10_1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A10.1.2 Identify ways and means to strengthen independent scientific advice to global policy making, inter alia by actively contributing to CBD Assessment, and the ongoing consultations on the need for improved International Mechanisms on Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity MS Action: As for Community: Engage in CBD consideration of 2007 MA Evaluation, and ongoing IMOSeb consultations','The CBD considered the 2007 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) evaluation at the 9th Conference of Parties (COP) meeting. This led to decision COP IX/15: Follow up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Please respond to the queries below regarding Member State engagement in the follow up activities.'),
	(83,'A10_1_8',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A10.1.8 Put institutional arrangements in place to ensure policy-relevant research done (e.g. in support of implementation of the nature directives, integration of biodiversity into sectoral policies) and research outcomes are reflected where appropriate in policy development MS Action: Accommodate in national research programmes; strengthen national institutions/mechanisms at the science-policy interface for biodiversity, strengthen ability to assimilate research results at policy level','Has a national biodiversity platform been created to ensure that biodiversity research and outcomes are reflected in policy development and implementation? \r\nIf yes, has the national biodiversity platform been updated in the past year? \r\nIf no, are there plans to develop such a platform?'),
	(84,'A10_1_9',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A10.1.9 Establish and promote (2006 onwards) common data standards and quality assurance procedures to enable interoperability of key European and national biodiversity databases and inventories (by 2008) MS Action: Accommodate in national research programmes and take forward initiatives under the European Strategy for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI)','-Please indicate level of participation in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).\r\n -Please indicate level of participation in European Network for Biodiversity Information (ENBI).'),
	(86,'B1_1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: B1.1.1: Ensure adequate financing provided [2007-2013] to Natura 2000 implementation through community (CAP Rural Development, Structural Funds, Life+) and MS co-financing, accessible to those who manage Natura 2000 sites, with focus on optimising long-term conservation status and benefits as well as priority awareness raising and networking initiatives. MS Action: Commit adequate national co-financing; identify national priorities for co-financing; develop national programmes for allocation of financing; disburse funds (national and Community) to beneficiaries; monitor cost effectiveness of actions financed (in terms of biodiversity outcomes); audit expenditure.','-Does a national programme identifying long-term goals and the allocation of funding (both COM and MS co-funding) for the related biodiversity activities exist?\r\n-What is your country’s expenditure for management or restoration of Natura 2000 sites?'),
	(89,'B1_1_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: B1.1.4: Allocate, at MS initiative, cohesion and structural funds for projects directly or indirectly providing biodiversity benefits in all MS operational programmes [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Propose and implement projects.','Indicate cohesion and structural funds for projects directly or indirectly providing biodiversity benefits in all MS’ operational programmes (in EUR)'),
	(90,'B1_1_8',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: B1.1.8: Allocate adequate financial resources to European and national biodiversity research and to dissemination of its results, including under the Seventh Framework Programme [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Accommodate in national research programmes and take forward initiative(s) under the European Strategy for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI).','Please indicate amount of national funding allocated for European and national biodiversity research activities and programmes for the years indicated.'),
	(91,'B2_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: B2.4: Complimentarity of EC and MS biodiversity strategies and action plans substantially enhanced by 2010','Has a new national environmental policy or strategy been created, or an existing policy or strategy updated, in light of the Communication ‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and beyond’?'),
	(92,'B3_1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B3.1.2: Develop farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships, building on existing consultative processes under the Common Agricultural Policy and forest policy [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Facilitate such partnerships at MS, regional and local levels as appropriate','How many farming and biodiversity, forestry and biodiversity partnerships have been facilitated by MS at the local, regional and national levels? Please indicate number of partnerships'),
	(93,'B3_1_5',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B3.1.5: Develop biodiversity and planning partnership [2007 onwards] Member State action: Facilitate partnerships at MS, regional and local levels as appropriate','Does MS have a forum or similar platform/framework set up for biodiversity and planning partnership at local, regional, national levels? Please indicate Y/N against each box'),
	(94,'B3_1_6',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B3.1.6: Develop business and biodiversity partnership [2006 onwards]. Member State action: Facilitate such partnerships within MS','How many forums or similar platforms/frameworks have been set up by MS to encourage business biodiversity partnerships?'),
	(95,'B3_1_7',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B3.1.7: Develop partnership between financing sector and biodiversity [2006 onwards]. Member State action: Facilitate such partnerships within MS','How many forums or similar platform/framework set up to encourage partnerships between financing sector and biodiversity'),
	(96,'B3_1_8',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B3.1.8: Apply the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines for projects affecting terrestrial lands of indigenous and local communities both within the EU MS and in Third countries [2006 onwards]. Member State action: Apply in respect of projects financed by MS public aid','Have the CBD Akwe-Kwon Guidelines been applied to projects financed by public funds'),
	(97,'B4_1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B4.1.1: Develop [2006/07] and implement [2007 onwards] a communications campaign in support of full implementation of this Action Plan MS Action: Develop and implement campaign in partnership with Commission','Has a communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) been developed at the national level? And Has a communications campaign in support of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) been developed at the national level'),
	(98,'B4_1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action B4.1.2: Strengthen and implement IUCN Countdown 2010 initiative [2006 onwards]. MS Action: Support the initiative, implement joint actions under the initiative','What is the amount of funding by the MS for the supporting the 2010 countdown initiative? And Have the national Environment Ministries made a declaration supporting the implementation of joint actions under the 2010 countdown initiative?'),
	(99,'C1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: C.1.2: Indicators in place and informing policy decisions by 2010','Indicate the extent to which the full suite of SEBI and national indicators is developed and applied'),
	(100,'C1_2_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: C.1.2.1. Adopt and apply [by 2007], at EC and MS levels, a small set of biodiversity headline indicators which inform the public and decision-makers on the state and trends of biodiversity, pressures on biodiversity and the effectiveness of key policy measures; adopt and apply at EC level a biodiversity index as a Sustainable Development Indicator and as a Structural Indicator [by 2007]. MS Action: Engage with Commission in indicator development, adopt in Council, support data flow.','Indicate national/sub-national biodiversity indicators'),
	(101,'C1_3_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: C.1.3.1: Establish reference values for favourable conservation status for Habitats and Birds Directive habitats and species to achieve a consensus of definitions across Member States [2006/07]; monitor habitats and species status in relation to these values [2007 onwards]. MS Action: Participate in development of reference values, carry out related monitoring as required under nature Directives.','Please identify the number of monitoring schemes per habitat type and species group and provide additional details. Use the ‘others’ line to report on schemes that cover other types/groups or more than one type/group.'),
	(102,'A1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A1.2: Sufficiency, coherence, connectivity and resilience of the protected areas network in the EU substantially enhanced by 2010 and further enhanced by 2013 (cf objective 9, target 9.4).',NULL),
	(103,'A2_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.2.1 Member States have optimised use of opportunities under agricultural, rural development and forest policy to benefit biodiversity 2007-2013',NULL),
	(104,'A2_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.2.2 Risks to soil biodiversity in EU substantially reduced by 2013.',NULL),
	(105,'A2_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.2.4 Principal pollutant pressures on terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013.',NULL),
	(106,'A2_1_10',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.2.1.10 Consider, if appropriate, a possible review of cross compliance requirements related to the preservation of biodiversity in the 2007 review of the cross-compliance system. MS Action: Develop appropriate standards and modalities for cross compliance, decoupling, modulation',NULL),
	(107,'A3_2_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.2.1 - Significantly reduce point source pollutant pressures on marine ecosystems through strengthening implementation of relevant Directives, notably on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, Large Combustion Plants, Waste Incineration, Urban Waste Water Treatment [2006 onwards] (cf action 2.3.1) MS Action: Implement directives at Member State level',NULL),
	(108,'A3_2_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 3.2.2 - Significantly reduce airborne eutrophicating and acidifying pollution of marine ecosystems in line with Thematic Strategy on Air Quality [2006 onwards]; revise National Emissions Ceiling Directive [by 2007] (cf action 2.3.2) MS Action: Implement Thematic Strategy and NEC Directive at Member State level',NULL),
	(109,'A3_6',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: 3.6 - Impact of fisheries on non-target species and habitats progressively and substantially reduced from 2006 onwards',NULL),
	(110,'A3_7',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: 3.7 - Substantially improved information and reporting on environmental integration of the Common Fisheries Policy from 2008 onwards',NULL),
	(111,'A4_5_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: 4.5.1 - All above actions applied, as appropriate, in Outermost Regions (French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Reunion, Martinique, Canaries, Azores, Madeira) [2006 onwards]. MS Action: (FRANCE, SPAIN, PORTUGAL ONLY ) All above actions (where applicable) applied in outermost regions',NULL),
	(112,'A5_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.5.2 Impact of alien genotypes on biodiversity in the EU significantly reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.',NULL),
	(113,'A6_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.6.1: International governance for biodiversity substantially more effective in delivering positive biodiversity outcomes by 2010',NULL),
	(114,'A7_1_6',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A.7.1.6 Enhance economic and development assistance funds available for biodiversity-related actions in the MS’ Overseas Countries and Territories. MS Action: Check and ensure that biodiversity is addressed through specific programmes and projects or through integration in other sectors covered by economic development assistance',NULL),
	(115,'A7_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.7.2 EU mainstream external development assistance delivering enhanced biodiversity and related livelihoods benefits, and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards.',NULL),
	(116,'A7_2_5',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A 7.2.5 Ensure that projects financed by EU economic and development assistance do not cause significant negative impacts on biodiversity in the MS Overseas Countries and Territories. MS Action: Check and ensure that SEAs and/or EIAs are systematically carried out on development strategies, programmes and projects.',NULL),
	(117,'A9_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.9.1 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by 2010.',NULL),
	(118,'A9_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.9.3 Climate change adaptation or mitigation measure from 2006 onwards delivering biodiversity benefits, and any negative impacts on biodiversity prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards.',NULL),
	(119,'A9_4',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: A.9.4 Resilience of EU biodiversity to climate change substantially strengthened by 2010.',NULL),
	(120,'A10_1_6',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: A10.1.6 Allocate adequate financial resources to European and national biodiversity research and to dissemination of its results, including under the 7th Framework Programme MS Action: Accommodate in national research programmes and take forward initiatives under the ESFRI',NULL),
	(121,'B1_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: B1.1: Adequate funding provided for Natura 2000, biodiversity outside Natura 2000 in EU, biodiversity in external assistance and biodiversity research, inventory and monitoring 2007-2013',NULL),
	(122,'B1_1_2',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: B1.1.2: Allocate, at MS initiative, within each national/regional Rural Development (RD) Programme, adequate Community and MS co-financing measures available under all three axes of the RD Regulation which are directly or indirectly supportive of nature and biodiversity [2006/07 and any subsequent revisions]. MS Action: Ensure adequate MS funds to make up any shortfall in funds provided by EC co-financing.',NULL),
	(123,'B1_1_7',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Action: B1.1.7: Increase in real terms international development assistance funds flowing annually to projects directly benefiting biodiversity [for period 2006-2010 compared with period 2000-2005; and again for period 2011-2013]. MS Action: Check and ensure that resources are available to implement the recommendations in the R/CEP through biodiversity projects or mainstreaming biodiversity concerns in to other relevant projects. Continue to press in GEF replenishment negotiations and through bilateral contracts for a substantial replenishment based on the agreed policy priorities.',NULL),
	(124,'B3_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target B3.1: Key stakeholder groups actively engaged in conservation of biodiversity from 2006 in each MS',NULL),
	(125,'B4_1',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target B4.1: 10 million Europeans actively engaged in biodiversity conservation by 2010, 15 million by 2013.',NULL),
	(126,'C1_3',NULL,NULL,NULL,'Target: C.1.3: Monitoring providing adequate data flow for implementation of indicator set, for reporting on favourable conservation status, and for broader assessment of effectiveness of this Action Plan by 2010.',NULL);

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `QuestionsText` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table TargetActions
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `TargetActions`;

CREATE TABLE `TargetActions` (
  `ID` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `Target` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Action` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `Objective` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=71 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `TargetActions` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `TargetActions` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `TargetActions` (`ID`,`Target`,`Action`,`Objective`)
VALUES
	(1,'A1_1','A1_1_1','Objective1'),
	(2,'A1_1','A1_1_2','Objective1'),
	(3,'A1_1','A1_1_3','Objective1'),
	(4,'A1_2','A1_2_3','Objective1'),
	(5,'A1_3','A1_3_1','Objective1'),
	(6,'A2_1','A2_1_1','Objective2'),
	(7,'A2_1','A2_1_3','Objective2'),
	(8,'A2_1','A2_1_4','Objective2'),
	(9,'A2_1','A2_1_6','Objective2'),
	(10,'A2_1','A2_1_8','Objective2'),
	(11,'A2_1','A2_1_9','Objective2'),
	(12,'A2_1','A2_1_11','Objective2'),
	(13,'A2_1','A2_1_12','Objective2'),
	(14,'A2_1','A2_1_15','Objective2'),
	(15,'A2_2','A2_2_2','Objective2'),
	(16,'A2_3','A2_3_1','Objective2'),
	(17,'A2_4','A2_4_1','Objective2'),
	(18,'A2_4','A2_4_2','Objective2'),
	(19,'A2_4','A2_4_3','Objective2'),
	(20,'A3_1','A3_1_4','Objective3'),
	(21,'A3_1','A3_1_5','Objective3'),
	(22,'A3_2','','Objective3'),
	(23,'A3_4','','Objective3'),
	(24,'A3_5','A3_5_1','Objective3'),
	(25,'A3_5','A3_5_2','Objective3'),
	(26,'A3_5','A3_5_3','Objective3'),
	(27,'A3_6','A3_6_1','Objective3'),
	(28,'A3_6','A3_6_2','Objective3'),
	(29,'A3_6','A3_6_3','Objective3'),
	(30,'A3_7','A3_7_1','Objective3'),
	(31,'A4_3','','Objective4'),
	(32,'A4_4','A4_4_1','Objective4'),
	(33,'A5_1','A5_1_2','Objective5'),
	(34,'A5_1','A5_1_3','Objective5'),
	(35,'A5_1','A5_1_4','Objective5'),
	(36,'A7_1','A7_1_3','Objective7'),
	(37,'A7_1','A7_1_4','Objective7'),
	(38,'A7_2','A7_2_2','Objective7'),
	(39,'A8_1','A8_1_3','Objective8'),
	(40,'A8_1','A8_1_4','Objective8'),
	(41,'A8_1','A8_1_8','Objective8'),
	(42,'A9_1','A9_1_1','Objective9'),
	(43,'A9_3','A9_3_2','Objective9'),
	(44,'A9_4','A9_4_1','Objective9'),
	(45,'A9_4','A9_4_3','Objective9'),
	(46,'A10_1','A10_1_2','Objective10'),
	(47,'A10_1','A10_1_8','Objective10'),
	(48,'A10_1','A10_1_9','Objective10'),
	(49,'B1_1','B1_1_1','Measure1'),
	(50,'B1_1','B1_1_4','Measure1'),
	(51,'B1_1','B1_1_8','Measure1'),
	(52,'B2_4','','Measure2'),
	(53,'B3_1','B3_1_2','Measure3'),
	(54,'B3_1','B3_1_5','Measure3'),
	(55,'B3_1','B3_1_6','Measure3'),
	(56,'B3_1','B3_1_7','Measure3'),
	(57,'B3_1','B3_1_8','Measure3'),
	(58,'B4_1','B4_1_1','Measure4'),
	(59,'B4_1','B4_1_2','Measure4'),
	(60,'C1_2','C1_2_1','MandE'),
	(61,'A1_1','A1_1_2','Objective1'),
	(62,'A2_1','A2_1_10','Objective2'),
	(63,'A4_4_1','','Objective4'),
	(64,'A4_5_1','','Objective4'),
	(65,'A5_2','A5_2_2','Objective5'),
	(66,'A6_1','A6_1_1','Objective6'),
	(67,'A7_1','A7_1_6','Objective7'),
	(68,'A7_2','A7_2_5','Objective7'),
	(69,'A10_1','A10_1_6','Objective10'),
	(70,'C1_3','C1_3_1','MandE');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `TargetActions` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;


# Dump of table targets
# ------------------------------------------------------------

DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `targets`;

CREATE TABLE `targets` (
  `id` varchar(25) NOT NULL,
  `name` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
  `description` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
  `objective` varchar(25) NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `name` (`name`),
  KEY `objective` (`objective`),
  CONSTRAINT `targets_ibfk_1` FOREIGN KEY (`objective`) REFERENCES `objectives` (`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

LOCK TABLES `targets` WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `targets` DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO `targets` (`id`,`name`,`description`,`objective`)
VALUES
	('A10_1','A10.1','Research findings on biodiversity and ecosystem services has substantially advanced our ability to ensure conservation and sustainable use by 2010 and again by 2013.','A10'),
	('A1_1','A1.1','Natura 2000 network established, safeguarded, designated and under effective conservation management by 2010, 2012 in marine.','A1'),
	('A1_2','A1.2','Sufficiency, coherence, connectivity and resilience of the protected areas network in the EU substantially enhanced by 2010 and further enhanced by 2013 (cf. objective 9, target 9.4).','A1'),
	('A1_3','A1.3','No priority species in worsening conservation status by 2010; the majority of priority species in or moving towards favourable conservation status by 2013','A1'),
	('A1_4','A1.4','All above targets applied for Acceding Countries from date of accession.','A1'),
	('A1_5','A1.5','For those EU Outermost Regions not covered by the nature directives, valued biodiversity sites and species not in worsening conservation status by 2010; majority of valued sites and species moving towards favourable conservation status by 2013.','A1'),
	('A2_1','A2.1','Member States have optimised use of opportunities under agricultural, rural development and forest policy to benefit biodiversity 2007-2013.','A2'),
	('A2_2','A2.2','Risks to soil biodiversity in EU substantially reduced by 2013.','A2'),
	('A2_3','A2.3','Substantial progress made towards \'good ecological status\' of freshwaters by 2010 and further substantial progress made by 2013.','A2'),
	('A2_4','A2.4','Principal pollutant pressures on terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013.','A2'),
	('A2_5','A2.5','Flood risk management plans in place and designed in such a way as to prevent and minimise biodiversity loss and optimise biodiversity gains, by 2015.','A2'),
	('A3_1','A3.1','Substantial progress achieved by 2010 and again by 2013 towards \'good environmental status\' of the marine environment.','A3'),
	('A3_2','A3.2','Principal pollutant pressures on marine biodiversity substantially reduced by 2010, and again by 2013.','A3'),
	('A3_3','A3.3','Ecosystem approach to the protection of the seas in place and implying fisheries management measures no later than 2016.','A3'),
	('A3_4','A3.4','Substantially enhanced funding provided to environmentally-friendly fisheries management from 2007 onwards.','A3'),
	('A3_5','A3.5','Stock levels maintained or restored to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield, where possible no later than 2015.','A3'),
	('A3_6','A3.6','Impact of fisheries on non-target species and habitats progressively and substantially reduced from 2006 onwards.','A3'),
	('A3_7','A3.7','Substantially improved information and reporting on environmental integration of the Common Fisheries Policy from 2008 onwards.','A3'),
	('A4_1','A4.1','Cohesion and structural funds contributing to sustainable development and making (directly or indirectly) a positive contribution to biodiversity, and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented or minimised or, where unavoidable, adequately compensated fo','A4'),
	('A4_2','A4.2','Negative impacts of territorial plans (within each MS) on biodiversity prevented or minimised, and positive benefits optimised, from 2006 onwards.','A4'),
	('A4_3','A4.3','Ecological coherence and functioning strengthened through spatial planning from 2006 onwards.','A4'),
	('A4_4','A4.4','Significant increase in proportion of tourism which is ecologically sustainable by 2010 and again by 2013.','A4'),
	('A4_5','A4.5','All above outcomes achieved also in Outermost Regions.','A4'),
	('A4_6','A4.6','All Strategic Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments have taken full account of biodiversity concerns (2006 onwards).','A4'),
	('A5_1','A5.1','Impact of IAS on biodiversity in the EU substantially reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.','A5'),
	('A5_2','A5.2','Impact of alien genotypes on biodiversity in the EU significantly reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.','A5'),
	('A6_1','A6.1','International governance for biodiversity substantially more effective in delivering positive biodiversity outcomes by 2010.','A6'),
	('A7_1','A7.1','Financial resources flowing annually to projects directly benefiting biodiversity has substantially increased in real terms (for period 2006-2010 compared with period 2000-2005; and again for period 2011-2013).','A7'),
	('A7_2','A7.2','EU \'mainstream\' external development assistance delivering enhanced biodiversity and related livelihoods benefits, and negative impacts on biodiversity prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards.','A7'),
	('A8_1','A8.1','Impact on biodiversity of EU trade significantly reduced by 2010 and again by 2013.','A8'),
	('A9_1','A9.1','8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by 2010.','A9'),
	('A9_2','A9.2','Global annual mean surface temperature increase limited to not more than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels.','A9'),
	('A9_3','A9.3','Climate change adaptation or mitigation measure from 2006 onwards delivering biodiversity benefits, and any negative impacts on biodiversity prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards.','A9'),
	('A9_4','A9.4','Resilience of EU biodiversity to climate change substantially strengthened by 2010.','A9'),
	('B1_1','B1.1','Adequate funding provided for Natura 2000, biodiversity outside Natura 2000 in EU, biodiversity in external assistance and biodiversity research, inventory and monitoring 2007-2013.','A11'),
	('B2_1','B2.1','EU vision on biodiversity and ecosystem services agreed and providing policy framework by 2010.','A12'),
	('B2_2','B2.2','New policies benefit biodiversity and ecosystem services, and their negative impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services prevented or minimised, from 2006 onwards.','A12'),
	('B2_3','B2.3','Biodiversity needs have been better integrated, as necessary, into post-2013 Financial Perspectives and any mid-term review of FP 2007-2013.','A12'),
	('B2_4','B2.4','Complementarity of EC and MS biodiversity strategies and action plans substantially enhanced by 2010.','A12'),
	('B2_5','B2.5','Effective integration of Natura 2000, rural development, river basin management and other territorial plans and programmes in support of biodiversity achieved by 2010.','A12'),
	('B2_6','B2.6','Substantial improvement in compliance with environmental regulations by 2010 and again by 2013.','A12'),
	('B3_1','B3.1','Key stakeholder groups actively engaged in conservation of biodiversity from 2006 in each MS.','A13'),
	('B4_1','B4.1','10 million Europeans actively engaged in biodiversity conservation by 2010, 15 million by 2013.','A14'),
	('C1_1','C1.1','Annual, Mid-term and Final Reports submitted in timely fashion to Council and Parliament','A15'),
	('C1_2','C1.2','Indicators in place and informing policy decisions by 2010','A15'),
	('C1_3','C1.3','Monitoring providing adequate data flow for implementation of indicator set, for reporting on favourable conservation status, and for broader assessment of effectiveness of this Action Plan by 2010.','A15'),
	('C1_4','C1.4','Action Plan adjusted as necessary in 2010, new plan adopted in 2013','A15');

/*!40000 ALTER TABLE `targets` ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;





/*!40111 SET SQL_NOTES=@OLD_SQL_NOTES */;
/*!40101 SET SQL_MODE=@OLD_SQL_MODE */;
/*!40014 SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS */;
/*!40014 SET UNIQUE_CHECKS=@OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS */;
/*!40101 SET CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT=@OLD_CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT */;
/*!40101 SET CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS=@OLD_CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS */;
/*!40101 SET COLLATION_CONNECTION=@OLD_COLLATION_CONNECTION */;
