The implementation of the Habitat Directive (Dir. 92/43/EEC) entails gathering a large amount of field data. As for monitoring activities, along with spatial data (GIS data), tabular data regarding habitat, plant and animal species population size, and pressures and threats acting on them are collected. In this paper we describe two relational databases designed to ensure a correct and efficient data storage for the habitats listed in Annex I and the Plant species listed in the Annexes II, IV and V. The two relational Databases were designed in Microsoft Access format. In both databases, “Lookup Tables” related to the taxon were used to avoid replication and to centralize the data. Data Tables were used to store the raw data deriving from monitoring activities. The adopted databases allow the storage of collected data in a standard and homogeneous format and make data entry easier to users, reducing input errors. The databases comply with the mandatory actions of art. 11 and 17 of the Habitat Directive and give a prompt reply to the basic requests of users. Finally, the databases aim to provide citizens and/or other end users with all the data gathered in a single regional repository, with zoological data in addition.

Conservation status, Data management, Natura 2000 Network, Reporting ex art. 17, Surveillance ex art. 11

The Habitat Directive (Dir. 92/43/EEC, hereafter HD) regulates all the processes/regulations that the Member States (MSs) of the European Union have to follow to maintain or restore at a favourable conservation status the habitats listed in Annex I and the species listed in Annexes II, IV and V (art. 2). These processes/regulations include: a) the setting up of the Natura 2000 (N2000) Network (art. 3, 4); b) the establishment of the necessary conservation measures for each Network site (art. 6); c) the surveillance (monitoring) of the conservation status of the natural habitat and species referred to in art. 2 (art. 11). Moreover, every six years each MS has to draw up a Report on the implementation of the measures taken (art. 17, subsection 1). All the MS Reports are used by the European Commission (DG Environment) to evaluate the progress in achieving the goal of maintaining or restoring at a favourable conservation status the habitat types and the species listed in the Annexes (art. 17, subsection 2).

Monitoring activities, in addition to ensuring the effectiveness of the conservation measures applied on a local scale in a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (EC Notice 2019 quoting EC 2013), are also carried out to assess the conservation status of the habitat types and species listed in the Annexes at a Biogeographical region level (EEA, 2011). Indeed, the monitoring results are synthesized at Biogeographical region level and published thanks to the reporting activities ex art. 17.

In this respect, Italy has drawn up guidelines for the implementation of the monitoring plans, outlining for each species and habitat type the required field activities (Angelini et al. 2016; Ercole et al. 2016; Stoch and Genovesi 2016). Monitoring activities are expected to produce a massive amount of very different data. Together with spatial data (GIS data), tabular data regarding habitat type, plant and animal species population size, and pressures and threats acting on them are collected. Moreover, for habitats and plant species, it is necessary to carry out phytosociological relevés in order to identify the habitat type of Annex I and to record the indicators useful for the assessment of the conservation status both of habitat type and of habitat of the species of Annexes II, IV and V.

Differently from other MSs, Italy has partially delegated the HD implementation to the Local Authorities, namely Administrative Regions and Autonomous Provinces (D.P.R. 357/1997; D.M. MATT 03.09.2002) and Management Bodies of the SACs. The Local Authorities have to regulate specific monitoring plans through regional laws, on the basis of the national guidelines. The Management Body of a SAC is responsible for taking decisions on habitat and species management by drafting the Management Plan of the SAC and applying the site-specific conservation measures. The Local Authorities and the Management Body of a SAC can be represented by different institutions. In fact, D.P.R. 357/1997 states that if the SAC is located within the boundaries of a National Nature Parks or Reserve, the Management Body is the same as the protected area. With respect to the other SACs, each Local Authority must identify the related Management Body by means of an autonomous local legislative measure.

The effects of these legal provisions on monitoring activities are very important. Even though a monitoring plan drafting is mandatory for the Local Authority, its actual implementation involves the Management Body of the SAC. In fact, according to the Notice of European Commission (EC Notice 2019 quoting EC 2013), monitoring should assess the effectiveness of the conservation measures taken by the Management Body thanks to the Management Plan of target habitats and species present in the SAC. In this respect, the Management Body can take decisions autonomously.

The final effect of this complicated legal and administrative framework is that the monitoring activities could be carried out in a very different way by the different Management Bodies, even within the same Local Authority. As a consequence, monitoring activities may involve several groups of operators acting in the different SACs of the same Local Authority, and differences in storing the data may arise. Afterwards, all these data must converge into a regional centralised archive containing all the information and all the characteristics of the N2000 sites. A data repository not planned to unify nonuniform data may therefore negatively affect the data analysis as required by the HD, art. 17.

The importance of botanical data computerization has been a subject of scientific interest since the last twenty years of the twentieth century. The botanical databases are mainly aimed at the use of floristic and phytosociological research (e.g. Gòmez-Pompa and Nevling 1988; Dennis 2000; Pankhurst 2004; Danin et al. 2006; Santangelo et al. 2008; Zielińska et al. 2010; Dengler et al. 2012; Domina et al. 2013; Lucarini et al. 2015; Bedini et al. 2016; Longo et al., 2021). Particular attention has been paid to the creation of taxonomic-nomenclatural databases (Bisby 2000; Peruzzi 2018), now available online, for the worldwide and local floras (e.g. POWO 2022; Euro+Med 2006 onwards; Portal to the Flora of Italy 2022). As for the monitoring activities required by the HD, many articles and technical reports (e.g. Barbier et al. 2009; Weinke and Ragger 2013; Viciani et al. 2014; AA.VV. 2015; Uzunov et al. 2016; Floranet LIFE Floristic Geodatabase, 2021) mainly discuss the outcome of the monitoring activities, analysing original data. Some papers do not address issues connected to the design or implementation of the database used to store the tabular data, not allowing a constructive methodological comparison. The little attention paid to a methodological data storage disagrees with the importance of this feature in terms of management of the same “biological objects” (e.g. habitat type or species listed in the Annexes of the HD) shared by Local Authorities and Management Bodies.

The main purpose of this paper is to draw the attention of the botanists involved as consultants by different Institutions, to the key features of the repository that is intended to store the data specifically gathered for monitoring purposes, under 92/43/EEC.

In this respect we describe the two databases that were specifically designed in an Administrative Region (Campania) to store and to manage monitoring data gathered by different operators. These databases were distributed to private corporations that won several calls for bids announced by the Management Bodies of the N2000 Network. All the activities are carried out according to the Monitoring Plan of the N2000 Network of the Campania region (hereafter MPCam, Giunta Regionale della Campania 2021) for the habitat types and the plant species.

Two relational Databases (DBs) were designed in Microsoft Access format, the same software used by the European Environment Agency to manage the N2000 data (EEA, 2017, 2021, 2022). The DBs were specifically planned to save and manage sampling data derived from the monitoring activities on habitat types (HD Annex I) and plant species (HD, Annex II, IV, V). The DBs refer to the vascular plants of the Italian flora and to the species of Bryophytes and Lichens of community interest present in Campania. Although the two DBs are very similar in their structure, there are some differences about relational tables and forms for data entry and query, due to the different data stored in the two DBs: HabitatDB and PlantDB. The official language of the DBs is Italian as they were planned to be used by Italian target personnel.

In both DBs there are common tables related to the taxon, acting as “Lookup Table” to avoid data replication and to allow their centralization (Hernandez 2013). The Lookup Tables are used for the variables that are univocally linked to another one (e.g. for plant species a “taxon” and its presence in a list of protected species). All the other tables are typical Data Tables useful to store the raw data deriving from field work. In this respect some tables are present in both DBs, while other tables are present either in HabitatDB or PlantDB. All the tables are linked to each other through relational key attributes based on numeric or alpha-numerical codes.

Forms and subforms (in Microsoft Access terminology: masks and submasks, respectively) are provided to facilitate data entry and consultation. Data entry forms are available both in a basic form (one record of data at a time) and as a multiple item form (multiple records of data at the same time). The data consultation is mainly provided in a datasheet form (Murray 2020).

In order to get data regarding N2000 Network comparable over time, the databases make it possible 1) to set up a regional database fulfilling the requirements of art. 11 and 17; 2) to make data entry easier to users and free from errors; 3) to store data in a standard and homogeneous form; 4) to give prompt replies to the basic requests of users (scientists and site managers) and 5) to provide citizens and/or other end users with all data gathered in a single regional database, with zoological data in addition.

The DBs comply with the mandatory actions of the Local Authority (in our case the Campania region) and help the Management Body of a SAC define the required management actions.

The DB layout is planned to best store the field data gathered during the monitoring activities according to MPCAM.

As the monitoring activities can be carried out by differently experienced individuals (sometimes with very poor knowledge of taxonomy and phytosociology), the DBs ensures data homogeneity, standardization and scientific value in this case. Indeed, the DBs use a standard taxonomic repository (Bartolucci et al. 2018; Galasso et al. 2018) and recently updated lists of attributes related to the species (Peruzzi et al. 2014; Rossi et al. 2013, 2020). This feature allows the comparison and the confluence at regional level of the data gathered in the different SACs.

The DBs were developed using Microsoft Access. However, the suggested structure can be easily used in other types of software. In our opinion, one of the key strengths of our DB is the use of lists (taxonomy and other characteristics of each taxon) deriving from national research projects (e.g. Portal to the Flora of Italy, 2022; Rossi et al., 2013, 2018). This choice ensures both the continuous data updating by many scientists involved in national projects and the data standardization at national level. The relational structure allows an easy updating of the tables related to the taxon, that is uniquely identified by an alphanumerical code, by the DB administrator.

The support of the facilitations provided by the forms ensures data entry accuracy and data storage consistency. The form used to store phytosociological relevés instantly marks the presence of target species (e.g. endemic and/or protected species), highlighting the scientific or management relevance of the recorded taxon.

The data analysis is simplified by the queries and the reports provided by the two DBs. All data can be easily analysed at both site and Local Authority scale, providing the information required by the HD. At SAC level, the analysis of Pressure and Threats recorded for each habitat type or species provides useful information (required by the HD, art.6) concerning the conservation measures specific to site, and its habitat types and species. The conservation measures must counteract the Pressures or Threats recorded in the SAC. To this end, the DB tools help the Management Body with the identification and quantification of Pressures and Threats. The same tools allow their prioritization in a standard and comparable way in order to define the best conservation measure to be applied.

In the HabitatDB exporting data to a raw matrix facilitates the phytosociological analysis necessary to identifying the habitat type. The attributes of each taxon recorded in the relevés (native, alien, endemic, red listed) and used as indicators of habitat functionality (MPCam: 17-18), can be easily extracted to allow the assessment of the conservation status of the sampled habitat. The same facilitations are provided by the PlantDB, allowing the use of indicators assessing the habitat of the species quality, and making population size data comparable over time, according to the provisions of MPCam (p. 69).

Reports facilitate the management of herbarium specimens, whose collection is mandatory in case of plant records that update distributional data for Campania region (MPCam: 16). Namely, the mandatory delivery of herbarium material to an institutional museum (MPCam: 16), is made easier by the provided report in PDF format for labelling specimens.

As for Standard Data Form updating, the DBs allow the extraction of the information required in the Commission Implementing Decision (EC 2011). Namely, the “Species size” in Sect. 3.2 of the Standard Data Form or the list of “Other species” (Sect. 3.3) that can be easily extracted by the ”Species” and “Regional data” tables by a provided query (e.g. Checklist).

What is more, the availability of georeferred distributional data for all the recorded species, easy to import into the GIS environment, represents a very feasible tool of biodiversity management.

Finally, the databases make all the botanical and zoological data collected in the monitoring activities available in a single regional repository to citizens and/or other users, as required by the art. 17(1).

The outcome of the monitoring activities ex art. 11 can be used to assess the conservation status of habitat types and species listed in the HD Annexes and to comply with the art.17 (Biogeographical Region level). The same data can be used by the Management Body of each site of N2000 Network (site level) to assess the conservation measures effectiveness, in order to comply with the priority taken by the conservation objectives described in the Management Plan.

In Italy the national regulations (DPR357/97; D.M. MATT 03.09.2002) referred some matters (such as Environment) to Local Authorities (namely Administrative Regions, Autonomous Provinces), importantly complicating the HD application. As a matter of fact, in Italy the monitoring activities are not in charge of one central Authority, as in other MSs, and they are planned by the different Local Authorities independently, e.g. in terms of sampling design, skills of involved personnel and repositories used to store data. Moreover, the monitoring plan is put into practice by the Management Bodies that have the authority to choose differently skilled professionals.

Currently, in Campania the activities required by the monitoring plan are being developed by private corporations that won several calls for bids announced by the Management Bodies. These corporations recruited differently experienced professionals by terminable contracts and agreements. In such a context, where the necessary involvement of scientists in the sampling activities is not ensured, the use of a repository planned to store data in a standard and homogeneous form represents a focal tool to give them scientific accuracy.

The stored data standardization makes it easier to provide the Ministry of Ecological Transition (MiTE) with the data required by art. 17 and to update Standard Data Forms (EC, 2011). The distributional data of taxa of interest could be available in the National Network of Biodiversity, improving this important project, which carries out a strong joint action in support of the National Biodiversity Strategy (re3data.org 2022).

In our opinion, monitoring under the HD is an “ecotonal” topic between science (floristic, taxonomy, phytosociology, plant ecology) and bureaucracy (e.g. mandatory practical actions required by laws referring to different Authorities at different levels). The DBs presented in this paper were intended to balance the two sides of the same law: science and bureaucracy. In this respect, they were imagined and planned for the purpose of creating a tool able to meet the requirements of scientific accuracy and to fulfil the practical requests of Institutions at the same time.

Finally, we hope this paper may contribute to the botanists’ debate about the actual role of the scientific community and their contribution in the matter of the complex processes and mandatory actions required by the Habitat Directive.

The authors thank the Regione Campania - Direzione Generale per l'Ambiente e l'Ecosistema - Dip. 50 DG 06 U.O.D. 07 that partially funded this project. The authors are extremely grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and helpful comments that improved the manuscript.