published .or not, of scientists. _The Zones were exclusively selected according to the
5 knowledge previously acquired, Whether published Or nbt, but not with an actual on—site
assessment. The lack of'ZNIEFF status’didnot mean then that the zone was not eligible
_tobe classified but rather that the knowledge was insufficient to evaluate objectively its
status
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
.
In 1995, ‘an update of the
inventory was launched by the Ministry of the
Environment according to a mûre precise ‘and‘ updated methodology. The status of_a zone °
was then chosen in view of an in situ assessment inventory of habitats but also of
species. This update program had three main purposes: (i) to know as precisely as
possible the natùral heritage of the maritime and land territory, (ii) to.-provide access to
the scientific inventory for managers in an practical
(iii) to sensitize the’actors
of the environment to the rich'hess of the natural heritage.
The inventory of the ZNIEFF has to be an instrument for creating dialogue and
Warning in the integrated management of the territory.
"
‘
'
‘
'
*
'
Results
'
'
'
‘
,
,
_
.
—
of the marine environment
In France, the basis_of the ZNIEFF program has always concerned essentially the
terrestrial zones. Characteristics ofthe marine environment, in comparison with the
terrestrial environment, have required appropriate adjtætments of the method. Collecting
_
data in situ, in the Mediterranean Sea is done in two ways, Whether snorkelling and
scuba—diving or with the use of sampling or measùring equipments from a boat.
Therefore, precise locations of sampling sites
much more ocCasiohal than ‘On land.
the cdverage of the site is much less dense, less-precise and
or samples much less frequent than in the terrestrial environment. It is also globally less
exhausdve.
_
Even if a number of inventbries are available for the marine environment, they are
often less complete, less frequent and concerning the localisation, less
on
terrestrial land. However there is a good knowledge
the“cdastal
marine environment due to numerous unpublished works (thesis, report, mission notes
and dives) and maps of some habitats and their evolution'5 are pretty well documented
(especially Posidonia meadows).
‘
‘
In conclusion, we can acknôWledge that in the marine_enVironment c0mpared_ to
the terrestrial environment, (i) data is less abundaht and precise in ”relationShip to the
topography and (il) knowledge is less consistent at a specific level but globally better for
the habitats.
_
,
_
_
_
'
_
f
j
.
'
The update of the inven‘tories
.
"
_
‘
To achieve the update of the first generation of Marine ZNIEFF and
an
approach
b‘ibliogràphicäl,the first step consisted in defining lists of species and
‘
habitats to look for in priority. This was done because it was unconceiVable to achieve
inventory in a reasonable time if it was ”to prOceed and r‘e‘cord eXhaustively— all
the species present regardless of their taxonomic level.
«
.“
,
19
'
5 knowledge previously acquired, Whether published Or nbt, but not with an actual on—site
assessment. The lack of'ZNIEFF status’didnot mean then that the zone was not eligible
_tobe classified but rather that the knowledge was insufficient to evaluate objectively its
status
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
.
In 1995, ‘an update of the
inventory was launched by the Ministry of the
Environment according to a mûre precise ‘and‘ updated methodology. The status of_a zone °
was then chosen in view of an in situ assessment inventory of habitats but also of
species. This update program had three main purposes: (i) to know as precisely as
possible the natùral heritage of the maritime and land territory, (ii) to.-provide access to
the scientific inventory for managers in an practical
(iii) to sensitize the’actors
of the environment to the rich'hess of the natural heritage.
The inventory of the ZNIEFF has to be an instrument for creating dialogue and
Warning in the integrated management of the territory.
"
‘
'
‘
'
*
'
Results
'
'
'
‘
,
,
_
.
—
of the marine environment
In France, the basis_of the ZNIEFF program has always concerned essentially the
terrestrial zones. Characteristics ofthe marine environment, in comparison with the
terrestrial environment, have required appropriate adjtætments of the method. Collecting
_
data in situ, in the Mediterranean Sea is done in two ways, Whether snorkelling and
scuba—diving or with the use of sampling or measùring equipments from a boat.
Therefore, precise locations of sampling sites
much more ocCasiohal than ‘On land.
the cdverage of the site is much less dense, less-precise and
or samples much less frequent than in the terrestrial environment. It is also globally less
exhausdve.
_
Even if a number of inventbries are available for the marine environment, they are
often less complete, less frequent and concerning the localisation, less
on
terrestrial land. However there is a good knowledge
the“cdastal
marine environment due to numerous unpublished works (thesis, report, mission notes
and dives) and maps of some habitats and their evolution'5 are pretty well documented
(especially Posidonia meadows).
‘
‘
In conclusion, we can acknôWledge that in the marine_enVironment c0mpared_ to
the terrestrial environment, (i) data is less abundaht and precise in ”relationShip to the
topography and (il) knowledge is less consistent at a specific level but globally better for
the habitats.
_
,
_
_
_
'
_
f
j
.
'
The update of the inven‘tories
.
"
_
‘
To achieve the update of the first generation of Marine ZNIEFF and
an
approach
b‘ibliogràphicäl,the first step consisted in defining lists of species and
‘
habitats to look for in priority. This was done because it was unconceiVable to achieve
inventory in a reasonable time if it was ”to prOceed and r‘e‘cord eXhaustively— all
the species present regardless of their taxonomic level.
«
.“
,
19
'