ll
heritage Value: habitat‘within the regional or national natural heritage_that
represents an element of
the occurrence of
a determunant specie
or
an outstanding structure (cliff, cave, ...)
or a singularecologrcal Situation (mergmg of
two water masses,area of highdehsity).
1: strong natural heritage‘value ;
‘
'
'
2: intermediate naturalheritagevalue ;,
3: low natural heritage Value.
(III).
habitat more or less freqUently,uncovered by the surveys:
,
1: habitat known in one or very few numbers Of’sites in the whole Mediterranean region;
‘
Î
Z: habitat rare or unusual in most of the Mediterranæmcountries because being endemic
or highly scattered.
'
3: habitat not rare or not unusual.
.
(IV). Aesthetic value: habitat of high aesthetic and landscape value:
’
1: Landscape of high aesthetic value ;
2: Landscape of intermediate aesthetic value ;
3: Common landscape.
'
(V). Economical value: habitat of high economical importance, whether directly because
of its richness and can be an important fishing site or indirectly because of its high
importance in the trophic network of the whole biological cycle.
1: high economical value ;
'
Î
Z: intermediate economical value; ,
3: low economical value.
(VI). Speed of regeneration after destruction.
_
1: regeneration requiring at‘ime length longer than a century;
'
'
2: regeneratio‘n requiring an time length of 10 to 100 years;
3: regenerati0n requiring an time length between 1 to 10 years.
As for the species, these
criterions allowed the classification of the various habitats
_
in three “major categories:
'
'
—
Determinant Habitats “(D) : habitats where
is a prerequisite and for which
‘
the only existence requiresthe creation of a_ZNIEFF. Many criterions are of grade 1.
-
RemarkableHabitats (R) : habitats requiring“ a special attention and management. The
occurrence of many ,remarkable habitats cah suggest the creation of a special proteCted
area. Only one of the criterions is graded 1.
f
_
'
‘
_
_
-
NotEligible Habitats (NR) : habitats showing no characteristics of rarity or vulnerability
and for which the natural heritage value, the aesthetic and economical importance are
low
is short. No criterion is graded 1Ï
.
Some
of these
criterions
like
aesthetic value
or
economical
are
questi0nable in the strict frame=of the inventory of the Natural Zones of Ecological,
Faunistic
and
FloristicInterest (ZNIEFF). For example, the economical value was
contested
by the CSRPN ,
Nevertheless
it. is
interesting,
considering the
management recommendations required by the desciptivedocuments of'the ZNIEFF
zones, totake into account
,
‘
-
'
'
22