Rep

ortin

g u

nd

er the B

irds

and

Hab

itats Directive

Angelika R

ubin & D

anny Charbonneau, D

G Environm

ent, European C

omm

ission

Presen

tation

– O

verview

C

ontext

The Nature D

irectives

Two “pillars”

C

onservation Status

N

atura 2000

Reporting under A

rt.17

What is required and w

hy?

The 2007 report

Som

e results

Challenges

O

utlook

Expert G

roup on Reporting

The next reporting cycle

Co

ntex

t

W

e need to have good information on the state of

biodiversity

To steer (biodiversity) policy, to support political decision

To know w

hether conservation efforts are successful, targets are reached (e.g. 2010 &

2020 target)

The B

irds & the H

abitats Directive are central instrum

ents of EU

biodiversity policy

Assessing the effectiveness of these instrum

ents is crucial

Monitoring and R

eporting become m

ore and more im

portant in the policy cycle

Legislatio

n: T

he N

ature D

irectives

The EU

’s policy on nature conservation consists of two legal

instruments:

The C

ouncil Directive 79/409/E

EC

on the protection of wild birds (april

1979) -- Birds D

irective

The Council D

irective 92/43/EE

C on the conservation of natural habitats

and of wild fauna and flora (m

ay 1992) -- Habitats D

irective

Two pillars to the H

abitats Directive:

S

pecies & habitats protection provisions – valid on all territory / sea of a

MS

S

ite protection provisions – Natura 2000

O

ver 220 habitat types (Annex I) &

over 1.000 species of C

omm

unity interest (Annex II, IV, V) + all european w

ild birds

"all areas that are protected under the Birds and H

abitats Directives

form an ecological netw

ork known as N

ATUR

A 2000. The main purpose

of this network is to m

aintain or restore the habitats and species at a favourable (good) conservation status (FC

S) in their natural range".

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/index_en.htm

Favou

rable C

on

servation

Statu

s - Defin

ition

(part of Art.1)

N

atural habitat types:

natural range and areas covered stable or increasing

specific structure and functions necessarily exist and are likely to exist for the foreseeable future

typical species are in FC

S

Species:population dynam

ics - viable over the long-term

natural range not reduced

sufficiently large habitat

Concept is not restricted to N

atura 2000 sites

Wh

at is requ

ired b

y “Art.1

7 R

epo

rting

”?

Im

plementation / progress reporting under the H

abitats Directive:

“Is the directive working?”

Relevant provisions:

A

rt.11: obligation to survey the conservation status of habitats/species

A

rt.17: implem

entation report every 6 years

Mem

ber States: inform

ation concerning the conservation measures (A

rt. 6.1) as w

ell as evaluation of their impact on the conservation status of

habitat types (Annex I) and species (A

nnex II) and the main results of the

surveillance referred to in Article 11.

The C

omm

ission: composite report , w

hich shall include an appropriate evaluation of the progress achieved and, in particular, of the contribution of N

atura 2000 to the achievement of the objectives set out in A

rticle 3.

Art.1

7 rep

ortin

g p

eriod

s (H

abitats D

ir.)

Reporting period

National report

(EU synthesis)

Main focus

1994-20002001(2003/4)

Progress in legal transposition &

establishing N

atura 2000

2001-20062007(2009)

First assessment of

conservation statusof habitat types &

species→

input 2010

2007-20122013(2014/15)

Renew

ed assessment of

conservation status & assessm

ent of Natura 2000

impact

Th

e repo

rting

form

at & g

uid

elines (2

00

7)

R

eporting format agreed in A

pril 2005 in Habitats C

omm

ittee

General report

R

eports on species & habitat types

D

etailed guidelines provided by ETC

/BD

Principle: M

S to provide data (range, population, area, trends,

pressures & threats, including m

aps) & assessm

ents on species and habitat types on a biogeographical level

Internet-based reporting tool developed by E

TC/E

EA (w

ithin E

ION

ET)

Bio

geo

grap

hical reg

ion

s – E

U2

5 (7+4)

Assessin

g co

nservatio

n statu

s

M

ethod developed based on definitions given in directive

3+1 classes (“traffic-light system

”)

Includes “favourable reference values”

A

ssessment unit:

biogeographic regions in MS

– allowing for biogeographic

evaluation on EU

-level

Harm

onised approach: agreed m

atrix

Species H

abitat types

Range (FR

V)R

ange (FRV)

Population (FR

V)A

rea covered by habitat type (FR

V)

Habitat for the

speciesSpecific structures &

functions; typical species

Future prospects

Future prospects

Parameters used

Ex

amp

le: Evalu

ation

matrix

for sp

ecies - sim

plified

Code: xxxx

Favourable status

Inadequate status

Bad status

Range

Stable or increasing and ≥ favourable reference range

Not qualifying for red or

greenLarge decline (> 1%

per year*) or m

ore than 10% below

f.r.r.

Population≥ favourable reference population and population structure norm

alN

ot qualifying for red or green

Large decline (> 1% per

year*) or more than 25%

below f.r.p. or pop.struct.

strongly deviating from norm

al

Habitat for

species

Habitat sufficiently large

and habitat quality suitable for long-term

survivalN

ot qualifying for red or green

Area of habitat clearly

insufficient or habitat quality not allow

ing long-term

survival

Future prospects

Pressures and threats not significant, long-term viability ensured

Not qualifying for red or

greenSevere influence of pressures and threats, bad prospects re. long-term viability

*within period specified by M

S

Wh

at are the “p

rod

ucts” o

f the p

rocess?

M

ember State reports

P

ublicly available but presentation in reportnet

N

ational Summ

aries

Sum

mary of data from

each MS

Technical R

eport by ETC/B

D (w

eb-based)

EU

-level analysis. Conservation status results online (M

S &

EU

-level)

C

omposite R

eport by the Com

mission

R

eport to Council &

Parliam

ent – Published on 13th July 2009

This reporting:

A substantial effort from

MS

in mobilising expertise and data

R

esults in unique pool of information from

EU

25 (next EU

27)

A quantum

leap:from

process reporting to outcome &

results

Milestone to identify gaps in know

ledge = additional efforts in monitoring

D

ata and information – even if not perfect – opens the w

ay to (finally) start understanding w

hat is going well / so-so / w

rong and why

In conclusion…

A baseline about conservation status is now

(finally!) available

Limitations due to data quality

Further analysis possible

C

aution in drawing conclusions…

Wh

at is special ab

ou

t this p

rocess?

Wh

at need

s to b

e imp

roved

H

igh number of 'unknow

ns', mainly for species

M

arine species & habitats: the big ‘dark’ blue

Trends &

trend magnitude: very little reported – next

reporting round: strong focus on trends

Quality of data needs im

provement: very little is com

ing from

monitoring

Further harm

onisation & standardisation needed

A g

limp

se on

the E

U-level resu

lts – “traffic-

ligh

t” legen

dfavourable

unfavourable-inadequate

unfavourable-bad

unknown

Resu

lts - species

Percentages relate to the num

ber of assessments on biogeographical level

Resu

lts - hab

itat types

Sp

ecies by b

iog

eog

aph

ical regio

ns

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

MB

AL (4)

MM

ED

(32)

MM

AC

(33)

MAT

L (34)

ATL (230)

CO

N (338)

ME

D (652)

PAN

(214)

ALP

(358)

MA

C (171)

BO

R (174)

Gro

up

s of h

abitat typ

es

dunes habitats (62)

grasslands (102)

bogs, mires &

fens (56)

coastal habitats (84)

freshwater habitats (84)

heath & scrub (36)

forest (181)

sclerophyllous scrub (32)

rocky habitats (64)0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

So

me sp

ecific analysis

Habitats dependant on agriculture (204

assessments)

52%

24%

4% 13%

0%7%

Habitats not dependant on agriculture

(497 assessments)

30%

30%

5%

13% 1%

21%

Messag

e: Health

-check fo

r EU

hab

itats and

species sh

ow

s - Mo

re efforts are n

eeded

EU

Mem

ber States have, for the first time, system

atically assessed the conservation status (B

IG effort)

O

nly a small proportion of the habitats and species are in a

favourable status.

In some cases w

here trends are already positive, more tim

e is needed to achieve good status

The findings highlight the critical im

portance of conservation actions and the need to urgently intensify efforts

Ou

tloo

k: Stream

linin

g R

epo

rting

un

der th

e n

ature d

irectives

Objective: Stream

line & m

odernise data-flows under the

nature directives, incl. Natura 2000. This involves…

S

tandardisation of required content / data (INS

PIR

E for spatial

data)

Synchronisation of reporting cycles, m

erging of reports

Sw

itch to e-Reporting (e.g. reportnet under E

ION

ET)

E

nsure links between different data-flow

s & others

D

evelop ideas for presentation of the data and their analysis to a w

ide range of users

New

Expert Group (M

S & stakeholders), m

uch work done in

sub-groups under the various work-packages

Rep

ortin

g W

G - 7

wo

rk-packag

es:

•R

eview of the A

rt.17 (HD

) reporting exercise 2001-2006; •

Align (m

erge) progress reporting under both directives;•

Find methods for the evaluation of N

atura 2000 impact (as

part of progress reporting);•

Revision of dataflow

re. Natura 2000 sites (+updating SD

F);•

Finalise HaB

ides (derogation reporting);•

Improve notification procedure on com

pensatory measures

under Art. 6.4 (H

D);

•D

evelop vision for the presentation & access to data;

Review

ing

Art.1

7 rep

ortin

g (W

P1

)

G

eneral report

Harm

onisation of data

threats & pressures

population units

range &

distribution maps

Im

prove definition of concepts

favourable reference values

structure & functions

suitable habitat for a species

future prospects

typical species

R

eview dataflow

and QA

/QC

: web tool, validation, etc.

O

utcome: revised form

at & guidelines for 2013

Work in Progress!

Ch

alleng

es for th

e nex

t repo

rt in 2

01

3

D

ata should come from

established monitoring system

s

The knowledge gap m

ust be reduced!

More coherent &

comparable results

M

ore focus on trend information

H

ow to assess the im

pacts of Natura 2000 on conservation

status?

Discussion in E

xpert Working G

roup (WP

3)

Monitoring results from

the Natura 2000 netw

ork – effect of m

easures, updating SD

Fs

Com

posite Report A

rt.17http://eur-lex.europa.eu/R

esult.do?T1=V5&T2=2009&

T3=358&R

echType=REC

H_naturel&

Submit=Search

CIR

CA - R

eporting and the nature directiveshttp://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/m

onnat/home

ETC/B

D technical report, detailed results

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 N

ature & B

iodiversity homepage

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm

Thank you for your attention!

Do

cum

ents, p

resentatio

ns &

mo

re…