EBONE

European Biodiversity Observation Network:

Design of a plan for an integrated biodiversity observing system in space and time

Deliverable 2.1: “Spatial and topical priorities for

species and habitat monitoring, coverage and gaps in biodiversity monitoring in Europe, and

compliance of monitoring schemes with GEO data sharing principles”1

Document date: 2010-09-29

Document Ref.: EBONE-D2-1

Klaus Henle, Bianca Bauch, Rob Jongman, Dirk Schmeller,

Mart Külvik, Geert de Blust, Yehoshua Skeddy, Linda

Whittaker, Terry Parr, Erik Framstad

EC-FPV Contract Ref: ENV-CT-2008-212322

1 Compliance of monitoring schemes with GEO data sharing principles is integrated within the

Intermediate Deliverable 7.1 - 0.2 of WP 7

D2.1-final.doc

2

1 Executive summary............................................................................. 3 1.1 Objectives.................................................................................................................3 1.2 Key results ................................................................................................................3

2 Criteria for setting topical and spatial priorities........................................ 6 3 Topical priorities ................................................................................. 8

3.1 Policy – species and habitats ...................................................................................8 3.2 Ecosystem Services ...............................................................................................13 3.3 Topical priorities: overlap and differences in policy priorities..................................18

4 Spatial priorities ............................................................................... 21 5 Topical and spatial priorities: recommendations .................................... 25 6 Spatial and topical coverage and gaps of biodiversity monitoring in Europe 27

6.1 Biodiversity monitoring in Europe – an overview....................................................28 6.1.1 Coverage of taxonomic groups.......................................................................31

6.1.2 Coverage of Habitats ......................................................................................34

6.1.3 Coverage of countries.....................................................................................37

6.1.4 Coverage of species and habitat observation systems based on national

responsibilities and conservation priorities .....................................................................39

6.2 Supranational integration of monitoring schemes...................................................48 6.2.1 Existing initiatives ...........................................................................................48

6.2.2 Potential and challenges for supranational integration of other existing species

and habitat schemes ......................................................................................................49

7 EBONE internal priorities .................................................................... 52 8 Further discussion............................................................................. 53 9 References....................................................................................... 54 10 ANNEX ......................................................................................... 71

10.1 ANNEX I .................................................................................................................71 10.2 ANNEX II ................................................................................................................73 10.3 ANNEX III ...............................................................................................................75 10.4 ANNEX IV...............................................................................................................82 10.5 ANNEX V................................................................................................................83

D2.1-final.doc

3

1 Executive summary

1.1 Objectives The overall objective for EBONE WP2 is to provide an overview and assessment of in situ

and EO observation approaches to biodiversity monitoring and their characteristics.

The overall objective of WP 2 was divided into three main tasks, each forming an

Intermediate Deliverable that were integrated in the final Deliverable of WP 2 presented here:

The objective of task 2.1 is to review topical and spatial priorities of policies for biodiversity

and to derive suggestions for a prioritisation for monitoring of habitats and species in the 27

countries of the EU. This task resulted in the Intermediate Deliverable “Report on spatially

and topically prioritized species and habitats”.

The objective of task 2.2 was to evaluate to which extent monitoring schemes in a country

focus on habitats and species for which they have medium to very high national

responsibility. This task resulted in the Intermediate Deliverable “Report on the coverage of

species with medium to high national responsibility by monitoring schemes”.

The objective of the final task 2.3 was to provide an overview of the coverage and gaps in

biodiversity monitoring schemes in Europe and their compliance with INSPIRE and GEO

data sharing principles. This includes an assessment of the potential to integrate existing

national or regional monitoring schemes towards a prioritized European wide biodiversity

monitoring. This task resulted in the Intermediate Deliverable “Report on the major species,

habitat, and earth observation monitoring systems in Europe and their compliance with the

INSPIRE Directive“.

1.2 Key results In this Deliverable, we first define our understanding of the setting of topical and spatial

priorities for the monitoring of habitats and species in Europe and what kind of consequences

this understanding has for the selection of biodiversity components for monitoring. While

many different approaches for determining conservation priorities have been suggested in

the literature, we focus on two main criteria: 1) priorities set by European and other

international policies and 2) the potential of existing monitoring schemes and their integration

for a spatially and topically prioritized biodiversity monitoring in Europe. In the first criterion

we included policies targeted directly at biodiversity conservation and policies addressing

ecosystem services. The second criterion is a key operational criterion. We gave preference

to these two criteria because a topically and spatially prioritized biodiversity monitoring

D2.1-final.doc

4

system in Europe will remain academic unless it obtains political legitimacy and builds on

existing approaches.

Many European and international policies focus on particular components of biodiversity but

only a small number explicitly set priorities for species and/or habitats: The Birds Directive,

the Habitats Directive, the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and

Natural Habitats, the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, the Convention on the

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and the Water Framework Directive. In

addition, the European and national Red Lists, the National Responsibility instrument, the

global biodiversity hotspot concept, and the SEBI 2010 indicators (and national biodiversity

indicators) provide quite specific input to policies on biodiversity. While all of these policies

stress the importance of monitoring, only the Birds, Habitats, and Water Framework

Directives require it legally. The Water Framework Directive does not prioritize species and

habitats sensu stricto, rather it identifies groups of organisms as indicators for the

environmental condition of water bodies and aquatic habitats. The same applies to other

indicators for ecosystem services though no explicit priority list have been developed and

adopted by policies as yet. Because of the different purposes and nature of biodiversity

status and trend monitoring and ecosystem service monitoring and because it still needs to

be explored how the latter will inform the former once data from the Water Framework

Monitoring will have become widely available, we provide separate priorities for these issues.

Regarding species, most policies focus on terrestrial vertebrates. Plants, and popular

invertebrate groups (primarily butterflies) are covered less often and to a lesser extent (Table

1). Other taxonomic groups are only rarely included in priority lists at the European level

(mainly in European and/or global red lists).

According to the EuMon Database on European biodiversity monitoring schemes monitoring

effort mainly focuses on popular species groups such as birds, mammals, butterflies and

plants (EuMon 2010). Other species groups like fish, reptiles, amphibians, other

invertebrates or lower plants are less well covered by monitoring schemes. For habitats,

forests are the most commonly monitored habitat group. Only very few countries

implemented nation-wide general habitat monitoring schemes and even fewer countries

monitor in regular time intervals. As most monitoring schemes were established before 2007

- the year in which the INSPIRE directive was enacted - compliance regarding data structure,

format, and availability was not an issue in the development of most schemes. According to a

small survey among monitoring coordinators, data seem to be generally available to the

public in some form although in nearly all cases under certain restrictions (see Deliverable

7.1 - 0.2 of WP 7).

D2.1-final.doc

5

Based on existing policy priorities we recommend four levels of priorities for biodiversity

monitoring in Europe. To avoid incompleteness and ambiguity, we decided that the four

levels together should comprise all habitat types and species (groups). Thus, the four levels

reflect basic to high priority.

Level I: Species listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive and habitats and species in Annexes

I and II, respectively, of the Habitats Directives; this highest priority could be differentiated

into two levels, species and habitats identified as European “priority” in the Habitats Directive

(level I+) and those not identified as priority (level I-). A reassessment of European

responsibility using a freely scalable method (Schmeller et al. 2008c) and a documentation of

the approach used is advisable. For European countries that are not member of the EU,

species listed as “Strictly protected” by the Bern Convention should be included in level I.

Essentially, this means approximately 1800-1900 top priority species and 233 top priority

habitats.

Level II: All remaining species on the remaining Annexes of the Nature Directives, the

“protected” species of the Bern Convention, the SEBI 2010 indicator species, species

classified in official European red lists as endangered or in a higher threat category, as well

as the European species on Annex I of CITES and on Annex I of the Convention on

Migratory Species. This would add approximately 1000-1100 species to the topical priorities.

As for level I, we suggest differentiating the second level spatially in species for which

Europe has high to very high national responsibility (level II+) and those for which it has only

basic to medium responsibility (level II-). We recommend that monitoring effort is spatially

differentiated among countries by determining national responsibilities for each European

country.

Regarding habitats, current policies do not allow a differentiation among the habitats not

included on level I, and European red lists or national responsibilities are not yet available.

Therefore, we recommend including in level II those habitat types not covered in level I, for

which the potential of integration of existing national and international monitoring schemes is

highest. According to the assessments presented in chapter 6, these are: forests, coastal

and halophytic habitats and natural and semi-natural grassland formations.

Level III: Annex II species of CITES, invasive species included in the annexes of CITES, as

well as the 100 alien invasive species with the highest negative impact on European

biodiversity; species on Annex II of the Convention of Migratory Species; species listed as

vulnerable in European wide or global red lists. Essentially this includes most remaining

terrestrial vertebrates and approx. 150-200 further species. Level III should also comprise all

habitats, excluding constructed, industrial, or artificial ones, that are not included in level I or

D2.1-final.doc

6

level II. We suggest differentiating the third level again spatially in species for which Europe

has high to very high national responsibility (level III+) and those for which it has only basic to

medium responsibility (level III-). Monitoring effort could be spatially differentiated among

countries by determining national responsibilities for each European country. National

biodiversity indicators that are not covered by Level I or II could be added to national lists of

level III priorities.

Level IV: all remaining European and invasive species and habitats. Again, a spatial

differentiation could be made among countries depending on the national responsibilities

they have for these species.

For ecosystem services, currently only two levels can be distinguished: level I comprises

monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, the only services, for which monitoring is

legally mandatory. For all other ecosystem services, research and policy development to set

explicit priorities and to develop appropriate agreed indicators is a high priority.

2 Criteria for setting topical and spatial priorities

In this chapter we cover our definition of topical and spatial priorities and our criteria for

making such priorities.

Setting of topical priorities for monitoring of species and habitats is understood as giving

different species and habitats different priority for monitoring. The criteria on which this

selection is based should satisfy specific, as far as possible, commonly agreed criteria.

Setting of spatial priorities for monitoring of species and habitats is understood as allocating

different priorities to a species or habitat in different parts of their distribution area. It may

also be understood as giving different priorities to different areas based on their species or

habitat richness. In terms of monitoring, this means to focus monitoring efforts on priority

areas.

Many different methods and criteria have been suggested to set conservation priorities (e.g.,

Freitag & Jaarsveld 1997; Margueles & Pressey 2000; Coates & Atkins 2001; Fitzpatrick et

al. 2007; Schmeller et al. 2008d) and different people have different preferences regarding

species and habitats (Sandler 2010). The decision on which criteria to use for priority setting

are thus in part normative. In Europe, priorities are guided by international conventions and

European and national legislations and their implementation instruments. To obtain

legitimacy criteria for spatial and topical priorities for biodiversity monitoring therefore need to

be linked to key policies, i.e., where monitoring will be essential to verify whether the

D2.1-final.doc

7

objectives of these policy instruments are being satisfied (Henry et al. 2008; Kull et al. 2008;

Lengyel et al. 2008; Schmeller 2008). To be achievable in practice, priorities should also

consider feasibility and efficiency as additional criteria.

Policy instruments with a mainly generic treatment of biodiversity (e.g., the Convention on

Biological Diversity, CBD) will need some process to make the concept of biodiversity

operational, i.e., by identifying specific biodiversity components, before making priorities for

monitoring meaningful. Noss (1990) has proposed a breakdown of various biodiversity

components according to their content, structure, and function for a range of organisational

scales. However, as we will focus on species and habitats, the task is reduced to deciding,

which species and habitats are to be selected for which countries and regions.

To help in prioritising the relevant biodiversity components where policy instruments have not

already specified the items of interest, it may be relevant to consider how individual species

and habitats may contribute to the maintenance of essential ecosystem services and

ecosystem processes or are suitable indicators for them. The ecosystem services concept

(Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003) is not without challenges in practical use (Young et

al. 2005; Haslett et al. 2010), but essentially we consider this as a short-hand for the various

functions that are needed to maintain vital ecosystem processes and ensure the integrity of

ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; GEO BON 2010). In this connection,

it may be relevant to monitor both components that are essential to support such ecosystem

functions or that may threaten them.

There may also be species or habitats that have an important role in the public mind, without

being specifically covered by policy instruments, such as common birds and garden birds

monitoring (Gregory et al. 2005; Jiguet & Julliard 2006; PECBMS 2009; BTO 2010).

Monitoring of such species may be relevant as a tool for communication about biodiversity.

Such symbolic functions for species and habitats may also be considered as a criterion for

prioritising species and habitats for monitoring.

There are also important practical concerns when deciding what biodiversity components to

monitor. Gaps in knowledge about certain species or habitats may make it too difficult to

design a reliable monitoring scheme for such biodiversity components (Cooperrider et al.

1986). Similarly, for species or habitats that are rare or have a very irregular occurrence,

special targeted monitoring is required (Cooperrider et al. 1986; Heyer et al. 1994). In these

cases research needs to fill knowledge gaps and to device innovative methods that then

could be used for reliable monitoring. In general, we recommend to be rather less inclusive in

biodiversity covered but to monitor the selected components with methods that allow

scientifically sound inferences than to attempt to monitor as much of biodiversity as possible

D2.1-final.doc

8

but with results that are unreliable and therefore will not provide the necessary basis for

sound policy decisions.

There may also be gaps in the spatial coverage of the target area for monitoring. Already

established monitoring schemes, with reliable and coherent methodology, for specific

species or habitats across Europe or at the national level will provide a suitable basis to start

from to fill existing gaps. Another important criterion when prioritising species and habitats for

monitoring is cost effectiveness – monitoring should give reliable information on important

biodiversity components at as low a cost as possible. Cost, in terms of money or limited

available expertise, may sometimes be too high to allow monitoring of species or habitats of

otherwise high priority.

In summary, our prioritising of species and habitats for monitoring at the European level

follows the following criteria:

• Formal criteria linked to priorities set by key policy instruments;

• Criteria for the contribution to important ecosystem services;

• Symbolic criteria linked to the perceived importance of species or habitats;

• Practical criteria (including costs) of whether monitoring is realistic or already established

with sufficient coverage of the target area (i.e., Europe).

• The suggested system should have a differentiation into a small number of prioritization

levels.

3 Topical priorities

3.1 Policy – species and habitats A European contribution to global biodiversity monitoring has to provide, above all,

information on status and trend of those components of biodiversity explicitly addressed in

legal obligations, European policies, and other international conventions. Only some of the

legal obligations and conventions explicitly list priority species. We restrict our evaluation to

those policies that explicitly specify topical priorities.

While most conventions and policies expect signatory states to monitor biodiversity, with the

exceptions of the Birds Directive (EC 2006) and the Habitats Directive (EC 2007), also

known as the Nature Directives, reporting on status and trend is not legally obligatory. Article

17 of the Habitats Directive obliges Member States to report on the conservation status of

species and habitats within the biogeographic regions of their territories. Thus, monitoring is

D2.1-final.doc

9

a key mechanism for Member States to acquire knowledge about the conservation status

and trend of the species and habitats covered by these two Directives (Kull et al. 2008;

Schmeller 2008; Szabolcs et al. 2008). Hence, the species and habitats specified by them

must be among the ones prioritised by EBONE.

The Birds Directive relates to the protection of all wild birds naturally occurring within the EU.

It has two levels of priority. Annex I currently covers 193 and Annex II 83 species and

subspecies breeding in Europe (Table 1; Appendix 1). It further requests that Member States

shall pay particular attention to the protection of wetlands.

The Habitats Directive greatly extends the Birds Directive by covering non-avian taxa and

habitats. Prioritization for habitats is clear-cut. Habitats of Community interest, for which

protected sites should be designated, are listed in Annex I. Within Annex I, those habitats for

which Europe has special responsibility were designated as “priority habitats” (see Schmeller

et al. (2008b) for the concept of national responsibility). However, monitoring is obligatory for

all habitats listed in Annex I. Annex I lists a total of 238 habitat types (Table 1; Appendix I).

Prioritization for species is more complex. As Annex I does for habitats, Annex II prioritizes

species of Community interest and designates “priority species” as those species within

Annex II for which Europe has special responsibility (article 1h). As for habitats, reporting is

legally required for all Annex II species and not only for “priority species”. Matters get

complicated by Annex IV, which lists species of Community interest that are strictly

protected, i.e., species which need general protection beyond special areas of conservation,

such as the prohibition to disturb them anywhere. Thus, higher conservation priority is given

to these species. However, not all species in Annex IV are also included in Annex II.

Moreover, for Annex IV species, in contrast to Annex II species, Member States have to

monitor unintentional take and killing. Since these two pressures are only two of many

potential causes of change in status and trend, a general monitoring obligation cannot be

implied and therefore implicitly Annex II species have a higher priority for monitoring than

species listed only in Annex IV. Note however, that in the case of unintentional take and

killing, a much more in-depth monitoring using an experimental design is required as only

then the legal obligation to assess any negative effects can be fulfilled (Caughley & Gunn

1996; EuMon 2010). Currently, Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive comprise 899 and

367 species, respectively (Table 1; Appendix I).

The basis for the EU Habitats and Species Directives has been the Convention on the

Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (The Bern Convention, CoE 1979).

This is still the basis for Nature protection for European states outside the European Union

(CoE 1979, 2010). However, as a Convention it has not the same legal relevance as the EU

D2.1-final.doc

10

Directives (CoE 1979). The Bern Convention lists approx. 1200 species as “Strictly

protected” and more than 200 species as “Protected”. A considerable part of the European

mammal species, most European bird species, and all European amphibians and reptiles not

listed as “strictly protected” are included in the second priority “Protected species” together

with a range of fish families, and invertebrates (Table 1; Appendix I). Note that for plants only

the category “Strictly protected” exists. As far as species of the European Union are

concerned, there is considerable overlap among those species listed as “Strictly protected”

by the Bern Convention and those listed in Annex I and Annex II of the Birds and Habitats

Directives, respectively (Table 1). Notwithstanding, the Bern Convention additionally covers

European species not occurring within the European Union or not included in the Annexes of

the Nature Directives. In contrast to the Habitats Directive, the Bern Convention does not

specify distinct habitat types, but sets criteria for the designation of sites as “area(s) of

special conservation interest” that form the Emerald network (CoE 1989). The Bern

Convention (article 11 §2b) also mandates that signatory states control the import of non-

native species but does not explicitly list such species.

Several other international conventions are relevant for biodiversity conservation in Europe,

especially the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Convention on the

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Biological Diversity,

the Ramsar Convention, UNESCO’s Program on Man and Biosphere (MaB), the Biodiversity

Action Plans, and various sectoral policies that focus on particular types of ecosystems, such

as forests, coastal, or agricultural systems. While these policies generally also expect

signatory states to monitor biodiversity, this is not legally obligatory. Moreover, only a few

explicitly list priority species. Specific habitat types that require protection are not defined by

any of the afore-mentioned conventions. In the following, we evaluate only those policies that

explicitly set priorities.

The Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) aims at the conservation of migratory

species that cross international borders during their migration (Caddell 2005; CMS 2003,

2008). It primarily covers birds and mammals but also reptiles and fishes (Table 1; CMS

2003). CMS refers to species on its Appendix I as species threatened with extinction,

whereas those on its Appendix II would benefit from agreements. Most of the relevant

European species (93 of approx. 132 European species listed in the Appendices of CMS) are

also covered by the EU Nature Directives or the Bern Convention (see Table 1). However the

CMS adds the important links between habitats, such as flyways, turtle migration, and

migrating routes of fish.

D2.1-final.doc

11

CITES regulates international trade in endangered and threatened species that are listed in

its four Annexes of different priorities. In European legislation CITES is implemented via the

“Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild

fauna and flora by regulating trade therein” (EC 2010). Currently, Appendix I and II contains

85 species listed also in the EU Nature Directives (Tab. 1; Appendix I). Contrary to other

conventions, the lists are regularly revised at the Meetings of the Parties. The EU has

banned the import of such species (EU regulation 338/97, article 4 (6) d and its amendment

2551/97) but some of them have already established wild populations in Europe, e.g. the

American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (Laufer & Waitzmann 2007) and the slider turtle

(Trachemys scripta) (Laufer 2007). Note that none of the 100 worst invasive alien species

listed by the DAISIE project for Europe (IEEP 2007) are included in any CITES Annex.

The various articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2010) represent an

overarching biodiversity policy obligation for the parties to this convention, the European

Union included (Henry et al. 2008; Lengyel et al. 2008; references therein). The CBD

specifies a number of requirements for parties to the convention, and these are further

elaborated in various working groups on selected topics. However, they do not include

detailed specifications of priority species or habitats to be protected, managed in other ways,

or monitored. As part of the implementation strategy for the CBD, the European Union and its

Member and Associated States have therefore developed a set of indicators relevant for

following the approach to the millennium goal of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, i.e.,

for CBD relevant monitoring. This process of Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators

for the 2010 goal (SEBI 2010) has resulted in specification of a number of indicators,

arranged according to the topical division of the CBD’s indicator framework (Wascher 2000a,

b; Gregory et al. 2005; Heer et al. 2005; Mace et al. 2005; EEA 2007a; Watt et al. 2007;

Lengyel et al. 2008). Several of these indicators cover aspects of pressures to biodiversity

rather than the state indicators of species or habitats. Some of the indicators are still at a

conceptual rather than an operational stage of development. SEBI 2010 specifies common

farmland bird species (36 species), common forest bird species (29 species), all common

bird species (135 species) and common butterfly species as indicators for biodiversity. Plants

are in the conceptual stage. SEBI 2010 further uses the number of species on the Annexes

of the Habitats Directive and the Red List Indicator (RLI) as a measure of European-wide

extinction risk. However, to date the RLI has only been assessed for birds (EEA 2007a, b;

PECBMS 2009). For a more detailed discussion of the SEBI 2010 indicators please see

Deliverable 1.1 of WP1 of EBONE, where the use of indicators is discussed beyond its

application on species. From the range of indicators identified in SEBI 2010 the following

indicators were chosen to be important for the goals of EBONE: status and trends of birds

D2.1-final.doc

12

and butterflies, the extent and trend of habitats of European interest and the fragmentation of

natural and semi-natural areas.

The Pan-European Biodiversity and Landscape Diversity Strategy, PEBLDS (CoE 1996;

Kopaçi 1998; Watt et al. 2007; PEBLDS 2010) is another framework policy under the

auspices of the Council of Europe. It aims to enhance and restore “key ecosystems, habitats,

species and features of the landscape” (CoE 1996) and gave rise to the Pan-European

Ecological Network (PEEN). PEEN was initiated as a European approach in fulfilling

international obligations for the CBD by preserving and restoring viable populations and

habitats and to physically link landscapes through the conservation or restoration of

ecological corridors. It includes Natura 2000 as well as the Emerald network (Haslett et al.

2010) and takes into account other European policies dealing with biodiversity conservation.

A provisional list of target species was selected based on other existing European

biodiversity policies (Ozinga et al. 2005), i.e., the Bern Convention and the Birds and

Habitats Directives (CoE 1996).

The Ramsar Convention focuses on the protection of wetland sites as defined in the text of

the convention (Ramsar 2009). It specifies wetlands as ecosystems that are in need of

protection but recognizes that these comprise a multitude of different habitat types. The

prioritized European species and habitats of these sites should also be covered by the

Nature Directives and the Bern Convention (Ramsar 2008).

To be accepted by UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere (MaB) program, biosphere reserves must

support research and monitoring related to local, national, and global issues of conservation

and sustainable development but the program does not specify any priority species or

habitats (Rössler 1998).

Besides the EU Directives and international conventions, red lists and the concept of national

responsibility (Schmeller et al. 2008a) are further widely used policy instruments at the global

(Hilton-Taylor 2000), European (IUCN 2010), and national level (see ETC 2009). While red

lists were not primarily designed to give information on conservation priorities (IUCN 1996,

2001), they nevertheless are one of the most frequently used tools in setting conservation

priorities in applied conservation and policy (Mehlman et al. 2004). Moreover, they heavily

influenced the design of the Annexes of the biodiversity policies of the Council of Europe

(CoE) and the European Union (CoE 1996b, 2000; Dahlberg & Croneberg 2003; CoE 2004).

However the European red lists generally contain fewer species in the categories EN

(Endangered) and CR (Critically Endangered) than the Nature Directives and the Bern

Convention list in their annexes (Tab. 1). Red Lists also exist for taxonomic groups that are

D2.1-final.doc

13

not or hardly covered by the Annexes of other policies though this is more the case for

national red lists than for European or global ones.

At the European level, red lists exist for amphibians, reptiles, mammals, butterflies,

dragonflies and saproxylic beetles and are being developed for other taxonomic groups, such

as plants, molluscs and freshwater fish (Tab. 1)

Some NGOs have developed European wide priority lists that are known under the concept

of Species of European Conservation Concern (SPEC). The concept is based on similar

ideas as the concept of national responsibilities but differs in a number of criteria, especially

in mixing the SPEC concept with the concept of red lists (discussed by Schmeller et al.

2008b). Such lists exist for birds (Tucker & Heath 1994; Burfield et al. 2004) and butterflies

(van Swaay & Warren 1999). ). Based on the concept of national responsibility European

priorities also have been identified for Annex I habitats and Annex II species in the Habitats

Directive but the method to determine such priorities has not been provided. Also, the same

legal monitoring requirements exist for priority and non-priority habitats and species.

3.2 Ecosystem Services Policy instruments that specify priority species or habitats tend to focus on such species and

habitats that are threatened or otherwise of special conservation interest. They are rarely

concerned with species or habitats that have particular ecological functions, e.g., as a basis

for providing ecosystem services (although the Ramsar Convention and the SEBI 2010

indicators as well as CITES have a broader perspective than conservation). A more detailed

analysis on indicators (e.g. SEBI 2010, GEOBON) is given in Deliverable 1.1 of EBONE.

However, several other policy instruments are concerned about the maintenance of the

capacity of ecosystems to deliver ecosystem services or specify that sector-specific policy or

management actions should not threaten such capacities for ecosystem services (Millenium

Ecosystem Assessment 2005). With the exception of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

and GEO BON, these policy instruments do not specify which species, habitats, or other

indicators should be used to assess the compatibility of or divergence from objectives for

ecosystem services nor do they prioritize different ecosystem services. The WFD is also the

only policy related to ecosystem services for which monitoring is legally mandatory (EC-WFD

2000).

The Water Framework Directive uses sets of taxonomic groups (phytoplankton, aquatic flora,

benthic invertebrates, and fishes) as ecological quality indicators for various types of water

bodies (EC-WFD 2000, 2003a; Young et al. 2005; Dziock et al. 2006; Borchardt et al. 2008;

Scholz et al. 2009; Noges et al. 2009). These indicators do not serve the purpose of

D2.1-final.doc

14

biodiversity indicators (e.g. Lawton et al. 1998; Dziock et al. 2006; Mace & Baillie 2007) nor

are they priorities for biodiversity conservation; rather they are environmental indicators

(sensu Dziock et al. 2006). Working groups for the various biogeographical regions

(Geographical Inter-calibration Groups, GIGs) are currently in the process of developing

agreed sets of indicators based on these sets of species. Benthic fauna, which has been

used to derive the sapropic index, will be a core component, since the sapropic index is one

of the oldest and most widely used quality indicator for running waters that even has received

industrial norms (Dziock et al. 2006). The resulting indicator set will be used as a basis for

reporting on the ecological state of the various water bodies. Though not serving the purpose

of prioritized biodiversity, WFD monitoring could provide an important contribution to

biodiversity monitoring. Whether this will happen across the different responsible authorities

remains to be seen.

GEO BON (Group on Earth Observation Biodiversity Observation Network) aims at

establishing a global information network on biodiversity monitoring by integrating existing

data bases and information services and by building a network of organizations and people

involved in biodiversity monitoring (GEO BON 2010). Besides feasibility, functional

importance is the second criteria used for setting priority by the Technical Implementation

Plan of GEO BON (GEO BON 2010). The priority groups identified by GEO BON based on

these criteria are terrestrial vertebrates (initially birds, then mammals, amphibians, and

reptiles), invertebrates (initially butterflies), and vascular plants as well as all freshwater

organisms. Thus, it essentially covers all species of these land types and does not really

provide clear priorities. Although GEO BON does not seem to provide clear priorities for

monitoring of specific biodiversity components, we may foresee that later assessments of the

importance of specific ecosystem functions may provide such priorities.

For all other policies related to ecosystem services there is still a need to develop relevant

indicators to make the respective policy instruments operational for biodiversity

management, including monitoring. The identification of such indicators can best be done by

scientists within the framework of the ecosystem services concept (Millenium Ecosystem

Assessment 2003, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). This concept covers the

following categories:

• Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems, such as food, fresh water, fuel

wood, fibres, biochemicals, and genetic resources;

• Regulating services: benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes, such as

the regulation of climate, water, pollination, and diseases;

D2.1-final.doc

15

• Cultural services: non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems, such as spiritual and

religious, recreational, aesthetic, inspirational, educational, sense of place, and cultural

heritage;

• Supporting services: services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem

services, such as soil formation, nutrient cycling, primary production, and decomposition.

In the context of EBONE the focus should be on species and habitats that have key roles in

these categories of ecosystem services, especially those of regulating and supporting

services that are most closely linked to ecosystem functions (e.g., Diaz et al. 2005).

Provisioning and cultural services may be more directly linked to the use of such services.

Therefore priorities for monitoring of biodiversity components related to such services should

best be defined jointly by the users and the regulatory authorities responsible for the relevant

sectors. Such priority setting is still lacking for a European wide context.

In this report we cannot detail all individual species and habitats that may have an important

contribution to regulating or supporting services, but we may try to identify some common

characteristics of such species and habitats. These are briefly listed below.

• Primary productivity is an essential supporting service for all consuming species, humans

included. Plant species providing the greatest contribution to global primary productivity

will therefore be important to monitor. These include especially phytoplankton as well as

benthic algae and certain vascular plants in aquatic ecosystems (Bowden 1999; Strenger-

Kovacs et al. 2007), whereas grasses, certain herbs, and woody plants will be important in

terrestrial ecosystems (Scurlock et al. 2002; Ollinger et al. 2005).

• Secondary productivity may be less essential as a foundation for ecosystems but will have

an important role in structuring the food webs and functioning of ecosystems (Hall et al.

2006; Colon-Gaud et al. 2009). Herbivores with a high biomass or turnover will have the

greatest direct impact on primary producers (Sinclair et al. 2000, 2003) and will be

important to monitor. Consumers higher up in the food chain may have important

regulating functions. They may also indicate a low level of fragmentation and to maintain

ecosystem processes at a large-scale. Hence, where such top-down control species

(often top predators) can be identified they should also have priority for monitoring.

• Decomposition is another essential ecosystem function and the main species groups

(several groups of invertebrates, fungi, bacteria) performing such functions (Rusek 1998;

Schadler et al. 2003; Lecerf et al. 2005) should also have priority for monitoring.

Unfortunately, several of these groups and their functions are poorly known and/or difficult

to monitor.

D2.1-final.doc

16

• Pollinators perform a key role in many ecosystems and a high priority for monitoring

should be accorded to those groups which are essential for the successful reproduction of

a range of flowering plant species (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2005; Kremen et al. 2007).

• Ecosystem engineers, such as beavers and earthworms, directly influence the structure of

ecosystems, often on a vast scale, with repercussions for other species and ecosystem

functions (Jones et al. 1997; Lavelle et al. 1997; Wright et al. 2002; Scheu 2003).

• Keystone species have a disproportionate influence on other parts of the ecosystem

relative to their abundance (Delibes-Mateos et al. 2008; Muller et al. 2008). The functional

role of keystone species will differ among ecosystems.

• Invasive species and pest species represent potential threats to native species and to the

sound functioning of ecosystems (Stachowitz et al. 2002; Sanders et al. 2003; Hall et al.

2006; Kimbro et al. 2009). So far there are no legally binding EU policies specifically

targeting invasive alien species (IAS) and monitoring of their impact on European

biodiversity; However, the problems caused of IAS are addressed in several EU

regulations and it is recognized that IAS pose a threat to native biodiversity and cause

high costs. EU Directives and Regulations addressing IAS in terrestrial environments are:

Birds Directive (EC (2006). article 11), Habitats Directive (EC (2007), article 22 b) and the

“Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of wild fauna and flora by regulating

trade therein” (EC (2010), article 10 (4)). At EU level further work is being done in

developing a common strategy on invasive alien species. In 2007/08 recommendations on

specific invasive species were adopted (Shine et al. 2009b) which lead to a council

conclusion towards an EU strategy on Invasive Alien Species which stresses among

others the establishment of an information system for early warning and rapid response

and the importance of monitoring (CoE 2009). Such a strategy was also endorsed by the

Bern Convention (Genovesi et al. 2004). Also, CITES recognizes the importance of trade

with species that may become invasive outside their native distribution and recommends

their monitoring. The invasive species and established pest species with the greatest

damage potential should therefore have priority in monitoring (Lodge & Shrader-Frechette

2003; Kettunen et al. 2008; Pyke et al. 2008; Shine et al. 2009a,b). For the regions of

northern and central Europe the North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien

Species (NOBANIS) was established.with the aim to provide a common data portal on IAS

and to support regional authorities in taking precautionary approaches towards preventing

unintentional spread of IAS (NOBANIS 2010). A major assessment on alien invasive

species and their impact on European biodiversity has been compiled within the DAISIE

project (DAISIE 2009; 2010a). One output is a list of the 100 alien invasive species with

D2.1-final.doc

17

the highest negative impact on European biodiversity (“100 of the worst”, DAISIE 2010b),

which has been used as a starting point for developing a black list of priority alien invasive

species (Kettunen et al. 2008). Within the project, Nentwig et al. (2010) developed a

generic impact scoring scheme for alien species that could be used to identify priority sets

of invasive species for monitoring.

Habitats may be linked to ecosystem services in several ways. They may have

concentrations of species that are important for ecosystem processes or from a conservation

perspective. They may also be associated with ecosystems having key roles in providing

certain ecosystem services.

• Key habitats for ecosystem services may include habitats with a high concentration of

primary production [e.g., floodplains, rivers, forests (McKenna 2003; Langhans et al. 2008;

McKie & Malmquist 2009), marine upwelling zones (Postel et al. 1995)], water retention

[e.g., floodplains (Scholz et al. 2005)], or biomass accumulation [e.g., bogs (Succow &

Jeschke 1986; Dierssen & Dierssen 2008)]. Habitats where key species interactions take

place [e.g., coastal areas (Zharikov & Milton 2009)] may also belong to this category.

• Biogeochemical processes are important functional components of ecosystems,

regulating the spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrient flows. Specific ecosystems,

microorganisms (and habitats) play key roles for several such processes (Rabalais et al.

2002; Bump et al. 2009; Holtgrieve et al. 2009). Of particular importance for the

productivity and climate responses of ecosystems are the flows of carbon and nitrogen.

Forests are particularly important carbon sinks (Schimel 1995; Grace et al. 1996; Tietjen &

Huth 2006) and arctic tundras may be a key source for green house gas emissions

(Gorham 1991; Sitch et al. 2007; Mastepanov et al. 2008).

• Climax habitats represent the rather stable end-point of succession from more transitional

habitat stages (Clements 1936). As such they represent habitats with important functions

for associated species with few other habitat possibilities. They may also have

conservation interest in their own right as human disturbance of many ecosystems have

made climax habitats less common (Kaule 2001).

• Hotspots for biodiversity, i.e., concentrations of species of conservation concern, such as

red-listed species (Rodrigues et al. 2004; Brooks et al 2006), may also be important for

ecosystem services in terms of being significant for humans as cultural services (through

its richness of rare and threatened species).

D2.1-final.doc

18

Charismatic and symbolic species and habitats play important roles in cultural services

(Callicot 1989; Kontoleon & Swanson 2003; Baier et al. 2006; Chiweshe 2007; Fitzpatrick et

al. 2007; Nawaz et al. 2008) and thus their inclusion in topical priorities for monitoring

networks seems to be justified. However, it remains a difficult task to decide which species or

habitats have sufficiently strong symbolic functions to have priority for monitoring (Freitag &

Jaarsveld 1997; Fitzpatrick et al. 2007). Regarding habitats, usually it is a whole landscape

or a rather broad habitat category, such as forests, and not a specific habitat type, that play

cultural and mythological roles.

3.3 Topical priorities: overlap and differences in policy priorities Though several policies give particular attention to specific habitat types or ecosystems, e.g.,

the Birds Directive, the Ramsar Convention, and the WFD to wetlands or aquatic habitats

(Rössler 1998; EC-WFD 2000, 2003b; Scholz et al. 2009), various policies to forests (CBD

2009; CBD-REDD 2010; MCPFE 2010), and the Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture to

High Nature Value Farmland (EEA 2004a; Henle et al. 2008), they do not explicitly prioritize

specific habitats over others. Only the Habitats Directive (HD) sets explicit priorities for

habitats. Regarding monitoring, all habitats listed in Annex I have the same priority although

not all of them are called “priority habitats”. Therefore, Annex I habitats must form the core of

topically prioritized habitat monitoring in Europe. On a second level of priority we recommend

including those habitat types not covered in level I, for which the potential of integration of

existing national and international monitoring schemes is highest. All other habitats,

excluding constructed, industrial or artificial ones, may be placed preliminary on a third level

of priority until a European wide Red List for habitats is available, a tested method to

determine national responsibility has been developed for habitats, or policies have

designated further differentiation in priorities. A fourth level may include all constructed,

industrial, or artificial habitats.

Regarding species, most policies focus on terrestrial vertebrates. Plants and popular

invertebrate groups (primarily butterflies) are covered less often and to a lesser extent (Table

1). Other taxonomic groups are only rarely included in priority lists at the European level.

Whereas there is considerable overlap of the vertebrate species prioritized by different

policies, the degree to which particular taxonomic groups are included in priorities can differ

substantially (Table 1). For example, currently there are 25 amphibian species and 24

reptiles listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive, but 46 and 84, respectively, in the Bern

Convention. The European Red List for Amphibians even comprises 83 amphibians (8 in the

D2.1-final.doc

19

categories “near threatened” to “critically endangered”) and the European red list for reptiles

includes 139 species (17 in the categories “near threatened” to “critically endangered”)

(Table 1). The second priority level of the Bern Convention is the most comprehensive one,

listing all European amphibian and reptile species. Likewise, for plants there are currently

587 species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive. In contrast, the European red list for

plants to be published in 2011 will cover approx. 2000 species (Table 1).

In terms of groups of organisms listed (phytoplankton, aquatic flora, benthic invertebrates,

and fishes), the WFD deviates considerable from all other policies. However, the listed

groups are used as indicators of the environmental condition of water bodies and aquatic

habitats and not regarded as prioritized biodiversity. Notwithstanding, the WFD could

potentially make an important contribution to biodiversity monitoring but it remains to be seen

whether this will happen in praxis.

We suggest including the WFD organism groups into a first level of priority for monitoring

ecosystem services, as monitoring under the WFD is legally mandatory within the EU. For all

other ecosystem services, research and policy development to set explicit priorities and to

develop appropriate agreed indicators is a high priority.

Table 1. Number of European species and number of priority species of European policies for different taxonomic groups. BC: Bern Convention; BD: Birds

Directive; CITES: Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species; CMS: Convention on Migratory Species. HD: Habitats Directive. For CITES and

CMS only species native to Europe were included. Within the group of invertebrates, Lepidoptera and especially butterflies are listed separately, as butterflies are

one of the SEBI 2010 biodiversity indicators. IUCN Red List (location: Europe): total number of native European species per taxonomic group found in IUCN

database (IUCN 2010); IUCN European Red List (EN and CR): Total number of species (and number of species in the categories Critically Endangered (CR) and

Endangered (EN)) listed in the European Red List (EC Red List 2010).* Odonata and saproxylic beetles only. ** European Red lists for vascular plants, molluscs

and freshwater fish will be published in 2011. Fauna Europaea: Fauna Europaea Database (2010). For data sources, see Appendix I to this report.

Number of species

Taxa HD Annex II + BD Annex I

BC Appendix

I+II

Overlaps between BC I+II and HD

II/BD I

HD/BD all

AnnexesBC all

AppendicesOverlaps

between BC and HD / BD

CITES Appendix I / EU Reg 338/97

CMS Appendix

I + II

IUCN Red List

(Location: Europe)

IUCN European Red List

(EN and CR) Fauna

Europaea

Mammals 54 120 30 165 207 141 47 30 224 231 (14) 254

Birds 193 424 151 271 813 235 35 82 488 541 (11) 804

Reptiles 24 84 17 86 175 76 12 5 121 139 (17) 153

Amphibians 25 46 16 54 81 44 1 0 88 90 (8) 77

Fish 78 18 8 149 183 98 12 14 596 — 495

Lepidoptera 38 26 12 50 27 23 2 1 150 — 9785

Butterflies 21 23 11 40 23 21 2 1 145 482 (15) 488

Other insects (except Lepidoptera)

61 30 19 68 31 23 0 0 273 568* (37*) 83988

Other invertebrates (except insects)

37 58 15 54 100 31 2 0 65 — 28672

Plants 587 706 385 740 706 427 10 0 187 approx. 2000** —

D2.1-final.doc

20

There are two further noteworthy differences among the policies assessed. Whereas most

policies place priority on rare or endangered species and often exclude common species,

SEBI 2010 explicitly identifies common species of birds and butterflies (within the superfamily

Rhopalocera) as priority for biodiversity monitoring (Watt et al. 2007; SEBI 2006; van Swaay

et al. 2008a,b). Note that GEO BON also explicitly includes common species in its priority but

its priority essentially covers all terrestrial and freshwater animals and higher plants and thus

does not provide a useful prioritization.

The second exception is CITES. It is the only policy that also contains a black list of traded

species that should be monitored because they have become invasive and because negative

effects on native species are likely. The list of the 100 alien invasive species with the highest

negative impact on European biodiversity (“100 of the worst”, DAISIE 2009, 2010b) also

provides a starting point for identifying a black list of alien invasive priority species (Kettunen

et al. 2008). Until the list has been officially endorsed by European policies, we suggest to

use it as a priority below the level of CITES listed invasive species.

It should be noted that the Bern Convention, CITES, and the Bonn Convention on Migratory

Species also list non-European species and species whose distributions only marginally

overlap Europe. These species are of less importance for European monitoring of topically

prioritized biodiversity.

Regarding ecosystem services, the WFD is the only policy with a prioritized list of groups of

organisms. For other ecosystem services agreed lists of indicator species (groups) and/or

habitats still need to be developed. Moreover, the inclusion of all indicator groups suggested

in the literature for different ecosystem services would be so comprehensive that it is far

beyond logistic and economic feasibility to monitor all of them. Thus, to include further

bioindicators for ecosystem services as monitoring priority would require that not only sets of

indicators are developed and agreed upon but also that ecosystem services would need to

be prioritized. These issues should receive high priority in research (Grant et al. 2009).

4 Spatial priorities

Various principles have been implicitly or explicitly used in the literature for spatial

prioritization of biodiversity monitoring. Among the frequently used criteria are gradients in

biodiversity richness, especially biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000; Brooks et al. 2006),

gradients in threats to biodiversity (especially nationally differentiated red lists) (EIONET

2010), representativity for main biogeographical regions (Evans 2005), or importance of a

species or habitat within a political/administrative boundary for its global survival (especially

the concept of national responsibility) (Schmeller et al. 2008b,d). These criteria are also the

D2.1-final.doc

22

main ones that have been used for spatially differentiated priorities in biodiversity

conservation and monitoring in Europe.

Biodiversity hotspots received a particularly high priority in global approaches to biodiversity

conservation (e.g., Myers et al. 2000; Brooks et al. 2002, 2006; Myers & Mittermeier 2003).

For example, several NGOs use this priority as part of their decision criteria for the allocation

of funds to biodiversity conservation (Gordon 2006; Hiscock & Breckels 2007; CI 2010).

However, this approach risks that regions not containing global or regional biodiversity

hotspots are ignored despite contributing many taxa and species to biodiversity that are not

covered by global biodiversity hotspots (Ernst et al. 2000).

Geographic Europe has two global biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000): the

Mediterranean biogeographic region, which includes Macaronesia and the Canary Islands,

for plants and the Caucasus. The Caucasus lies outside the European Union and

geographically the Canary Islands do not belong to Europe. There are further extraterritorial

regions that politically belong to Europe and are part of global biodiversity hotspots, e.g. La

Réunion as part of the Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands hotspot and French Polynesia

as part of the Polynesia-Micronesia hotspot. Whereas Canary Island taxa are included in the

Habitats Directive of the EU, taxa from overseas territories are not and therefore are also not

further considered here. However, we recommend that EU Member States with territories in

global hotspots that are outside geographical Europe include these territories in their

biodiversity monitoring priorities.

Like in other continents, biodiversity is not equally distributed across Europe, with many but

not all taxonomic groups showing a north to south gradient in species richness (e.g., Araújo

et al. 2008; Ellingsen & Gray 2002; Hillebrand 2004). Europe does not have any formal policy

that explicitly places high priority on species rich regions or habitats but species richness

influences the probability that an area hosts priority species of European policies (Gruber et

al. in prep.). However, the related concept of important bird areas (BirdLife International

2000, Harris & Whoeler 2004, Pain et al. 2005) is used especially by NGOs for priority

setting. More recently, this concept of priority setting has been extended to plants (Anderson

2002; Winter et al. 2010).

While European policies acknowledge the need to recognize biogeographic differences in

biodiversity and in the conservation status of an area, few policies explicitly differentiate

biodiversity priorities spatially. In the selection process of areas for the Natura 2000 network

appropriate habitats and species were identified in biogeographic seminars for different

biogeographic regions (Evans 2005). This is consistent with the principle of complementarity

(Margules et al. 1988, 2000) where the biodiversity of each biogeographic region is seen as

D2.1-final.doc

23

an important contribution to Europe’s biodiversity. Notwithstanding, the species and habitat

priorities as expressed by the Annexes of the Habitats Directive are - with some exceptions

for species - not spatially differentiated. Moreover, Natura 2000 sites are distributed across

all of the European Union so that the network does not provide priority regions to focus

monitoring activities on. However, at the local scale the Habitats Directive sets priorities

requiring monitoring and reporting on the conservation status of areas belonging to the

Natura 2000 network but not of other areas (EC 2009). Note that ANNEX species and

habitats must be monitored also outside Natura 2000 sites. This weakens the spatial priority

and the potential of the Habitats Directive to derive spatial priorities for biodiversity

monitoring. Similarly, the WFD uses different sets of indicator species for different

biogeographic regions and different types of water systems but otherwise does not spatially

differentiate monitoring priorities (Dziock et al. 2006; EC-WFD 2003a,b).

The two main spatially differentiated biodiversity priorities in Europe are national red lists and

national responsibilities (Lilleleht 1998; Riecken et al. 2006; Schmeller et al. 2008b; see also:

EIONET 2010). Red list status (or priorities expressed by the Annexes of the Habitats and

Birds Directives) and national responsibilities can be combined to derive an integrated

spatially differentiated index of conservation priorities (Schmeller et al. 2008d). National

responsibilities are particularly suited for setting spatially differentiated priorities, since the

concept is based on the idea that countries should focus on species for which they have

medium to very high responsibility.

Most national red lists in Europe cover vertebrates and vascular plants; other taxonomic

groups are less frequently included – and if so, then primarily the more popular subgroups,

such as Carabidae or Syrphidae (e.g., Ludwig & Schnittler 1996; Maes et al. 1996; Binot et

al. 1998) or in the Scandinavian countries, mosses, lichens and fungi. Only few European

countries, e.g., Austria, Germany, Finland and Hungary, have elaborated red lists for habitats

(Riecken et al. 1994; Borhidi et al. 1999; Essl et al. 2008; Kontula et al. 2009) and in some

the red list assessment is in process (e.g. Norway).

National responsibilities have been determined and used for priority setting in at least seven

European countries (Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK) but the

methodology used differs (Schmeller et al. 2008b,c). The most recent revision of the Federal

Conservation Act of Germany (§ 54 BNatschG – Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) places species

for which Germany has high or especially high national responsibility – according to the

German system (Steinicke et al. 2002) – at the same priority level as species on the Annexes

of the Nature Directives.

D2.1-final.doc

24

Currently, assessments of national responsibilities primarily cover vertebrates. In Germany,

where national responsibilities are used widely, also various invertebrate groups (Orthoptera,

Carabidae, Chrysomelidae, Lepidoptera, aculeate Hymenoptera, and Odonata) and plants

(orchids and Ranunculaceae) (Gruttke 2004a, b; Schmeller et al. 2008c) were assessed.

Only Austria has determined national responsibilities for habitats (Essl et al. 2002a, b, 2004,

2008; Traxler et al. 2005).

National biodiversity indicators are also often used or suggested as priorities for biodiversity

conservation and/or monitoring (EEA 2004) and thus complement the international indicators

identified by SEBI 2010 for national priorities, e.g. in the UK and in Germany (Reck 2003;

Geissler-Strobel et al. 2006; Ormerod et al. 2010). We concur with WP 1 (see D1.1) that

although considerable research effort already focussed on this issue, the use of species

groups as indicators for other species remains a debated issues. While certain species

groups may under certain circumstances indicate the presence of other species, they as

often do not. Here, we address a number of key references and problems.

Approaches to identify biodiversity indicators and suggested indicator groups strongly vary

among countries and among different scientists (Lindenmayer et al. 2000; Brown & Freitas

2000; Maes et al. 2005; van Swaay et al. 2008b) but charismatic groups of species are

frequently proposed as indicators of the richness of other taxonomic groups (Lindenmayer et

al. 2000, Maes et al. 2005) or as sentinels of environmental status and trends (e.g., Brown &

Freitas 2002, van Swaay et al. 2008b). Besides these differences, there are additional

problems to integrate national biodiversity indicators into a consistent system of biodiversity

monitoring in Europe. Firstly, cross taxa surrogacy is often low (Berger et al. 2007),

especially for invertebrates (Lovell et al. 2007; Ormerod 2010). In addition, surrogacy may

vary spatiotemporally among locations (e.g., Bilton et al. 2006) or with scale (e.g., Favreau et

al. 2006). For example, analyzing the indicator literature for butterflies, Fleishman et al.

(2000) concluded that while situations exist in which they may be suitable indicators for other

taxonomic groups, these situations are less common than might be apparent from the

extensive literature proclaiming that certain appealing taxa are “indicators of the health of

terrestrial ecosystems”. They suggested that public appeal of these groups of organisms,

and the fact that there is a substantial body of literature on their ecology as well as long-term

monitoring data, have driven much of their acclaim as indicators. Despite these problems,

their public appeal may justify the inclusion of biodiversity indicators on the national level, if

an agreed system exists on the national level, or on the state level in the case of federally

organised countries.

D2.1-final.doc

25

In summary, spatial differentiation in priorities are less pronounced than topical priorities in

European biodiversity policies. Therefore, we recommend using spatial priorities mainly as a

further differentiation within levels of topical priorities respectively to spatially differentiate the

effort spent on monitoring of particular components of biodiversity. For example, each

country should dedicate more effort into monitoring those species and habitats for which it

has high national responsibility than for those for which it has only basic responsibility. For

species, this could mean presence/absence versus abundance monitoring or monitoring

annually versus only once per Habitats Directive reporting period. This could also contribute

to alleviate problems associated with insufficient funding of biodiversity monitoring.

As red lists and national responsibilities are the two main systems to spatially differentiate

priorities, we recommend to combine them to determine conservation priorities with a

European-wide consistent methodology, such as the one proposed by Schmeller et al.

(2008c). Nationally used indicator systems could be placed on the same level as

intermediate national responsibility but this is a normative decision each country has to make

by itself. Such a system would ensure that for each species, each taxonomic group, and

each habitat, monitoring will be focused spatially on those regions that have the highest

importance for them. Focussing primarily on hotspots, in contrast, could mean that important

species and habitats are left out of prioritized monitoring.

5 Topical and spatial priorities: recommendations

Given the differences and similarities of biodiversity priorities and monitoring obligations of

European policies, we recommend the following priorities for biodiversity monitoring in

Europe (see Annex 5 for an overview).

Species listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive and species and habitats in Annexes I and II

of the Habitats Directives must have highest priority because they cover the only legally

obligatory monitoring requirements in the European Union. This highest priority could be

differentiated into two levels, species and habitats identified as European “priority” in the

Habitats Directive (level I+) and those not identified as priority (level I-). A reassessment of

the responsibility using a freely scalable method (Schmeller et al. 2008c) and a

documentation of the approach used is advisable. Different monitoring efforts could be

allocated to the two sublevels. For European countries that are not member of the EU,

species listed as “Strictly protected” by the Bern Convention should receive highest priority.

Essentially, this means approximately 1800-1900 top priority species and 233 top priority

habitats.

D2.1-final.doc

26

A second level of priority (level II) should comprise all remaining species on the remaining

Annexes of the Nature Directives, the “protected” species of the Bern Convention, the SEBI

2010 indicator species, species classified in official European red lists as at least

endangered, as well as the European species on Annex I of CITES and on Appendix I of the

Convention on Migratory Species. Some of these species have their main distribution area

outside Europe. Only, if such species would be highly threatened (IUCN category EN),

Europe would have a high to very high responsibility. Hence, this second level of priorities

should comprise species with marginal distributions in Europe, only if they are at a high risk

to get globally extinct. Annex species of the Nature Directives must be exempted from the

exclusion because monitoring is legally required for them. (However, a re-evaluation of the

Annex species might become necessary in the future.) This would add approximately 1000 -

1100 species to the topical priorities. As for Level I, we suggest differentiating the second

level spatially in species for which Europe has high to very high responsibility (Level II+) and

those for which it has only basic to medium responsibility (Level II-). We recommend that

monitoring effort is spatially differentiated among countries by determining national

responsibilities for each European country.

Regarding habitats, current policies do not allow a differentiation among the habitats not

included on level I, and European red lists or national responsibilities are not yet available.

Therefore, we recommend including in Level II those habitat types not covered in Level I, for

which the potential of integration of existing national and international monitoring schemes is

highest. According to the assessments presented in chapter 6, these are: forests, coastal

and halophytic habitats and natural and semi-natural grassland formations.

A third level of priority could comprise Annex II species of CITES, invasive species included

in the Annexes of CITES, as well as the 100 alien invasive species with the highest negative

impact on European biodiversity and species on Annex II of the Convention of Migratory

Species. It should further include species listed as vulnerable in European wide or global red

lists. Level III should also comprise all habitats, excluding constructed, industrial, or artificial

ones, that are not included in level I or level II. Essentially, this includes most remaining

terrestrial vertebrates and approx. 150-200 further species as well as all natural habitats.

From priority level I to III most European mammals and almost all European birds (excluding

a few very rare vagrant species), all European reptiles and amphibians, all common and

about 15 - 20 threatened butterfly species (Rhopalocera), approx. 260 fish, 740 other

invertebrate (without butterflies), and 1020 plant species will be included in topically

prioritized biodiversity monitoring. As some of these species have their main distribution

outside Europe, we suggest differentiating the third level again in species for which Europe

has high to very high responsibility (level III+) and those for which it has only basic to

D2.1-final.doc

27

medium responsibility (level III-). Monitoring effort could be spatially differentiated among

countries by determining national responsibilities for each European country. We recommend

using the simple but robust and scientifically sound method developed by Schmeller et al.

(2008c) for these assessments, as it is the only available method that can be scaled and

consistently applied to geographic regions of any size. National biodiversity indicators that

are not covered by level I or II nor by the lists used for defining level III could be added to

national lists of level III priorities.

The final level of priority, level IV, would cover all remaining European and invasive species.

Again, a spatial differentiation could be made among countries depending on the national

responsibilities they have for these species.

For ecosystem services, currently only two levels can be distinguished: Level I comprises

monitoring for the Water Framework Directive, the only policy field, for which monitoring of

ecological services is legally mandatory. For all other ecosystem services, research and

policy development to set explicit priorities and to develop appropriate agreed indicators is a

high priority.

6 Spatial and topical coverage and gaps of

biodiversity monitoring in Europe

The following analysis of spatial and topical coverage and of gaps of biodiversity monitoring

in Europe is based primarily on DaEuMon, the metadatabase of monitoring schemes

developed and compiled by the EuMon project (EuMon 2006). Where pertinent, we used

additional information from the literature or the Internet for monitoring schemes not or

incompletely covered in DaEuMon. Based on this assessment, we discuss the potential to

integrate existing monitoring schemes into an integrated topically and spatially prioritized

biodiversity monitoring in Europe.

The EuMon consortium collected metadata on habitat and species monitoring schemes in

Europe since 2005. It developed a questionnaire containing seven questions on basic

features of monitoring schemes as well as 33 and 35 questions on specific properties of the

species and habitat schemes, respectively. The questionnaire is available as an online data

entry interface at the EuMon website at http://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring.

Primarily in 2005 and 2006, EuMon sent emails or letters to over 1,600 individuals and to

several national or international mailing lists. Coordinators of monitoring schemes, ministry

officials, and representatives of other stakeholder groups involved in monitoring in all

D2.1-final.doc

28

European countries were asked to fill out the questionnaire. In addition, the EuMon used

conferences and meetings to advertise the database and to ask coordinators of monitoring

schemes to contribute to the database. All information on monitoring was entered by the

coordinators of the monitoring schemes online. The information entered were organised into

the EuMon database. DaEuMon is maintained beyond the end of EuMon. As of July 2010, a

total of 628 schemes were included in DaEuMon.

DaEuMon also developed a second online database on characteristics of monitoring

organisations that involve volunteers. This database called PMN or Participatory Monitoring

Network database contains information among others about numbers of persons involved,

organisation structure, and running costs. As of July 2010, 314 organisations from 28

countries are covered. 270 of these organizations state that volunteers support their

monitoring activities. Altogether more than 14.000 professionals and over 5 million volunteers

work for these organizations, however not all volunteers are involved in direct monitoring

activities. For example a large part (ca. 3 million volunteers) belong to the National Trust, a

UK nature organization. However on average 65 % of the monitoring data are collected by

volunteers and 35 % by professionals. The PMN database may help to estimate costs and

cost efficiencies of the monitoring system developed by WP7 and WP8 and building on the

results of WP1, WP2, WP3 and the BioHAB field methodology.

Our overview focuses on characteristics that are relevant for the scientific quality and the

potential of the monitoring schemes to be integrated at a supranational scale and thus may

provide a suitable basis for the EBONE monitoring system. Relevant criteria were, in

particular, the types of habitats and species monitored, the geographical scale of the

monitoring, the sampling design, whether detection probability is accounted for, and the

involvement of volunteers. See Henry et al. (2008) and Lengyel et al. (2008) for the

discussion of the potential of the integration of monitoring schemes that go well beyond the

scope of EBONE.

6.1 Biodiversity monitoring in Europe – an overview DaEuMon holds about 310 institutes, agencies, and organizations that conduct biodiversity

monitoring in Europe (EuMon Database 2006, data as of June 2010). Species monitoring

involves the work of more than 47,000 persons (over 6,000 professionals and over 41,000

volunteers) in 457 species monitoring schemes represented in DaEuMon (Fig. 1a).

Monitoring of habitats on the other hand involves more than 1,800 persons (over 1,700

professionals and about 290 volunteers) in 170 habitat monitoring schemes (EuMon

Database 2006, data as of June 2010) (Fig. 1b). Characteristics and information about the

D2.1-final.doc

29

running costs of monitoring organisations are available for 183 organisations from 30

countries.

a) Species monitoring

34926

2353

113228999

527654 248

41562

26444510

63024062

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

All schemes Nationalschemes

Internationalschemes

All schemes* Nationalschemes*

Internationalschemes*

Number of volunteers Number of professionals

191

5

253190

59 9

290

1469

1719

1529

1312

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

All schemes Nationalschemes

Internationalschemes

All schemes* Nationalschemes*

Internationalschemes*

Number of volunteers Number of professionals

(12)(104)(270)(19)(197)(457)

(3)(22)96)(5)(31)(171)

34926

2353

113228999

527654 248

41562

26444510

63024062

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

All schemes Nationalschemes

Internationalschemes

All schemes* Nationalschemes*

Internationalschemes*

Number of volunteers Number of professionals

191

5

253190

59 9

290

1469

1719

1529

1312

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

All schemes Nationalschemes

Internationalschemes

All schemes* Nationalschemes*

Internationalschemes*

Number of volunteers Number of professionals

(12)(104)(270)(19)(197)(457)

(3)(22)96)(5)(31)(171)

b) Habitat monitoring

Figure 1. Number of professionals and volunteers involved in a) species and b) habitat monitoring schemes, * schemes that apply a stratified and/or random, systematic or exhaustive sampling design. Numbers in brackets underneath the columns indicate the number of schemes per category in DaEuMon. Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

30

6.1.1 Coverage of taxonomic groups

As expected, bird monitoring schemes dominate and butterflies are the most frequently

monitored invertebrates (Fig. 2), followed by mammals and invertebrates other than

butterflies. There exist also a considerable number of monitoring schemes for other

vertebrates, butterflies, and plants.

We analysed potential bias in taxonomic coverage relative to the number of publications

listed in the Zoological Record and the number of hits in Google Scholar. While databases on

publication records may also be biased because in different countries different traditions of

publishing exist (e.g., Gogolin et al. 2003) and Google Scholar may also contain unknown

biases, with few exceptions, DaEuMon is unbiased relative to these two other sources

(Schmeller et al. 2009). The exceptions are primarily fishes, lichens, and fungi, which are

considerably underrepresented. In DaEuMon Surprisingly, popular species groups seem to

be somewhat underrepresented in Google Scholar. Since significant differences among

taxonomic groups in several characteristics of monitoring schemes exist, care must be

exercised in extrapolating results from DaEuMon to underrepresented taxonomic groups.

98

170

64

89

42

67

14

58

36

53

22

45

7

44

87

30

45

2430

8

21

49

1825

13 174

105

0

40

80

120

160

200

Mammals

Birds

other

Vertebra

tes

Inverte

brates

Butterf

lies

Plantsoth

er

Num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g sc

hem

es

All * All National & international * National & international Figure 2. Number of monitoring schemes per species group, Monitoring schemes were divided into four categories: All schemes: all schemes in the EuMon database which include one or more of the presented species groups; National & international: schemes with a national or international geographic scope; * schemes which have a stratified sampling design, or apply random,, exhaustive or systematic sampling. Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

31

D2.1-final.doc

32

An assessment of characteristics of species monitoring schemes shows that monitoring

activities are diverse but encompass a considerable amount of effort. With some exceptions,

monitoring activities are scattered across many schemes, data collection methods are not

standardized among schemes, and there integration will have to rely primarily on meta-

analysis methodology. The duration of species monitoring schemes is highly variable, with 11

schemes covered by DaEuMon already running for > 50 years (starting before 1960) (Fig. 3).

Detection probability is often not accounted for and the percentage of schemes taking

account of it did not increase in recent years. Of the 234 schemes starting before the year

2000 32 % account for detection probability, whereas for the 212 schemes starting from 2000

onwards only 26 % account for detection probability (altogether only 35% of all species

schemes in the database account for detection probability and 60% selected monitoring sites

according to sampling design principles (stratified, random, systematic or exhaustive

sampling design). More schemes (89%) monitor changes in abundance (population trend)

than in distribution (distribution trend, 58%), and 52 % monitor changes in both. The number

of species covered by monitoring schemes ranges from 1-14,352 (Median: 8).

11

15

11

3022 24

77

64

117

95

2 0 0 06

18

1216

2315

81 3 1

1710

15

37

25

41

58

2 0 0 0 3 1 4 37 8 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NA18

00 –

189

919

00 –

194

919

50 –

196

419

65 -

1979

1980

- 19

8419

85 -

1989

1990

- 19

9419

95 -

1999

2000

- 20

0420

05 -

2009

Num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g sc

hem

es

a) All schemes

11

15

11

2921 23

71

58

100

47

2 0 0 06

17

1116 18

981 3 1

179

15

34

21

3932

2 0 0 0 3 1 4 3 7 8 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NA18

00 –

189

919

00 –

194

919

50 –

196

419

65 -

1979

1980

- 19

8419

85 -

1989

1990

- 19

9419

95 -

1999

2000

- 20

0420

05 -

2009

Num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g sc

hem

es

All * All National & international * National & international

b) Only ongoing schemes

Figure 3. Distribution of starting years of species monitoring schemes in DaEuMon (a) and distribution of starting years of species monitoring schemes that are still ongoing in 2010 (b). Monitoring schemes were divided into four categories: All: All schemes in EuMon database; National and international: monitoring schemes with a national or international geographical scope; * Monitoring schemes that have a stratified sampling design or apply exhaustive, systematic or random sampling and which also account for detection probability. NA: No starting year provided Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

33

6.1.2 Coverage of Habitats

The EuMon database uses the same habitat classification as the Annexes of the Habitats

Directive. This classification is based on an earlier version of the CORINE habitats

classification system, which was revised in 1992 and in turn decreased the compatibility of

the Annex I and the CORINE classification systems [for further Information see Interpretation

Manual of European Union Habitats (EC 2007)].

The main habitats monitored are forests (44 %), coastal and halophytic habitats (34 %), and

natural and semi natural grassland formations (25 %) (only schemes that answered question

22 on habitat types or where information on habitat type monitored could be extracted from

schemes names were counted). The remaining habitat types are covered by fewer

monitoring schemes (Fig. 4). For habitats the EuMon Database contains far fewer monitoring

schemes than for species (170 versus 457) and most reported schemes are recent, with only

two having started prior to 1960 and only 14 prior to 1990 (Fig. 5).

45

23

58

21

33

27

912 11

25

14

33

12

20 19

6 6 6

13

8

18

5

1310

4 5 6

11

5

13

5

9 8

35 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Coasta

l and

halop

hytic

habit

ats

Coasta

l san

d dun

es an

d inla

nd du

nes

Forests

Freshw

ater h

abita

ts

Natural

and s

emi-n

atural

gras

sland

form

ation

s

Raised

bogs

and m

ires a

nd fe

ns

Rocky

habit

ats an

d cav

es

Sclerop

hyllu

s scru

b (mato

rral)

Tempe

rate h

eath

and s

crub

Num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g sc

hem

es

All *All National & international * National & international Figure 4. Number of monitoring schemes per habitat group. Monitoring schemes were divided into four groups: All: including all habitat schemes in EuMon database with information on habitat types monitored (131 schemes, * 77 schemes)); National & international: including only schemes of national or international geographic scope (30 schemes, * 21 schemes); * Monitoring schemes that have a stratified sampling design, or that apply exhaustive, systematic or random sampling. Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

34

a) All schemes

61 3 4

24

23

50

60

17

3 1 3 41

4

12

2731

9

1 1 2 2 0 14

712

7

0 1 2 2 0 1 2

75 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NA

1900

- 194

9

1950

- 196

4

1965

- 197

9

1980

- 198

4

1985

- 198

9

1990

- 199

4

1995

- 199

9

2000

- 200

4

2005

- 200

9

Num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g sc

hem

es

6

1

34

2

4

13

23

20

10

3

1

34

1

4

7

18

13

4

1 12 2

01

45

7

5

01

2 2

01

2

54

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

NA

1900

- 194

9

1950

- 196

4

1965

- 197

9

1980

- 198

4

1985

- 198

9

1990

- 199

4

1995

- 199

9

2000

- 200

4

2005

- 200

9

Num

ber o

f mon

itorin

g sc

hem

es

All * All National & international * National & international

b) Only ongoing schemes

Figure 5. Distribution of starting years of habitat monitoring schemes in DaEuMon (a) and distribution of starting years of habitat monitoring schemes that are still ongoing in 2010 or for which no ending year was indicated (b). Monitoring schemes were divided into four groups: All: including all habitat schemes in EuMon database for which no ending year was given, or which end after 2010; National & international: including only schemes of national or international geographic scope; * Monitoring schemes that have a stratified sampling design, or that apply exhaustive, systematic or random sampling.. NA: no starting year provided. Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

35

D2.1-final.doc

36

As for species an assessment of the characteristics of the schemes show that habitat

monitoring activities are diverse and fragmented. Many schemes (78%) are small in

geographical scope (local or regional), operate on small spatial scales. 56% of the schemes

have a stratified sampling design or sample systematic, random, or exhaustive. 61% state

that they monitor all habitats within an area. Quality criteria are measured by 94% of the

habitat schemes, 38% of these schemes measure fragmentation; in the case of schemes

that use a stratified, random, systematic or exhaustive sampling design the figures are 93%

and 32% respectively.

Despite most schemes being small in geographic scope, 22% (37 out of 170 habitat

schemes in the database) have a national, international, or European geographical scope

(see Annex I). They also mainly monitor forests (57%), coastal and halophytic habitats

(48%), and natural and semi-natural grassland formations (52%) (numbers are based on the

amount of schemes with information to question 22 on the types of habitats monitored, see

Fig 4). Quality criteria are monitored by 89% of the national and supranational schemes, of

these 24% monitor fragmentation as a criteria of quality. A stratified, random, exhaustive or

systematic sampling design is used by 68% of the 37 schemes and 41% state that they

monitor all habitats (of the selected type) in an area. However, only 7 schemes are ongoing

general national monitoring schemes that cover all habitat types (Austria: MOBI; Hungary:

‘Habitat monitoring (Hungary)’; Netherlands: ‘National Monitoring Scheme’; Spain:

‘SISPARES’; Sweden: ‘National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS)’: Switzerland:

‘Ecological compensation in agriculture’; UK: ‘Countryside Survey’), all use a stratified

sampling design. Spatial variation is measured by field mapping (Hungary and Austria) and

remote sensing (Spain and Sweden). For the Dutch ‘National Monitoring Scheme’ it was

stated that it does not cover all habitats in an area, although it includes a wide range of

habitats and applies stratified sampling. A method for measuring spatial variation was not

indicated for the Dutch, Hungarian and Swiss monitoring scheme.

Of the national and supranational monitoring schemes, 28 are ongoing schemes without

indication of an ending year. The earliest scheme started in 1923 (‘Swedish National Forest

Inventory’), followed by the Spanish SISPARES (1956) and the ‘Monitoring of French forest

types’ (1960). Nine of the schemes have a fixed final year with a total duration between 2

and 16 years. Of the 28 ongoing schemes, 68% use a stratified, random, systematic, or

exhaustive sampling design (64% in the case of forest schemes).

D2.1-final.doc

37

6.1.3 Coverage of countries

The response rate to our request to fill out the on-line questionnaire varied greatly among

countries, which led to a geographic bias in the EuMon survey, in particular an

underrepresentation of Nordic countries. Regarding habitat monitoring, Greece and Spain

are probably overrepresented (Fig. 7), whereas some countries (e.g., Finland, Portugal) are

missing. Except of Spain and Belgium, the largest numbers of schemes originate from

countries that were represented by partners in the EuMon consortium. The well-represented

countries Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Spain and the UK

comprise six of the 11 European biogeographic regions (55%), but a large proportion of

these nine countries lie within the Atlantic, Continental, Pannonian, and Mediterranean

biogeographic regions. In terms of country and biogeographic coverage, therefore, the

survey may be representative of only 23% of the landmass of Europe (9,938,000 km2) and of

about 50 % of the landmass of the EU27 (4,324,782 km2). For maps on the distribution of

monitoring schemes in Europe see also Figures 4-7 in Annex 3.

Despite these biases, DaEuMon covers a wide geographic area, with at least one scheme

from each country in Europe (see Figs. 6&7). It sufficiently contains information from post-

communistic (Poland, Hungary, Lithuania) and western EU countries (Germany, France) and

thus different monitoring histories (Schmeller et al. 2009). Our experience further suggests

that we generally had more responses from countries where habitat monitoring is well

established (see Lengyel et al. 2008). Furthermore, an analysis of a potential country bias

found no significant correlations between the number of schemes per country and country

area, population size, population density, GDP, and percentage of country area protected by

national laws (Lengyel et al. in prep.). See Lengyel et al. (2008) for a further discussion of

potential bias and type of valid comparisons that still can be made.

93

41 3932 30

19 18 1812 11 9 8 8 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

101

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pol

and

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Bel

gium

Lith

uani

a

Hun

gary

Spa

in

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Slov

enia

Esto

nia

Italy

Nor

way

Sw

itzer

land

Finl

and

Bul

garia

Gre

ece

Slo

vaki

a

Ukr

aine

Rom

ania

Eur

ope

wid

e

Aus

tria

Sw

eden

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Irela

nd

Den

mar

k

And

orra

Isra

el

Cyp

rus

Cro

atia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Por

tuga

l

Rus

sia

Ser

bia

Num

ber o

f sch

emes

Figure 6. Total number of species monitoring schemes in Europe per country included in EuMon

database, Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

35

30

22

17 16

129 8

3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Spa

in

Gre

ece

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Pol

and

Bel

gium

Fran

ce

Hun

gary

Ger

man

y

Cyp

rus

Sw

eden

Sw

itzer

land

Nor

way

Irela

nd

Est

onia

Italy

Den

mar

k

Turk

ey

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Slo

veni

a

Net

herla

nds

Aus

tria

Mal

ta

Eur

ope

wid

e

Num

ber o

f sch

emes

Figure 7. Total number of habitat monitoring schemes in Europe per country included in EuMon

database, Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

38

D2.1-final.doc

39

6.1.4 Coverage of species and habitat observation systems based on national responsibilities and conservation priorities

To determine conservation priorities we used the method developed by Schmeller et al.

(2008d) and applied it to European amphibians. This method is based on the national

responsibility value of a species within a country combined with its threat status. The threat

status is either determined through national or international red lists, or in the case of species

listed in the Annexes of the Habitats or Birds Directive by the Annex on which they are listed.

In cases where species are listed in more than one Annex, the Annex equalling the highest

protection status was chosen. For the distributional assessment we used the spatial data

maps of the IUCN (IUCN 2009). Note, that even for the well studied group of amphibians, the

number of species differ among the European Red List (Temple & Cox 2009), the IUCN Red

List data base search (IUCN 2010), and the number taken from IUCN spatial data maps

(IUCN 2009), among others because of different acceptance of recent nomenclatural name

changes and differences in original distribution data. For example, the number of amphibian

species in Belgium is 17, 16, and 18 according to the European Red List, the IUCN Red List,

and the IUCN spatial data maps (see Table 2).

Information on monitoring effort per species and country were extracted from the EuMon

database on European monitoring schemes (DaEuMon). To date DaEuMon holds monitoring

schemes that include amphibian species for 13 countries (see Table 3).

D2.1-final.doc

40

Table 2 Number of amphibian species per country according to different sources: European Red List (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ redlist/#; accessed 2010); IUCN spatial data maps (http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data; accessed 2009); IUCN Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/; accessed 2010).1 includes also species occurring in northern Africa

Number of amphibian species Country

European Red List IUCN spatial data maps IUCN Red List (assessment 2008)

Belgium 17 18 16

Bulgaria 17 18 17

Croatia - 21 20

Estonia 10 11 10

France 38 36 36

Germany 23 22 21

Hungary 18 17 18

Netherlands 17 15 16

Poland 17 18 16

Slovenia 21 21 20

Spain1 34 35 34

Switzerland - 19 21

UK 17 12 8

The EuMon-database holds information on 35 monitoring schemes in 13 European countries

in which amphibians are monitored (Table 3). These include 20 pure amphibian schemes, 8

herpetological schemes (reptiles and amphibians), and 7 generic schemes. The pure

amphibian schemes conducted by 13 different institutions monitor between 1 and 18 species

(median 4.5 species) and involve 1020 volunteers and 47 professionals. Nine schemes

monitor at all sites (exhaustive) and 9 give a free choice of sampling.

Between 11 and 36 species of amphibians occur in these 13 European countries. In total,

they cover 32 of the 82 amphibian species native to Europe (Temple and Cox 2009). An

overview of the number of species per country and in different categories of national

responsibility and conservation priority per country is provided in Appendix 2.

D2.1-final.doc

41

Table 3 Number of monitoring schemes, institutions and schemes still ongoing per country monitoring amphibians (source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed May 2010). National schemes: Schemes with a national geographical scope.

Country Number of (national) schemes

Number of Institutions

Number of schemes still ongoing

Belgium 2 (0) 1 1

Bulgaria 1 (1) 1 1

Croatia 1 (1) 1 1

Estonia 1 (1) 1 1

France 9 (0) 4 9

Germany 6 (0) 6 2

Hungary 3 (3) 1 3

Netherlands 1 (1) 1 1

Poland 3 (1) 3 2

Slovenia 1 (1) 1 1

Spain 2 (1) 2 1

Switzerland 1 (1) 1 1

UK 4 (4) 3 4

6.1.4.1 Coverage of species with high national responsibility

The number of species monitored relative to the number of species occurring in the 13

European countries for which DaEuMon contains at least one monitoring scheme that

includes the monitoring of one or more amphibian species is compared in Figure 1A. Four

countries (Hungary, France, UK, and the Netherlands) monitor also non-native species (not

included in Fig.8 and 9 and in Tables. 4 and 5). Note, that national responsibilities were

computed on the basis of distribution maps (here: IUCN, http://www.iucnredlist.org/) in which

these species are not occurring within the respective countries (i.e. Pelophylax esculentus in

the UK, Pelophylax kurtmuelleri in France, Bombina variegata in the Netherlands and

Triturus cristatus in Hungary). The number of species per national responsibility class

decreases with increasing priority (basic: mean 9.2, range 8 – 11; medium: mean 8.2, range

0 – 18; high: mean 1.6, range 0 – 9; very high: mean 1.2, range 0 – 7).

According to the information extracted from DaEuMon, monitoring effort per country declines

with increasing national responsibility (mean percentage of species covered by monitoring

schemes: very high responsibility: 25 %; high: 50 %; medium: 60 %; basic: 66 %). The mean

number of species monitored per country increases slightly from basic to medium and

decreases rapidly with only one species listed under “very high” covered by any monitoring

D2.1-final.doc

42

scheme (basic: mean 5.4, range 0 – 10; medium: mean 5.5, range 0 – 16; high: mean 0.5,

range 0 – 2; very high: mean 0.1, range 0 – 1).

Whereas the number of species per country with basic national responsibility varies only

slightly (between 8 and 11, see Figure 8B), the proportion of those species monitored ranges

from 0% to 100% (see Table 4). In contrast, the number of species with medium national

responsibility varies between zero and 18 (Fig. 8C), whereas the proportion being monitored

ranges between 13% and 100% (Table 4). Only few of the countries have species for which

they have a high or very high national responsibility (4 countries each). Of these species,

only few seem to be monitored (Fig. 8D,E). Only 27% of the species for which the countries

have high national responsibility and only 7% of the species for which the countries have a

very high national responsibility are being monitored (Table 4).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

35

40

Total no of species occurring inthe country (NR was assessed)

No of species monitored

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR =basic)

No of species monitored(NR = basic)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR =medium)

No of species monitored(NR = medium)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

ndsPoland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR =high)

No of species monitored(NR = high)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

nds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR= very high)

No of species monitored(NR = very high)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

35

40

Total no of species occurring inthe country (NR was assessed)

No of species monitored

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR =basic)

No of species monitored(NR = basic)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR =medium)

No of species monitored(NR = medium)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

ndsPoland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR =high)

No of species monitored(NR = high)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

nds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species (NR= very high)

No of species monitored(NR = very high)

A

B D

C E

Figure 8. Comparisons of the total number of native species versus the number of species monitored

and in different categories of national responsibilities (NR) in 13 European countries. A) Total number

of species ; B) Number of species for which countries have a basic NR; C) Number of species for

which countries have a medium NR; D) Number of species for which countries have a high NR; E)

Number of species for which countries have a very high NR. Source: EuMon database;

http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed May 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

43

D2.1-final.doc

44

Table 4 Percentage of species being monitored in relation to the total number of species per country for each of the four categories of national responsibility. Here the total number of species refers to the number of species that occur within a country according to the IUCN spatial data maps (IUCN 2009). NA: Not applicable -This category of national responsibility was not assigned to any species occurring in the country. Abbreviations in title row refer to the international country code (BE – Belgium; BG – Bulgaria; EE – Estonia; FR – France; DE – Germany; HU – Hungary; NE – The Netherlands; PL – Poland; SL – Slovenia; ES – Spain; CH – Switzerland; UK – United Kingdom). Data on monitoring schemes in European countries extracted from DaEuMon (http://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring/).

BE BG CR EE FR GE HU NE PL SL ES CH UK

Total number of species 18 18 21 11 36 22 17 15 18 21 35 19 12

Total % of species monitored

11 33 5 91 64 86 100 53 83 48 17 100 100

% of species monitored (NR = basic)

0 22 0 91 75 67 100 44 80 33 13 100 100

% of species monitored (NR = medium)

22 38 0 NA 89 100 100 67 88 63 36 100 100

% of species monitored (NR = high)

NA NA 33 NA 20 NA NA NA NA 67 11 100 NA

% of species monitored (NR = very high)

NA 100 0 NA 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA NA

6.1.4.2 Coverage of species with high conservation priorities

According to data extracted from DaEuMon, monitoring effort is distributed unevenly among

countries (Fig. 9). Coverage of species monitoring in relation to conservation priorities shows

a decrease with increasing priority (Fig. 9B-E). The number of species per conservation

priority class decreases with increasing priority (under observation: mean 9.6, range 7 – 14;

priority: mean 8.5, range 4 – 15; high priority: mean 1.6, range 0 – 9; immediate action: mean

0.5, range: 0 – 3). The number of species monitored decreases equally with zero species

listed under “immediate action” covered by any monitoring scheme (under observation: mean

5.8, range 0 – 13; priority: mean 5.2, range 0 – 10; high priority: mean 0.4, range 0 – 2);

immediate action: mean 0, range 0 – 0).

Table 5 displays the percentage of species being monitored per priority class and country in

relation to the total number of species per priority class and country. Seven out of 13

countries do not have any species listed as high priority and nine out of 13 countries do not

have species assessed as requiring “immediate action”. According to DaEuMon none of the

species in the highest priority class are monitored. Three countries (Hungary, Switzerland,

UK) monitor all native amphibian species in at least one monitoring scheme.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Total no. of species (CP =high priority)

No. of species monitored(CP = high priority)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Total no. of species (CP =immediate action)

No. of species monitored(CP = immediate action)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no. of species (CP =under observation)

No. of species monitored(CP = under observation)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species occurring inthe country (CP was assessed)

No of species monitored

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no. of species (CP =priority)

No. of species monitored(CP = priority)

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

nds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

nds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Total no. of species (CP =high priority)

No. of species monitored(CP = high priority)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Total no. of species (CP =immediate action)

No. of species monitored(CP = immediate action)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no. of species (CP =under observation)

No. of species monitored(CP = under observation)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no of species occurring inthe country (CP was assessed)

No of species monitored

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Croatia

Estonia

France

German

y

Hungary

Netherlan

ds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Total no. of species (CP =priority)

No. of species monitored(CP = priority)

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

nds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Estonia

France

Germany

Hungary

Netherla

nds

Poland

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerl

and

United King

dom

A

B D

C E

Figure 9. Comparisons of the total number of native species versus the number of species included in at least one monitoring scheme and in different categories of conservation priorities (CP) in 13 European countries. A) Total number of species ; B) Number of species in category “under observation”; C) Number of species in category “priority”; D) Number of species in category “high priority”; E) Number of species in category “immediate action”. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed May 2010

D2.1-final.doc

45

Table 5 Percentage of species being monitored (per conservation priority category) in relation to the total number of species per country (within one of the four categories of conservation priority). Here the total number of species refers to the number of species that occur within a country according to the IUCN spatial data maps (IUCN 2009). NA: Not applicable -This category was not assigned to any species occurring in the country. Abbreviations in title row refer to the international country code (BE – Belgium; BG – Bulgaria; EE – Estonia; FR – France; DE – Germany; HU – Hungary; NE – The Netherlands; PL – Poland; SL – Slovenia; ES – Spain; CH – Switzerland; UK – United Kingdom). Data on monitoring schemes in European countries extracted from DaEuMon (http://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring/).

BE BG CR EE FR GE HU NE PL SL ES CH UK

Total number of species 18 18 21 11 36 22 17 15 18 21 35 19 12

% of species monitored 11 33 5 91 64 86 100 53 83 48 17 100 100

% of species monitored (CP = under observation)

10 13 0 86 93 91 100 33 80 44 29 100 100

% of species monitored (CP = priority)

13 44 0 100 67 82 100 83 88 44 22 100 100

% of species monitored (CP = high priority)

NA 100 33 NA 0 NA NA NA NA 100 0 100 NA

% of species monitored (CP = immediate action)

NA NA 0 NA 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA NA

D2.1-final.doc

46

D2.1-final.doc

47

6.1.4.3 National responsibility priorities – Conclusions

Our assessment of amphibian monitoring in Europe shows that the international importance

of a species’ population in a focal area is not taken into consideration, when monitoring

schemes are designed. Only rarely monitoring is conducted for species for which a country

has a high or very high NR or for which conservation priority is high. Thus, NR and CP seem

not to have been a main consideration when launching a monitoring scheme.

The EuMon-database, however, may have insufficient coverage of amphibian monitoring

schemes and lacks also complete species lists in some generic monitoring schemes with a

broad taxonomic coverage. Nonetheless, we do not expect a systematic bias within

taxonomic groups towards lower national responsibility categories. Rather, we assume that

this is caused by a combination of personal choices and the consideration of red list status

only which may partly bias against species for which a country has high national

responsibility. While our preliminary results are alarming, they need urgent verification and

reconsideration of monitoring priorities by national authorities and monitoring organisations.

Therefore, it is imperative that NR and CP are determined within the different European

countries, compared to the lists of species monitored in the country, and if monitoring is

insufficient, counteractions need to be taken. One of these counteractions is the

implementation of the determination of NR and CP in the conservation policy of Europe and

each member state of the EU.

6.1.4.4 Outlook

Currently, national responsibilities are also being assessed for reptiles and mammals in

Europe. With the finalized development of a method to determine national responsibilities for

habitats, a complementary analysis is envisaged.

D2.1-final.doc

48

6.2 Supranational integration of monitoring schemes

6.2.1 Existing initiatives

International biodiversity monitoring schemes using the same or similar monitoring design

and initiatives to integrate national schemes exist for popular species in most taxonomic

groups but rarely for habitats. Most advanced are initiatives for birds and butterflies. A few

initiatives also target the international integration of schemes across taxonomic groups

and/or habitats.

The Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS) under the auspices of

Birdlife International and the European Bird Census Council (EBCC 2010a) currently covers

over 22 European countries (20 EU countries). It aims at generating indicators of the wider

environment. Data is collected annually and statistically analysed (for further information see:

EBCC 2010b). While the EBCC uses data from schemes with standardized methodology,

methods may differ among countries (EBCC 2010c). The data from PECBMS, together with

those from other national common bird monitoring initiatives during the years 1990 and 2000,

were analysed and published in the book ‘Birds in the European Union - a status

assessment‘ (BirdLife International 2004), which provides information on population trends

and conservation status of European birds.

Another large bird monitoring program is organized by the European Union for Bird Ringing

(EURING). It covers nearly all European countries and collects information from bird ringing

schemes in Europe focussing on migratory species. Information that can be inferred from

ringing data includes distribution, flyways, and population dynamics.

The European butterfly monitoring is organised by Butterfly Conservation Europe. Butterflies

are currently being monitored following a common methodology in twelve European

countries with schemes in the planning stage in another four countries (van Swaay et al.

2008a). Sites are mainly selected through expert knowledge.

Global biodiversity indices form one part of the biodiversity indicators established under the

CBD to measure the state and trends of global biodiversity. Two main indices exist

measuring the trends in abundance and distribution of species for a range of species groups

and the change in threat status: the Living Planet Index of global biodiversity (WWF 2008)

and the Red List Index or sampled Red List Index (RLI or SRLI respectively, Baillie et al.

2008) respectively. The LPI is estimated from data on over 7100 populations of more than

2300 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (GBO 2010). The RLI is

based on the IUCN Red List of threatened species and has so far been calculated for groups

D2.1-final.doc

49

that are (nearly) completely assessed, i.e. birds, mammals, amphibians and corals (GBO

2010; Butchart et al. 2010). For habitats similar indices exists only for the extent of forests,

mangroves and seagrass beds and the condition of coral reefs (Butchart et al. 2010). Trends

on forest extent are based on the Forestry Resources Assessment (FRA) of the UN Food

and Agricultural Organization (FAO, FAO 2010). In order to add information to national forest

inventory programs the FAO developed a methodology for a “global remote sensing survey

of forests”, which aims on generating a new global tree cover map and conducting improved

analyses of past remote sensing data (Ridder 2007).

The largest biodiversity monitoring program in the EU has been launched as a response to

the legal monitoring obligations under the European Nature Directives (Habitats and Birds

Directives) for the species and habitats listed in the Annexes of the Directives. However,

monitoring is organized independently by each country, such that approaches and

methodologies differ considerably among countries as well as within some countries and

make direct comparisons between countries difficult. Therefore, integration is done at a very

simplified level (EC 2009). Standardization of sampling design, data, and the development of

meta-analysis methods that allow the use of divers data are in dire need.

For the Arctic, the Cirumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) started already this

integration of ongoing monitoring initiatives in Arctic countries, many of them site based and

greatly varying in their objectives and geographical range. The CBMP aims at bringing

together data from different sources for joint analysis and integration in order to identify data

gaps and to improve or establish new monitoring schemes where needed (Petersen et al.

2004). It will develop internet-based facilities for data access, data integration, and data

analyses. So far, it has focussed on marine and terrestrial systems but will expand its

activities to cover freshwater systems in 2010.

6.2.2 Potential and challenges for supranational integration of other existing species and habitat schemes

Besides the large initiatives mentioned above, several smaller international monitoring

schemes exist, covering only a few countries. The EuMon database currently holds 29

schemes with an international geographical scope: 19 species schemes covering 23

European countries and five habitat schemes covering six European countries (Table 6).

International species schemes monitor mainly birds (9) and butterflies (3) (Tab. 7). Twelve of

the 19 schemes use a stratified sampling design or apply systematic, random or exhaustive

sampling, monitoring mainly birds (7), mammals (3), plants (2), and invertebrates (2). Of the

twelve schemes four also accounted for detection probability.

D2.1-final.doc

50

International habitat schemes cover forests and coastal environments, three of the five

schemes use a stratified sampling design. Only one scheme samples all possible sites. An

experimental design is applied by two of the schemes.

As forest schemes, coastal and halophytic habitats, and natural and semi-natural grasslands

are also the most frequently monitored habitat types in national schemes (Fig. 4) forest

monitoring schemes and schemes that cover all habitat types provide the most promising

avenue for integration into a European-wide monitoring network, followed by coastal and

halophytic habitats as well as natural and semi-natural grasslands.

Table 6. Geographical or knowledge gaps in European biodiversity monitoring. The table shows the number of countries (Europe (51), EU (27)) with monitoring schemes in DaEuMon. The schemes were grouped according to their geographical scope and further subdivided into schemes having a stratified sampling design or which apply exhaustive, random or systematic sampling. Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

All habitat monitoring schemes Stratified or exhaustive, random, or systematic sampling

Countries With

habitat schemes

With regional schemes

With national schemes

With international

schemes

With regional schemes

With national schemes

With international

schemes Europe 22 9 16 6 8 14 3

EU 19 9 14 5 8 13 2

All species monitoring schemes Stratified or exhaustive, random, or systematic sampling

Countries With

species schemes

With regional schemes

With national schemes

With international

schemes

With regional schemes

With national schemes

With international

schemes Europe 32 14 25 23 11 23 18

EU 24 13 20 19 11 19 14

International monitoring programs are being developed for further species groups, such as

bats (under the auspices of EUROBATS), dragonflies (supported by the Dutch Butterfly

Conservation), and raptors (EURAPMON, launched in 2010 with funds from ESF (ESF

2010)). All of these initiatives face the same problem: the need to integrate already existing

schemes (Henry et al. 2008, Lengyel et al. 2008) and to adapt, where necessary, their

methodology with regard to population trend estimation. Existing national and supranational

schemes that use representative sampling designs or account for detection probability

provide the best scope for such integration. The percentage of such schemes is particularly

high for birds, followed by mammals and invertebrates (Tab. 6). The figures are lower for

plants and other vertebrates. For lichens and fungi, only few fulfil these criteria. Within

taxonomic groups there are also considerable differences in the number and percentage of

schemes that fulfil these criteria. A comparison between SEBI 2010 indicator groups and

other groups suggest that birds are best represented and that rodents, rabbits, and terrestrial

insectivores, as well as large herbivores could be considered at the same level as butterflies,

with plant monitoring schemes performing slightly less.

Table 7. Number and percentage of monitoring schemes per species group and selection criteria. Schemes were divided into two groups based on their geographical scope as defined in DaEuMon: All (including local, regional, national and international schemes) and National & International (including national and international schemes). Schemes were further subdivided based on methodological criteria: All (all schemes, no selection criteria); Stratified sampling design or exhaustive (all sites within an area are sampled), systematic (each cell in a grid is sampled) or random; Detection probability plus sampling design: schemes of the prior category which also account for detection probability. Source: EuMon database (http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/), June 2010

In the future, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) also could provide a broad European

wide basis for such integration, as monitoring is also legally obligatory. However, the WFD

aims at assessing the status of water bodies and not of status and trend in biodiversity. While

D2.1-final.doc

51

D2.1-final.doc

52

discussions are on-going, e.g. in Germany, to use the WFD also for biodiversity issues,

governance issues (different administrative bodies responsible for the monitoring), data

sharing issues, and data analyses issues need to be tackled before such an integration for

assessing status and trends in biodiversity can be tackled.

7 EBONE internal priorities

The internal priorities of EBONE depend on the goals that EBONE wants to achieve and the

user groups targeted. Some topically and spatially prioritized components of biodiversity

identified in this report are already well covered and organized, especially birds and

butterflies. Birdlife International, the European Bird Census Council, and Butterflies

International are already integrating many of the schemes existing in Europe, methodology is

comparably well standardized, and data storage and sharing well organised. Any further

improvements should run under the lead of these existing networks. Thus, despite being high

priority, it will make no sense for EBONE to include these taxonomic groups into its internal

priorities, unless these networks signal specific needs of support.

Similarly, the monitoring of species and habitats of topical priority level I is already organized

by Member States and the results are integrated into central databases at the European

Topic Centre for Biodiversity. However, there is still considerable need of improvement in

monitoring methods, including the selection of monitoring site, and their standardization

across Member States. Additionally, some Member States have signalled interest in the

availability of user friendly data management systems that could help them improving access

and usability of existing data. EBONE could provide direct advise on improving the selection

of monitoring sites and the methodology for habitat monitoring. It should also be considered

in WP7 and WP8 to approach the European Topic Centre and several representatives of

Member States to explore the interest in and scope for support that the planned data

management system of EBONE could provide for the ETC and for Member States.

The third target group could be monitoring schemes for habitats and species, which do have

a good potential for integration at the European level but are not yet far advanced in terms of

standardization of monitoring methods or data management. Finally, the suitability of the

EBONE data management system could be explored for LTER-sites and their contribution to

prioritized biodiversity monitoring.

D2.1-final.doc

53

8 Further discussion

To develop a coherent spatially and topically prioritized biodiversity monitoring scheme

across Europe it is not sufficient to identify priority habitats. For habitats some issues need to

be further clarified. This particularly applies to habitats and includes the following issues:

The habitat concept is being used in at least two different meanings in the ecological

literature and in the legal texts of the Habitats Directive and Bern Convention (Emerald

Network). Partly it refers to the “address” of species, i.e., the place where species live and

the characteristics of this place. Partly it refers to a characteristic part of nature with its

associated species, i.e., something close to ecosystems, biotopes or nature types in

meaning. EUNIS, CORINE, Habitats DIRECTIVES.

Definition, identification and characterisation of habitats depend on our understanding of

habitat units as spatial entities and the classification of these spatial entities that we use to

identify and characterise them as distinct from each other. Several habitat classification

schemes exist in Europe, especially CORINE, EUNIS, and the habitat definitions in the

guideline to Annex I of the Habitats Directive, with different habitat properties being used as

a basis for classification. The way we define and classify habitats will influence how we can

map and monitor them. Effort has been made to build a correlation table that matches the

habitat type classes among these different classification systems (Moss & Davies 2002a, b).

D2.1-final.doc

54

9 References

Anderson, S. (2002) Identifying Important Plant Areas: a site selection manual for Europe, and a basis

for developing guidelines for other regions of the World. Plantlife International, London

(www.plantlife.org.uk/downloads/ipa/Identifying_IPAs_in_Europe_Site_Selection_Manual. pdf).

Araújo, M.B., Nogués-Bravo, D., Alexandre, J., Dinzi-Filho, F., Haywood, A.M., Valdes, P.J., Rahbeck,

C. (2008) Quaternary climate changes explain diversity among reptiles and amphibians.

Ecogeography, 31, 8-15

Avery, M., Gibbons, D. W., Porter, R., Tew, T. Tucker, G., Williams, G. (1994) Revising the British Red

Data List for birds: the biological basis of UK conservation priorities. Ibis, 137, 232–239.

Baier, H., Erdmann, F., Holz, R., Watrestraat, A. (2006) Freiraum und Naturschutz. Die Wirkungen von

Störungen und Zerschneidungen in der Landschaft. Spinger, Berlin.

Bailllie, J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Stuart, S.N. (2004) IUCN Red List of threatened species: a global species

assessment. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List

Programme, World Conservation Union Species Survival Commission, IUCN – The World

Conservation Union

Baillie, J.E.M., Collen, B., Amin, R., Akcakaya, H.R., Butchart, S.H.M., Brummitt, N., Meagher, T.R.,

Ram, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Mace, G.M. (2008) Toward Monitoring Global Biodiversity.

Conservation Letters, 1, 18-26

Beissinger, S.R., Reed, J.M., Wunderle, J.M. Jr et al. (2000) Report of the AOU conservation

committee on the Partners in Flight species prioritization plan. Auk, 117 (2), 549-561

Berger, M., McKenna, S.A., Possingham, H.P. (2007) Effectiveness of surrogate taxa in the design of

coral reef reserve systems in the Indo-Pacific. Conservation Biology, 21, 1584-1593.

Bilton, D.T., McAbendroth, L., Bedford, A., Ramsey, P.M. (2006) How wide to cast the net? Cross

taxon congruence of species richness, community similarity and indicator taxa in ponds.

Freshwater Biol., 51, 578-590.

Binot, M., Bless, R., Boye, P., Gruttke, H., Pretscher, P. (1998) Rote Liste gefährdeter Tiere

Deutschlands. Schriften Reihe für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 55, pp 434

BirdLife International (2000) Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation – Volume

1 & 2. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK

BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International,

Wageningen, The Netherlands:

Borchardt, D., Ehlert, T., Follner, K. et al. (2008) Biodiversity of surface waters, floodplains and

groundwater. Symposium, Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear

Safety (BMU), Berlin, Germany

http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/wasser/Symposiumsbericht.pdf accessed

May 2010

D2.1-final.doc

55

Borhidi, A., Sánta, A. (1999) Vörös Könyv. Magyarország növénytársulásairól 1.Red Book of

Hungarian Plant Communities 1, Budapest, TermészetBÚVÁR Alapítvány Kiadó

Bowden, W.B. (1999) Roles of Bryophytes in stream ecosystems. Journal of the North Amerian

Benthological Society. 18 (2), 151-184

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F.,

Mittermeier, C.G., Pilgrim, J.D., Rodrigues, A.S.L.. (2006) Global biodiversity conservation

priorities. Science, 313, 58-61

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rylands, A.B., Konstant, W.R.,

Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G., Hilton-Taylor, C. (2002) Habitat loss and extinction in

the hotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 16 (4), 909-923

Brown, K.S., Freitas, A.V.L. (2000) Atlantic forest butterflies: Indicators for landscape conservation.

Biotropica, 32 (4B), 934-956

BTO (2010) British Trust for Ornithology - Garden Bird Watch UK (http://www.bto.org/gbw/index.htm)

Accessed May 2010

Bump, J.K., Webster, C.R., Vucetich, J.A., Peterson, R.O., Shields, J.M., Powers, M.D. (2009)

Ungulate carcasses perforate ecological filters and create biogeochemical hotspots in forest

herbaceous layers allowing trees a competitive advantage. Ecosystems, 12 (6), 996-1007

Burfield, I., van Bommel, F., Gallo-Orsi, U., Nagy, S., Orhun, C., Pople, R., van Zoest, R., Callaghan,

D., and Birdlife International (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation

status. Conservation Series 12. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B. et al. (2010) Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent

Decline. Science, 328, 1164 - 1168

Caddell, R. (2005) International Law and the Protection of Migratory Wildlife: An Appraisal of Twenty-

Five Years of the Bonn Convention” Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and

Policy, 16, 113-156.

Callicot, B. (1989): In defense of the land ethic: essays in environmental philosophy. State University

of New York Press, Albany, New York.

Carter, M.F., Hunter, W.C., Pashley, D.N. et al. (2000) Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in

the United States: the Partners in Flight approach. Auk, 117 (2), 541-548

Caughley, G., Gunn, A. (1996) Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell Science,

Cambridge.

CBD (2009) Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Sustainable Forest Management,

Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A Good Practice Guide. Montreal, 47 + iii pages

(http://www.cbd.int/development/doc/cbd-good-practice-guide-forestry-booklet-web-

en.pdf) Accessed May 2010.

CBD (2010) Convention on Biological Diversity – Text of the Convention

(http://www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml) Accessed May 2010

D2.1-final.doc

56

CBD-REDD (2010) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

(http://www.cbd.int/forest/redd/) Accessed May 2010

Clements, F.E. (1936) Nature and Structure of the Climax. The Journal of Ecology. 24 (1), 252-284

http://www.ualberta.ca/~place/Clements%201936.pdf.

Chiweshe, N. (2007) Back eagles and hyraxes – the two flagship species in the conservation of wildlife

in the Matobo Hills, Zimbabwe. Ostrich, 78 (2), 381-386

CI (2010) Conservation international – Biodiversity Hotspots

(http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/Pages/default.aspx) Accessed May 2010

CMS (2003) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Text of the

Convention (http://www.cms.int/pdf/convtxt/cms_convtxt_english.pdf) Accessed May 2010

CMS (2008) Convention on Migratory Species – Brochure

(http://www.cms.int/publications/pdf/Convention_brochure.pdf) Accessed May 2010

Coates, D.J., Atkins, K.A. (2001) Priority setting and the conservation of Western Australia’s diverse

and highly endemic flora. Biological Conservation, 97(2), 251–263

CoE (1979) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – Text of the

Convention (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm) Accessed May

2010

CoE (1989) Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats - Standing

Committee. Recommendation No. 16 (1989) of the standing committee on areas of special

conservation interest (Adopted by the Standing Committee on 9 June 1989)

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1485727&Site=DG4-

Nature&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864

CoE (1996) Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy. Nature and Environment, No.

74 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Biodiversity/SN74_en.pdf

CoE (1996b) Background information on Invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern

Convention – Part I Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. Nature and Environment No. 79,

Council of Europe http://books.google.de/books?id=gNs-

6oku80IC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=history+of+the+%22habitats+directive%22&source=bl&ots=s0E

pqnlnfF&sig=b97cVQE1VjxHSyQ400kTo52PmxA&hl=de&ei=Aa8PS72SJpPJ_gb9h8g1&sa=X&oi=

book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20

%22habitats%20directive%22&f=false

CoE (1997) Recommendation No.56 (1997) concerning guidelines to be taken into account while

making proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II of the Convention and while adopting

amendments (Adopted by the Standing Committee on 5 December 1997)

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(1997)56&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&Site=DG4

-Nature&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864

CoE (2000) Red Data Book of European Butterflies. Nature and Environment No. 99, Council of

Europe

D2.1-final.doc

57

http://books.google.de/books?id=OYb_UQzgoZ8C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=candidates+for+listin

g+in+Appendix+I+of+the+Bern+Convention&source=bl&ots=UHiF8bQzAo&sig=unESj2mDofajjvSV

KO9t-

FwXaiE&hl=de&ei=5QEQS7bwGpD5_Aakh9k1&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=

0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

CoE (2004) The 25 years of the Bern Convention. Naturopa, No 101

(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/naturopa_en.asp) accessed June 2010

CoE (2005) Development of the Emerald Network General principles of the procedure for examining

and approving Emerald sites put forward by states. Secretariat’s proposals,

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/EcoNetworks/Documents/TpvsEm09e_05.pdf

CoE (2009) A mid-term assessment of implementing the EU Biodiversity Action Plan and Towards an

EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species – Council conclusions

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/council_concl_0609.pdf) Accessed June 2010

CoE (2010) Council of Europe - Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and

Natural Habitats (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/default_en.asp) Accessed

May 2010

Colon-Gaud, C., Whiles, M.R., Kilham, S.S., Lips, K.R., Pringle, C.M., Connelly, S., Peterson, S.D.

(2009) Assessing ecological responses to catastrophic amphibian declines: Patterns of

macroinvertebrate production and food web structure in upland Panamanian streams. Limnology

and Oceanography, 54 (1), 331-343

Cooperrider, A.Y., Boyd, R.J., Stuart, H.R. (1986): Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat. US

Dept. Inter. Bur. Land Manage., Serv. Centre, Denver.

Couturier, A. (1999) Conservation priorities for the birds of southern Ontario. Technical appendices,

and priority species lists. Bird studies Canada, Port Rowan, Ontario

Dahlberg, A., Croneburg, H. (2003) 33 threatened fungi in Europe - Complementary and revised

information on candidates for listing in Appendix I of the Bern Convention.

http://www.artdata.slu.se/Bern_Fungi/ECCF%2033_T-

PVS%20(2001)%2034%20rev_low%20resolution_p%201-14.pdf

DAISIE (2009) European Invasive Alien Species Gateway, http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp

[Accessed 09 December 2009].

DAISIE (2010a) Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe

(http://www.europe-aliens.org/index.jsp) Accessed May 2010

DAISIE (2010b) Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe – 100 of The Worst

(http://www.europe-aliens.org/speciesTheWorst.do) Accessed May 2010

Davies, C.E., Moss, D., Hill, M.O. (2004) EUNIS Habitat Classification – Revised 2004. European

Environmental Agency, European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity

(http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf)

D2.1-final.doc

58

Delibes-Mateos, M., Delibes, M., Ferreras, P., Villafuerte, R. (2008) Key role of European Rabbits in

the Conservation of the Western Mediterranean Basin Hotspot. Conservation Biology, 22 (5), 1106-

1117

Diaz, S., Tilman, D., Fragione, J., Stuart Chapin III, F., Dirzo, R., Kitzberger, T., Gemmill, B., Zobel,

M., Vila, M., Mitchell, C., Wilby, A., Daily, G. C., Galetti, M., Laurance, W. F., Pretty, J., Naylor, R.,

Power, A., Harvell, D., Potts, S., Kremen, C., Griswold, T., Eardley, C., Ceallos, G., Lavorel, S.,

Orians, G., Pacala, S., Supriatna, J. (2005) Biodiversity regulation of ecosystem services. Pages

297-329 in Millenium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being. World

Resources Institute, Washington

Dierssen, K., Dierssen, B. (2008) Ökosysteme Mitteleuropas aus geobotanischer Sicht – Moore.

Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, 230 pp

Dziock, F., Henle, K., Foeckler, F., Follner, K., Scholz, M. (2006) Biological indicator systems in

floodplains - a review. In: Dziock, F., F. Foeckler, M. Scholz, S. Stab & K. Henle: Indicator Systems

in Floodplains – Results from the RIVA Project. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 91(4), 271-291.

EBCC (2010a) European Bird Census Council - Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme

(http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=28) Accessed May 2010

EBCC (2010b) European Bird Census Council - Trends of common birds in Europe, 2009 update,

computation procedure and data quality control in details (http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=378)

Accessed May 2010

EBCC (2010c) European Bird Census Council - Trends of common birds in Europe, 2009 update

(http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=379) Accessed May 2010

EC (2006). Council directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds. Official

Journal of the European Union. European Commission 1979/81/85/2003/2006.

EC (2007) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT) Accessed May 2010

EC (2009) REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT - Composite Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as

required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. COM(2009) 358 final, Brussles

EC (2010) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein.

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997R0338:EN:NOT) Accessed

May 2010

EC Red List (2010) European Red List

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/) Accessed May 2010

EC–WFD (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a

framework for the Community action in the field of water policy.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html

D2.1-final.doc

59

EC-WFD (2003a), Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

Guidance Document No 7. Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive,

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guida

ncesnos7smonitoring/_EN_1.0_&a=d

EC-WFD (2003b) Common Implementation Strategy For The Water Framework Directive. Reporting

For Water – Concept Document: Towards a Shared Water Information System For Europe (WISE)

Rome/Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-

framework/transp_rep/pdf/2003_concept_report.pdf

EEA (2004a) High Nature Value Farmland: Characteristics, Trends and Policy Challenges. European

Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

EEA (2004b) An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe, 2002. – European Environment Agency,

Copenhagen Technical Report, 92, 1–41

EEA (2007a) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010:proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor

progress in Europe. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Technical Report, 11, pp186

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_11

EEA (2007b) SEBI 2010 biodiversity indicators

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/sebi_full.pdf) Accessed May

2010

EIONET (2010) European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity - Red Books at National levels

(alphabetic order list)

(http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/products/redbooks/rb_at_national_alpha/index_html)

Accessed May 2010

Ellingsen, K.E., Gray, J.S. (2002) Spatial patterns of benthic diversity: is there a latitudinal gradient

along the Norwegian continental shelf? Journal of Animal Ecology, 71 (3), 373-389

Ernst, D., Felinks, B., Henle, K., Klotz, S., Sandermann, H., Wiencke, C. (2000) Von der numerischen

zur funktionellen Biodiversität: Neue Forschungsansätze. Gaia, 9 (2), 140-145

ESF (2010) European Science Foundation. Research and Monitoring for and with Raptors in Europe

(EURAPMON). (http://www.esf.org/activities/research-networking-programmes/life-earth-and-

environmental-sciences-lesc/current-esf-research-networking-programmes-in-life-earth-and-

environmental-sciences/research-and-monitoring-for-and-with-raptors-in-europe-eurapmon.html)

Accessed July 2010

Essl, F., Egger, G., Ellmauer, T. (2002a) Rote Liste gefährdeter Biotoptypen Österreichs – Konzept.

Umweltbundesamt Wien, Monographien, Band 155

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/M155.pdf

Essl, F., Egger, G., Ellmauer, T., Aigner, S. (2002b) Rote Liste gefährdeter Biotoptypen Österreichs –

Wälder, Forste, Vorwälder. Umweltbundesamt Wien, Monographien, Band 156

http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/M156.pdf

D2.1-final.doc

60

Essl, F., Egger, G., Karrer, G., Theiss, M., Aigner, S. (2004) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen

Österreichs: Grünland, Grünlandbrachen und Trockenrasen; Hochstauden- und Hochgrasfluren,

Schlagfluren und Waldsäume; Gehölze des Offenlandes und Gebüsche. Umweltbundesamt,

Monographien, Band 167.

Essl, F., Egger, G., Poppe, M., Rippel-Katzmaier, I., Staudinger, M., Muhar, S., Unterlercher, M.,

Michor, K. (2008) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen Österreichs. Binnengewässer,

Gewässer- und Ufervegetation. Technische Biotoptypen und Siedlungsbiotoptypen. Neuer

Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Umweltbundesamt Wien, Monographien, Band 134

ETC (2009) Red Books at National levels (alphabetic order list).

http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/products/redbooks/rb_at_national_alpha/index_html

EuMon (2006) EU-wide monitoring methods and systems of surveillance for species and habitats of

Community interest - Monitoring programs (http://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring) Accessed May 2010

EuMon (2007) Revised and tested methodology (extended) for the assessment of national

responsibilities for species and habitats of Community interest.

http://eumon.ckff.si/deliverables_public/D21.pdf

EuMon (2010) EU-wide monitoring methods and systems of surveillance for species and habitats of

Community interest - Monitoring programs (http://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring) Accessed May 2010

EuMon Database (2006) EU-wide monitoring methods and systems of surveillance for species and

habitats of Community interest (/http://eumon.ckff.si/) Accessed May 2010

Evans, D. 2005. Natura 2000 – completing the EU’s network of sites to conserve flora & fauna. Plant

Talk, 39, 22 –27.

Fauna Europaea Database (2010) Version 2.2 (http://www.faunaeur.org/, accessed July 2010)

FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 – Key findings. Forestry Department, Food

and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome

(http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra2010/KeyFindings-en.pdf) Accessed August 2010

Favreau, J.M., Drew, C.A., Hess, G.R., Rubino, M.J., Koch, F.H., Eschelbach, K.A. (2006)

Recommendations for assesing the effectiveness of surrogate species approaches. Bidiversity and

Conservation, 15, 3949-3969

Fitzpatrick, U. N. A., Murray, T. E., Paxton, R. J., Brown, M. J. F (2007) Building on IUCN regional red

lists to produce lists of species of conservation priority: a model with Irish bees. Conservation

Biology, 21, 1324–1332

Fleishman, E., Murphy, D.D., Brussard, P.E. (2000) A new method for selection of umbrella species

for conservation planning. Ecological Applications, 10 (2), 569-579

Freitag, S., Jaarsveld, A. S. V. (1997) Relative occupancy, endemism, taxonomic distinctiveness and

vulnerability: prioritizing regional conservation actions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 211–232

Gärdenfors, U. (2001) Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends Ecol

Evol, 16 (9), 511–516

D2.1-final.doc

61

GBO (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

Montreal, 94 pp

Geissler-Strobel, S., Trautner, J., Jooss, R., Hermann, G., Kaule, G. (2006) Informationssystem

Zielartenkonzept Baden-Württemberg. Ein Planungswerkzeug zur Berücksichtigung

tierökologischer Belange in der kommunalen Praxis. - Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 38

(12), 361-369.

GEO BON (2010) Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) -

Detailed Implementation Plan. Version 1.0 – 22 May 2010.

(http://earthobservations.org/documents/cop/bi_geobon/geobon_detailed_imp_plan.pdf) Accessed

June 2010

Genovesi, P., Shine, C. (2004) European strategy on invasive alien species – Convention on the

Conservation of European Wildlife and Habitats (Bern Convention). Nature and Environment, 137

http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/cop-09/bern-01-en.pdf

Gogolin, I., Smeyers P., Garcia Del Dujo, Rusch-Feja, D. (2003) European social Science Citation

Index: a chance for promoting European research? European Educational Research Journal, 2,

574–593

Gordon, J.E. (2006) The role of science in NGO mediated conservation: insights from a biodiversity

hotspot in Mexico. Environmental Science & Policy, 9 (6), 547-554

Gorham, E. (1991) Northern Peatlands – Role in the Carbon-Cycle and probable responses to climatic

warming. Ecological Applications, 1 (2), 182-195

Grace, J., Malhi, Y., Lloyd, J., McIntyre, J., Miranda, A.C., Meir, P., Miranda, H.S. (1996) The use of

eddy covariance to infer the net carbon dioxide uptake of Brazilian rain forest. Global Change

Biology, 2 (3), 209-217

Grant, F., Young, J., Bridgewater, P., and Watt, A.D. (Eds.). (2009) Targets for biodiversity beyond

2010: research supporting policy. Report of an e-conference.

http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/Final%20long%20report.pdf

Gregory, R. D., van Strien, A., Vorisek, P., Meyling, A. W. G., Noble, D. G., Foppen, R. P. B., Gibbons,

D. W. (2005). Developing indicators for European birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society B-Biological Sciences, 360, 269–288

Gruttke, H., Ludwig, G., Schnittler, M., Binot-Hafke, M., Fritzlar, F., Kuhn, J., Assmann, T., Brunken,

H., Denz, O., Detzel, P., Henle, K., Kuhlmann, M., Laufer, H., Matern, A., Meinig, H., Müller-

Motzfeld, G., Schütz, P., Voith, J., Welk, E. (2004a) Memorandum: Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands

für die weltweite Erhaltung von Arten. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, 8, 273-280

Gruttke, H. (2004b) Ermittlung der Verantwortlichkeit für die Erhaltung mitteleuropäischer Arten.

Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg

Hall, R.O., Dybdahl, M.F., VanderLoop, M.C. (2006) Extremely high secondary production of

introduced snails in rivers. Ecological Applications, 16 (3), 1121-1131

D2.1-final.doc

62

Harris, J.W., Woehler, E.J. (2004) Can the important bird area approach improve the antarctic

protected area system? Polar Record, 40, 97-105

Haslett, J.R., Berry, P.M., Jongman, R.H.G., Bela, G., Pataki, G., Samways, M., Zobel, M. (2010)

Changing conservation strategies in Europe: a framework integrating ecosystem services and

ecosystem dynamics. Biodiversity and Conservation, in press.

Heer, M., de Kapos, V., ten Brink, B.J.E. (2005) Biodiversity trends in Europe: development and

testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2010 target. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360, 297–308

Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken, D., Moritz, R.F.A.,

Niemelä, J., Rebane, M., Wascher, D., Watt, A., Young, J. (2008) Identifying and managing the

conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe – a review. Agric. Ecosyst.

Environm. 124, 60-71

Henry, P.-Y., Lengyel, S., Nowicki, P., Julliard, R., Clobert, J., Čelik, T., Gruber, B., Schmeller, D.S.,

Babij, V., Henle, K. (2008) Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and

methods. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3357-3382

Heyer, W.R., Donnelly, M.A., McDiarmid, R.W., Hayek, L.-A.C., Foster, M.S. (1994) Measuring and

Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington.

Hillebrand, H. (2004) On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. American Naturalist, 163

(2), 192-211

Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler) (2000) 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. – Gland/Cambridge

(IUCN): xviii + 61 pp.; http://www.redlist.org (Juni 2001).

Hiscock, K., Breckels, M. (2007) Marine Biodiversity Hotspots in the UK. A report identifying and

protecting areas for marine biodiversity. WWF UK.

Holtgrieve, G.W., Schindler, D.E., Jewett, P.K. (2009) Large predators and biogeochemical hotspots:

brown bear (Ursus arctos) predation on salmon alters nitrogen cycling in riparian soils. Ecological

Research, 24 (5), 1125-1135

IEEP (2007) Institute for European Environmental Policies: Technical support to EU strategy on

invasive alien species (ias).

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/Shine2008_IAS%20Task%202_Annexe

s%201-5.pdf

IUCN - World Conservation Union (1996) IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

IUCN - World Conservation Union (2001) IUCN red list categories and criteria. Version 3.1. IUCN,

Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

IUCN World Conservation Union (2010) IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

and Cambridge, United Kingdom. (http://www.iucnredlist.org/, accessed June 2010)

D2.1-final.doc

63

Jones, C.G., Lawton, J.H., Shachak, M. (1997) Positive and negative effects of organisms as physical

ecosystem engineers. Ecology, 78 (7), 1946-1957

Jiguet, F., Julliard, R. (2006) Inferences from common species communities for selecting conservation

areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 799-815.

Kaule, G. (1991) Arten- und Biotopschutz (2. Aufl.). Ulmer, Stuttgart.

Keller, V., Bollmann, K. (2001) For which bird species does Switzerland have a particular

responsibility? Fuer welche Vogelarten traegt die Schweiz eine besondere Verantwortung?

Ornithologische Beobachter, 98, 323–340

Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starfinger, U., ten Brink, P., Shine, C. (2008)

Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS) - Assessment of the impacts of IAS in

Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European

Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 44 pp. + Annexes.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/Kettunen2009_IAS_Task%201.pdf

Kimbro, D.L., Grosholz, E.D., Baukus, A.J., Nesbitt, N.J., Travis, N.M., Attoe, S., Coleman-Hulbert, C.

(2009) Invasive species cause large-scale loss of native California oyster habitat by disrupting

trophic cascade. Oecologia, 160 (3), 563-575

Kontoleon, A., Swanson, T. (2003) The willingness to pay for property rights for the giant panda: Can a

charismatic species be an instrument for nature conservation. Land Economics, 79 (4), 483-499

Kontula, T., Raunio, A. (2009) New method and criteria for national assessments of threatened habitat

types. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 3861-3876.

Kopaci, L. (1998) Implementation of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy.

Pp. 37-41 in Dömpke, S. & M. Succow (Eds.): Cultural Landscapes and Nature Conservation in

Northern Eurasia. Naturschutzbund Deutschland, AIDEnvironment & The Nature Conservation

Bureau, Bonn.

Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., Lebuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L.,

Potts, S.G., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vazquez, D., Winfree, L., Adams, E. E., Crone, S.

S., Greenleaf, T. H., Keitt, A., Klein, J., Regetz, R., Ricketts, T. (2007) Pollination and other

ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land

use change. Ecology Letters, 10, 299-314

Kull, T., Sammul, M., Kull, K., Lanno, K., Tali, K., Gruber, B., Schmeller, D.S., Henle, K. (2008)

Necessity and reality of monitoring threatened European vascular plants. Biodiversity and

Conservation, 17(14), 3338-3402

Langhans, S.D., Tiegs, S.D., Gessener, M.O., Trockner, K. (2008) Leaf-decomposition heterogeneity

across a riverine floodplain mosaic. Aquatic Sciences, 70 (3), 337-346

Laufer, H. (2007) Buchstaben-Schmuckschildkröte. Trachemys scripta (Schoepff, 1792), pp. 525-536

in Laufer, H., Fritz, K. Sowig, P. (eds.): Die Amphibien und Reptilien Baden-Württembergs. Ulmer,

Stuttgart.

D2.1-final.doc

64

Laufer, H., Waitzmann, M. (2007) Nordamerikanischer Ochsenfrosch. Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802,

pp. 501-510 in Laufer, H., Fritz, K. Sowig, P. (eds.): Die Amphibien und Reptilien Baden-

Württembergs. Ulmer, Stuttgart.

Lavelle, P., Bignell, D., Lepage, M., Wolters, V., Roger, P., Ineson, P., Heal, O.W., Dhillion, S. (1997)

Soil function in a changing world: the role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers. European Journal

of Soil Biology, 33 (4), 159-193

Lawton, J.H., Bignell, D.E., Bolton, B., Bloemers, G.F., Eggleton, P., Hammond, P.M., Hodda, M., Holt,

R.D., Larsen, T.B., Mawdsley, N.A., Stork, N.E., Srivastava, D.S., Watt, A.D. (1998) Biodiversity

inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature, 391 (6662),

72-76

Lecerf, A., Dobson, M., Dang, C.K., Chauvet, E. (2005) Riparian plant species loss alters trophic

dynamics in detritus-based stream ecosystems. Oecologia, 146 (3), 432-442

Lengyel, S., Déri, E., Varga, Z., Horváth, R., Tóthméresz, B., Henry, P.-Y., Kobler, A., Kutnar, L.,

Babij, V., Seliskar, A., Christia, C., Papasteriadou, E., Gruber, B., Henle, K. (2008) Habitat

monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 3327-

3339

Lilleleht, V. (1998) Red data book of Estonia. Threatened Fungi, Plants and Animals. Eesti Teaduste

Akadeemia, Looduskaitse Komisjon http://www.zbi.ee/punane/muu/saateks_e.html

Lindenmayer, D.B., Margules, C.R., Botkin, D.B. (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically

sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology, 14 (4), 941-950

Lodge, D.M., Shrader-Frechette, K. (2003) Nonindigenous species: Ecological explanation,

environmental ethics, and public policy. Conservation Biology, 17 (1), 31-37

Lovell, S., Hamer, M., Slotow, R., Herbert, D. (2007) Assessment of congruency across invertebrate

taxa and taxonomic levels to identify potential surrogates. Biological Conservation, 139, 113-125

Ludwig, G., Schnittler, M. (1996) Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Deutschlands. Schriften Reihe für

Vegetationskunde 28, pp 744

Mace, G., Delbaere, B., Hanski, I. et al (2005) A user’s guide to biodiversity indicators. Eur Acad Sci

Advis Counc. Available at http://www.leopoldina-

halle.de/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/leopoldina_downloads/biodiversity.pdf

Mace G.M., Baillie J.E.M. (2007) The 2010 biodiversity Indicators: Challenges for science and policy.

Conservation Biology, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1406-1413

Maes, D., van Dyck, H. (1996) Een gedocumenteerde Rode Lijst van de dagvlinders van Vlaanderen,

Belgium Instituut voor Natuurbehoud

Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405 (6783), 243–253

Margules, C.R., Nicholls, A.O., Pressey, R.L. (1988) Selecting networks of reserves to maximise

biological diversity. Biological Conservation, 43, 63-76

D2.1-final.doc

65

Mastepanov, M., Sigsgaard, C., Dlugokencky, E.J., Houweling, S., Strom, L., Tamstorf, M.P.,

Christensen, T.R. (2008) Large tundra methane burst during onset of freezing. Nature, 456 (7222),

628-U58

McKenna, J.E. (2003) Community metabolism during early development f a restored wetland.

Wetlands, 23 (1), 35-50

McKie, B.G., Malmquist, B. (2009) Assessing ecosystem functioning in streams affected by forest

management: increased leaf decomposition occurs without changes to the composition of benthic

assemblages. Freshwater Biology, 54, 2086-2100

MCPFE (2010) Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe

(http://www.foresteurope.org/eng/What_we_work_for/Legally_Binding_Agreement/) Accessed May

2010

Mehlman, D.W., Rosenberg, K. V., Wells, J. V., Robertson, B. (2004) A comparison of North American

avian conservation priority ranking systems. Biological Conservation, 120, 383–390

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for

assessment. Island Press.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press,

Washington DC.137 pp.

Moss, D. Davies, C.E. (2002a) Cross-references between the EUNIS habitat classification and the

nomenclature of CORINE Land Cover. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 49pp. (CEH Project

Number: C00389, http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/8686/2/MossN008686CR.pdf)

Moss, D., Davies, C.E. (2002b) Cross-referencesbetween the EUNIS habitat classification, lists of

habitats included in legislation, and other European habitat classifications. NERC/Centre for

Ecology & Hydrology, 176pp. (CEH Project Number: C00389,

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/8684/2/MossN008684CR.pdf)

Muller, J., Bussler, H., Gossner, M., Rettelbach, T., Duelli, P. (2008) The European spruce bark beetle

Ips typographus in a national park: from pest to keystone species. Biodiversity and Conservation,

17, 2979-3001

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity

hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858. (see also www.biodiversityhotspots.org –

accessed 27.5.2010).

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A. (2003) Impact and acceptance of the hotspot strategy: Response to

Ovadia and to Brummit and Lughadha. Conservation Biology, 17 (5), 1449-1450

Nawaz, M.A., Swenson, J.E., Zakaria, V. (2008) Pragmatic management increases a flagship species,

the Himalayan brown bears, in Pakistan’s Deosai National Park. Biological Conservation, 141,

2230-2241

Nentwig, W., Kühnel, E., Bacher, S. (2010) A generic impact-scoring system applied to alien mammals

in Europe. Conservation Biology, 302-311

D2.1-final.doc

66

NOBANIS (2010) The North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species.

(http://www.nobanis.org/default.asp, accessed July 2010)

Noges, P., van de Bund, W., Cardoso, A.C., Solimini, A.G., Heiskanen, A.S. (2009) Assessment of the

ecological status of European surface waters: a work in progress. Hydrobiologia, 633, 197-211

Noss, R.F. (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hiearchical approach. Conservation Biology,

4, 355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x

Ollinger, S.V., Smith, M.L. (2005) Net primary production and canopy nitrogen in a temperate forest

landscape: An analysis using imaging spectroscopy, modelling and field data. Ecosystems, 8, 760-

778

Ormerod, S.J., Durance, I., Terrier, A., Swanson, A.M. (2010) Priority wetland invertebrates as

conservation surrogates. Conservation Biology, 24, 573-582

Ozinga, W.A., Schaminée, J.H.J. (eds.) (2005) Target species – Species of European concern. A

database driven selection of plant and animal species for the implementation of the Pan European

Ecological Network. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-report 1119, 193 pp,

http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/ecorete/1119.pdf

Pain, D.J., Fishpool, L., Byaruhanga, A., Arinaitwe, J., Balmford, A. (2005) Biodiversity representation

in Uganda’s forest IBAs. Biological Conservation, 125(1), 133-138

PECBMS (2009) The State of Europe’s Common Birds 2008. CSO/RSPB, Prague, Czech Republic.

(http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/SECB2008.pdf?basket=59cba30ca5deab5ee6e064988eaaf

37d)

PEBLDS (2010) The Joint Secretariat of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity

Strategy (http://www.peblds.org/) Accessed May 2010

Petersen, A., Zöckler, C., Gunnarsdóttir, M.V. (2004) Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program –

Framework Document. CAFF CBMP Report No. 1. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri,

Iceland. 46 pp

Postel, L., Arndt, E.A., Brenning, U. (1995) Restock Zooplankton Studies off West-Africa. Helgolander

Meeresuntersuchungen, 49 (1-4), 829-847

Pyke, C.R., Thomas, R., Porter, R.D., Hellmann, J.J., Dukes, J.S., Lodge, D.M., Chavarria, G. (2008)

Current practices and future opportunities for policy on climate change and invasive species.

Conservation Biology, 22 (3), 585-592

Rabalais, N.N., Turner, R.E., Wiseman, W.J. (2002) Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, aka “ The dead zone”.

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33, 235-263

Ramsar (2008) Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands

of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) - Third edition, as

adopted by Resolution VII.11 (COP7, 1999) and amended by Resolutions VII.13 (1999), VIII.11

and VIII.33 (COP8, 2002), IX.1 Annexes A and B (COP9, 2005), and X.20 (COP10, 2008)

(http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/key_guide_list2009_e.pdf) Accessed May 2010

D2.1-final.doc

67

Ramsar (2009) Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/ramsar/display/main/main.jsp?zn=ramsar&cp=1-31-

38^20671_4000_0__

Reck, H. (2003) Das Zielartenkonzept: Ein integrativer Ansatz zur Erhaltung der biologischen Vielfalt?

In: H. Wiggering AND F. Müller (ed.): Umweltziele und Indikatoren - Wissenschaftliche

Anforderungen an ihre Festlegung und Fallbeispiele, pp. 311-343, Springer

Ridder, R.M. (2007) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 – Options and Recommendations for

a Global Remote Sensing Survey of Forests. Working Paper 141, Forestry Department, Food and

Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Riecken, U., Ries, U., Ssymank, A. (1994) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland. Schriftenreihe fuer Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, Heft 41, Kilda Verlag

Riecken, U., Finck, P., Raths, U., Schroeder, E., Ssymank, A. (2006) Rote Liste der gefährdeten

Biotoptypen Deutschlands – Zweite fortgeschriebene Fassung. Naturschutz und Biologische

Vielfalt 34, pp 318.

Rodrigues, A.S.L., Akcakaya, H.R., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., Chanson,

J.S., Fishpool, L.D.C., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Hoffmann, M., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim,

J.D., Pressey, R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts,

M.E.J., Yan, X. (2004) Global gap analysis: Priority regions for expanding the global protected area

network. Bioscience, 54 (12), 1092-1100

Rössler, M. (1998) Landscapes in the framework of the World Heritage Convention and other

UNESCO instruments and programmes. Pp. 24-32 in Dömpke, S. & M. Succow (Eds.): Cultural

Landscapes and Nature Conservation in Northern Eurasia. Naturschutzbund Deutschland,

AIDEnvironment & The Nature Conservation Bureau, Bonn.

Rusek, J. (1998) Biodiversity of Collembola and their functional role in the ecosystem. Biodiversity and

Conservation, 7 (9), 1207-1219

Sanders, N.J., Gotelli, N.J., Heller, N.E., Gordon, D.M. (2003) Community disassembly by an invasive

species. PNAS, 100 (5), 2474-2477

Sandler, R. (2010) The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted colonization.

Conservation Biology, 24 (2), 424-431

Schadler, M., Jung, G., Auge, H., Brandl, R. (2003) Palatability, decomposition and insect herbivory:

patterns in a successional old-field plant community. Oikos, 103 (1), 121-132

Scheu, S. (2003) Effects of earthworms on plant growth: patterns and perspectives. Pedobiologia, 47

(5-6), 846-856

Schime,l D.S. (1995) Terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon-cycle. Global Change Biology, 1 (1), 77-

91

Schmeller, D.S., Henry, P.-Y., Julliard, R., Clobert, J., Gruber, B., Dziock, F., Lengyel, S., Nowicki, P.,

Déri, E., Budrys, E., Kull, T., Tali, K., Bauch, B., Settele, J., van Swaay, C., Kobler, A., Babij, V.,

D2.1-final.doc

68

Papastergiadou, E., Henle, K. (2008a) Advantages of Volunteer-Based Biodiversity Monitoring in

Europe. Conservation Biology, 23 (2), 307–316

Schmeller (2008) European species and habitat monitoring: where are we now? Biodiversity and

Conservation, 17, 3321-3326

Schmeller, D.S., Gruber, B., Budrys, E., Framstad, E., Lengyel, S., Henle, K. (2008b) National

Responsibilities in European Species Conservation: a Methodological Review. Conservation

Biology, 22, 593-601

Schmeller, D.S., Gruber, B., Bauch, B., Lanno, K., Budrys, E., Babij, V., Juskaitis, R., Sammul, M.,

Varga, Z., Henle, K. (2008c) Determination of national conservation responsibilities for species

conservation in regions with multiple political jurisdictions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3607-

3622

Schmeller, D.S., Bauch, B., Gruber, B., Juskaitis, R., Budrys, E., Babij, V., Lanno, K., Sammul, M.,

Varga, Z., Henle, K. (2008d) Determination of conservation priorities in regions with multiple

political jurisdictions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3623-3630

Scholz, M., S. Stab, F. Frank, K. Henle (2005) Lebensräume der Elbe und ihrer Auen (Band 4 in

Konzepte für die nachhaltige Entwicklung einer Flusslandschaft). Weißensee-Verlag, Berlin.

Scholz, M., Henle, K., Dziock, F., Stab, S., Foeckler, F.(2009) Entwicklung von Indikationssystemen

am Beispiel der Elbaue. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

Scurlock, J.M.O., Johnson, K., Olson, R.J. (2002) Estimating net primary productivity from grassland

biomass dynamics measurements. Global Change Biology, 8 (8), 736-753

SEBI (2006) SEBI 2010 Biodiversity Indicators

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/sebi_full.pdf) Accessed May

2010

SEBI (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor

progress in Europe. EEA Technical Report No 11/2007

Shine, C., Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S. & Starfinger, U. (2009a) Technical

support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS) – Policy options to control the negative impacts of

IAS on biodiversity in Europe and the EU. Final report for the European Commission. Institute for

European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/Shine2009_IAS%20Task%203.pdf

Shine, C., Kettunen, M., ten Brink, P., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S. (2009b) Technical support to EU

strategy on invasive alien species (IAS) - Recommendations on policy options to minimise the

negative impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity in Europe and the EU. Final Report for

the European Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussles, Belgium.

35 pp.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/Shine2009_IAS_Final%20report.pdf

D2.1-final.doc

69

Sinclair, A.R.E., Krebs, C.J., Fryxell, J.M., Turkington, R., Boutin, S., Boonstra, R., Seccombe-Hett, P.,

Lundberg, P., Oksanen, L. (2000) Testing hypothesis of trophic level interactions: a boreal forest

ecosystems. Oikos, 89 (2), 313-328

Sinclair, A.R.E., Mduma, S., Brashares, J.S. (2003) Patterns of predation in a diverse predator-prey

system. Nature, 425, 288-290

Sindaco, R. (2005) Erpetofauna italiana: dai dati corologici alla conservazione. Pages 679–695 in R.

Sindaco, E. Razzetti, G. Doria, and F. Bernini, editors. Atlante degli Anfibi e dei rettili D’Italia (Atlas

of Italian Amphibians and Reptilians). Societas Herpetologica Italica and Polistampa, Firenze, Italy.

Sitch, S., McGuire, A.D., Kimball, J., Gedney, N., Gamon, J., Engstrom, R., Wolf, A., Zhuang, Q.,

Clein, J., McDonald, K.C. (2007) Assessing the carbon balance of circumpolar Arctic tundra using

remote sensing and process modelling. Ecological Applications, 17 (1), 213-234

Stachowitz, J.J., Fried, H., Osman, R.W. Whitlatch, R.B. (2002) Biodiversity, invasion resistance, and

marine ecosystem function: Reconciling pattern and process. Ecology, 83 (9), 2575-2590

Steffan-Dewenter, I., Potts, S.G., Packer, L. (2005) Pollinator diversity and crop pollination services

are at risk. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 651-652.

Steinicke, H., Henle, K, Gruttke, H. (2002): Bewertung der Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands für die

Erhaltung von Amphibien- und Reptilienarten. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn.

Strenger-Kovacs, C., Buczko, K., Hajnal, E., Padisak, J. (2007) Epiphytic, littoral diatoms as

bioindicators of shallow lake trophic status: Trophic Diatom Index for Lakes (TDIL) developed in

Hungary. Hydrobiologia, 589, 141-154

Succow, M., Jeschke, L. (1986) Moore in der Landschaft: Entstehung, Haushalt, Lebewelt,

Verbreitung, Nutzung und Erhaltung der Moore. 1. Auflage, Thun, Frankfurt/Main 1986, ISBN 3-

87144-954-7

Temple, H.J., Cox, N.A. (2009) European Red List of Amphibians. Luxembourg: Office for Official

Publications of the European Communities.

Tietjen B., Huth A. (2006) Modelling dynamics of managed tropical rainforest – an aggregated

approach. Ecological Modelling, 199 (4), 421-432

Traxler, A., Minarz, E., Englisch, T., Fink, B., Zechmeister, H., Essl, F. (2005) Rote Liste der

gefährdeten Biotoptypen Österreichs. Moore, Sümpfe und Quellfluren, Hochgebirgsrasen,

Polsterfluren, Rasenfragmente und Schneeböden. Umweltbundesamt, Monographien, Band 174

Tucker, G. M., Heath, M. F. (1994) Birds in Europe: their conservation status. Birdlife International,

Cambridge, United Kingdom.

van Swaay, C.A.M., Warren, M. S. (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera).

Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

van Swaay, C.A.M., Nowicki, P., Settele, J., van Strien, A.J. (2008a) Butterfly monitoring in Europe:

methods, applications and perspectives. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3455-3469

van Swaay, C.A.M., Van Strien, A.J., Julliard, R., Schweiger, O., Brereton, T., Heliölä, J., Kuussaari,

M., Roy, D., Stefanescu, C., Warren, M.S. Settele, J. (2008b) Developing a methodology for a

D2.1-final.doc

70

European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator. Report VS2008.040, De Vlinderstichting,

Wageningen.

Warren, M.S., Barnett, L.K., Gibbons, D.W., Avery, M.I. (1997) Assessing national conservation

priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biological Conservation, 82, 317–328

Wascher, D.M. (2000a) "Methodological approaches", in CoE, ECNC (2000) The Face of Europe.

Policy Perspectives for European Landscape, Dirk M. Wascher (Editor), Tilburg

Wascher, D.M. (ed.) (2000b) Agri-environmental Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture. Report from

the EU Concerted Action Project FAIR5-PL97-3448. European Centre for Nature Conservation,

Tilburg, 200 pp

Watt, A.D., Bradshaw, H.W., Young, J., Alard, D., Bolger, T., Chamberlain, D., Fernández-González,

F., Fuller, R., Gurrea, P., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Korsós, Z., Lavelle, P., Niemelä, J., Nowicki, P.,

Rebane, M., Scheidegger, C., Sousa, J.P, van Swaay, C., Vanbergen, A. (2007) Trends in

biodiversity in Europe and the impact of land-use change. S. 135-160 in Hester, R.E. & R.M.

Harrison: Biodiversity under Threat. The Royal Society of Chemistry, London.

Winter, S, Jantsch, M., Raab B. (2010) Ermittlung von Important Plant Areas in Deutschland. Ein

Methodentest im Landkreis Donau-Ries, Bayern. Natur und Landschaft 85 (3): 105-110.

Wright, J.P., Jones, C.G., Flecker, A.S. (2002) An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species

richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia, 132 (1), 96-101

WWF (2008) Living Planet Report 2008. WWF International, Gland, 48 pp

Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Laczko, E.,

McCracken, D., Matouch, S., Niemela, J., Richards, C. (2005) Towards sustainable land use:

identifying and managing conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in

Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 1641-1661.

Zharikov, Y., Milton, D.A. (2009) Valuing coastal habitats: predicting high-tide roosts of non-breeding

migratory shorebirds from landscape composition. EMU, 109 (2), 107-120

10 ANNEX

10.1 ANNEX I List of European and international biodiversity (related) conventions and directives with and without explicit priority lists for species and/or habitats.

For a summary table of priority species in European Conventions and Directives please sea the Document “List of Priority Species_July2010.xls” attached to this

report

Conventions Priority List? Internet Links (accessed July 2010)

Habitats Directive Yes http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:NOT

Birds Directive Yes http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:020:0007:0025:EN:PDF

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm

Appendix I: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/FR/Treaties/Html/104-1.htm

Appendix II: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/FR/Treaties/Html/104-2.htm Bern Convention Yes

Appendix III: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/FR/Treaties/Html/104-3.htm

Only broad classes (Phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, macro invertebrates, fish) Water Framework Convention No See Annex V on Monitoring:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:327:0001:0072:EN:PDF

CMS Yes Appendices I & II (March 2009): http://www.cms.int/pdf/en/CMS1_Species_5lng.pdf

CITES Yes Appendices I, II & III: http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

Ramsar No

But see table “Criteria for the designation of Wetlands of International Importance” http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-guidelines-strategic-framework-and/main/ramsar/1-31-105%5E20823_4000_0__ http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/ris/key_ris_criterion9_2006.pdf

D2.1-final.doc

71

D2.1-final.doc

72

Conventions Priority List? Internet Links (accessed July 2010)

Alpine Convention No But see on resources to be used for landscape inventories: http://www.alpconv.org/NR/rdonlyres/529579D0-B214-46A1-B52D-14097E0CF59B/0/protokoll_naturschutzGB.pdf But indirect through Carpathian List of Endangered Species: http://www.carpates.org/docs/publications/list.indd.pdf Carpathian Convention No See Article 12: http://www.carpathianconvention.org/text.htm

European Landscape Convention No http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm

PEBLDS No http://www.peblds.org/index.php?ido=20514351&lang=eng

Barcelona Convention Yes Annex II of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean: http://195.97.36.231/dbases/webdocs/BCP/ProtocolSPA9596_eng_p.pdf

OSPAR Yes OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (Reference Number: 2008-6): http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00730302240000_000000_000000 HELCOM Red List of threatened and declining species of lampreys and fishes of the Baltic Sea: http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/Publications/Proceedings/bsep109.pdf Under development for further species groups: http://www.helcom.fi/projects/on_going/en_GB/RedLists/

Helcom Yes

http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=103186&folderId=1056017&name=DLFE-41446.pdf

D2.1-final.doc

73

10.2 ANNEX II Overview on assessments of national responsibilities in European countries. 1Zulka et al. 2001; 2Essl et al. 2002;

3Gruttke et al. 2004; 4Sindaco et al. 2005; 5Varga, (unpublished data); 6EuMon 2007; 7Keller & Bollmann 2001; 8Avery et al. 1994; 9Gregory et al. 2005; 10Warren et al. 1997

Austria Germany Italy Hungary Slovenia Switzerland UK

Mammals x1

Birds x1 x7 x8, 9

Amphibians x1 x3 x4 x6

Reptiles x1 x3 x4 x6

Fish x1

Butterflies x1 x10

Insects x1

Other invertebrates

x1 x6

Plants x5 x6

Other x1

Habitats x2

Avery, M., Gibbons, D. W., Porter, R., Tew, T. Tucker, G., Williams, G. (1994) Revising the British Red Data List

for birds: the biological basis of UK conservation priorities. Ibis, 137, 232–239.

Essl, F., Egger, G., Ellmauer, T (2002) Rote Liste gefährdeter Biotoptypen Österreichs – Konzept.. Wien,

Monographien, Band 155

EuMon (2007) D21: Revised and tested methodology (extended) for the assessment of national responsibilities for

species and habitats of Community interest. http://eumon.ckff.si/deliverables_public/D21.pdf

Gregory, R.D., van Strien, A., Vorisek, P., Meyling, A.W.G., Noble, D.G., Foppen, R.P.B., Gibbons, D.W. (2005)

Developing indicators for European birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological

Sciences 360:269–288.

Gruttke, H., Ludwig, G., Schnittler, M., Binot-Hafke, M., Fritzlar, F., Kuhn, J., Assmann, T., Brunken, H., Denz, O.,

Detzel, P., Henle, K., Kuhlmann, M., Laufer, H., Matern, A., Meinig, H., Müller-Motzfeld, G., Schütz, P., Voith,

J., Welk, E. (2004) Memorandum: Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands für die weltweite Erhaltung von Arten.

Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, 8, 273-280.

D2.1-final.doc

74

Keller, V., Bollmann, K. (2001) For which bird species does Switzerland have a particular responsibility? Fuer

welche Vogelarten traegt die Schweiz eine besondere Verantwortung? Ornithologische Beobachter 98:323–

340.

Schmeller, D.S., Gruber, B., Bauch, B., Lanno, K., Budrys, E., Babij, V., Juskaitis, R., Sammul, M., Varga, Z.,

Henle, K. (2008b) Determination of national conservation responsibilities for species conservation in regions

with multiple political jurisdictions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3607-3622

Sindaco, R. (2005) Erpetofauna italiana: dai dati corologici alla conservazione. Pages 679–695 in R. Sindaco, E.

Razzetti, G. Doria, and F. Bernini, editors. Atlante degli Anfibi e dei rettili D’Italia (Atlas of Italian Amphibians

and Reptilians). Societas Herpetologica Italica and Polistampa, Firenze, Italy.

Warren, M.S., Barnett, L.K., Gibbons, D.W., Avery, M.I. (1997) Assessing national conservation priorities: an

improved red list of British butterflies. Biological Conservation, 82, 317–328

Zulka, K.P., Eder, E., Höttinger, H., Weigand, E. (2001) Grundlagen zur Fortschreibung der Roten Liste

gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Wien, Monographien, Band 135

10.3 ANNEX III

A B

C D

Figure 1 Distribution of species monitoring schemes in Europe based on data from DaEuMon. A) All species groups; B) birds; C) butterflies; D) plants. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

75

A

C

B

D

Figure 2 Distribution of species monitoring schemes with a national or international geographic scope applying stratified, systematic, random or exhaustive sampling in Europe based on data from DaEuMon. A) All species groups; B) birds; C) butterflies; D) plants. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

76

A

C

B

D

Figure 3 Distribution of species monitoring schemes with a national or international geographic scope applying stratified, systematic, random or exhaustive sampling and accounting for detection probability in Europe based on data from DaEuMon. A) All species groups; B) birds; C) butterflies; D) plants. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

77

A

C

B

D

Figure 4 Distribution of habitat monitoring schemes in Europe based on data from DaEuMon: A) all habitat groups; B) forests; C) coastal and halophytic; D) natural and semi-natural grassland formations. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

78

A

C

B

D

Figure 5 Distribution of habitat monitoring schemes with a national or international geographic scope in Europe based on data from DaEuMon. A) All habitat groups; B) forests; C) coastal and halophytic; D) natural and semi-natural grassland formations. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

79

A

C

B

D

Figure 6 Distribution of habitat monitoring schemes with a national or international geographic scope and a stratified sampling design or systematic, random or exhaustive sampling in Europe based on data from DaEuMon. A) All habitat groups; B) forests; C) coastal and halophytic; D) natural and semi-natural grassland formations. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

80

A

C

B

D

Figure 7 Distribution of habitat monitoring schemes with a national or international geographic scope and a stratified sampling design or systematic, random or exhaustive sampling and with an experimental design in Europe based on data from DaEuMon. A) All habitat groups; B) forests; C) coastal and halophytic; D) natural and semi-natural grassland formations. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010.

D2.1-final.doc

81

10.4 ANNEX IV Overview of national and international habitat monitoring schemes in Europe. n.s.: not specified. Source: EuMon database; http://eumon.ckff.si/biomat/1.2.php; accessed June 2010

D2.1-final.doc

82

D2.1-final.doc

83

10.5 ANNEX V Recommended list of topically prioritized species. The table shows the Annexes and Appendices of International Biodiversity Conventions or policies and lists of European habitats and species that were assigned to one of four levels of priority. These levels are divided into (+), (for level I this means priority species and habitats of the Habitats Directive, marked with *, for level II to IV this means species and habitats for which Europe has a high to very high responsibility), and (-) (for level I this means all other species and habitats and for level II to IV species and habitats for which Europe has a medium to basic responsibility).

Level Topically and spatially prioritized species and habitats Approximate

number of species

I(+) Habitats Directive Annex I + II „priority“ habitats and species

Birds Directive Annex I

Habitats Directive Annex I + II

I(-)

Bern Convention Appendix I + II

1800 – 1900 species,

233 habitat types

BD Annex II A, II B, III A, III B

HD Annex IV, V

BC Appendix III

SEBI Indicator Species

European Red List CR or EN

CITES Annex I (European species)

CMS Annex I (European species)

II(+) / II(-)

forests, coastal and halophytic habitats and natural and semi-

natural grassland formations (highest potential for integration in

Europe-wide monitoring)

1000 – 1100 species

CITES Annex II (European species)

CITES Annexes (invasive species)

CMS Annex II (European species)

European Red List VU

III(+) / III(-)

All habitats excluding constructed, industrial, or artificial ones that

are not included in level I or level II l

150 – 200 species

IV(+) / IV(-) all other species invasive to Europe / all other European species

D2.1-final.doc

84

D2.1-final.doc

85