Reporting under the Birds and Habitats Directive
Angelika Rubin & Danny Charbonneau, DG Environment, European Commission
Presentation – Overview Context
Natura 2000
Conservation Status
Two “pillars”
The Nature Directives
Challenges
Some results
The 2007 report
What is required and why?
Reporting under Art.17
The next reporting cycle
Expert Group on Reporting
Outlook
Context
To steer (biodiversity) policy, to support political decision
We need to have good information on the state of biodiversity
To know whether conservation efforts are successful, targets are reached (e.g. 2010 & 2020 target)
Assessing the effectiveness of these instruments is crucial
The Birds & the Habitats Directive are central instruments of EU biodiversity policy
Monitoring and Reporting become more and more important in the policy cycle
Legislation: The Nature Directives
The EU’s policy on nature conservation consists of two legal instruments:
The Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of wild birds (april 1979) -- Birds Directive The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (may 1992) -- Habitats Directive
Species & habitats protection provisions – valid on all territory / sea of a MS Site protection provisions – Natura 2000
Two pillars to the Habitats Directive:
Over 220 habitat types (Annex I) & over 1.000 species of Community interest (Annex II, IV, V) + all european wild birds "all areas that are protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives form an ecological network known as NATURA 2000. The main purpose of this network is to maintain or restore the habitats and species at a favourable (good) conservation status (FCS) in their natural range".
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/index_en.htm
Favourable Conservation Status - Definition
(part of Art.1)
range and areas covered stable or increasing
Natural habitat types: natural
species are in FCS
specific structure and functions necessarily exist and are likely to exist for the foreseeable future typical
Species: dynamics - viable over the long-term large habitat
range not reduced
population natural sufficiently
Concept is not restricted to Natura 2000 sites
What is required by “Art.17 Reporting”?
Implementation / progress reporting under the Habitats Directive: “Is the directive working?” Relevant provisions: Art.11: obligation to survey the conservation status of habitats/species
Member States: information concerning the conservation measures (Art. 6.1) as well as evaluation of their impact on the conservation status of habitat types (Annex I) and species (Annex II) and the main results of the surveillance referred to in Article 11.
Art.17: implementation report every 6 years
The Commission: composite report , which shall include an appropriate evaluation of the progress achieved and, in particular, of the contribution of Natura 2000 to the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 3.
Art.17 reporting periods (Habitats Dir.)
Main focus
Progress in legal transposition & establishing Natura 2000
National report (EU synthesis)
1994-2000
2001 (2003/4)
First assessment of conservation status of habitat types & species
Reporting period
2001-2006
2007 (2009)
Renewed assessment of conservation status & assessment of Natura 2000 impact
→ input 2010
2007-2012
2013 (2014/15)
The reporting format & guidelines (2007)
Reports on species & habitat types
General report
Reporting format agreed in April 2005 in Habitats Committee
Detailed guidelines provided by ETC/BD
Principle: MS to provide data (range, population, area, trends, pressures & threats, including maps) & assessments on species and habitat types on a biogeographical level
Internet-based reporting tool developed by ETC/EEA (within EIONET)
Biogeographical regions – EU25 (7+4)
Assessing conservation status
Species
Range (FRV)
Habitat types
Parameters used
3+1 classes (“traffic-light system”)
Range (FRV)
Method developed based on definitions given in directive
Includes “favourable reference values”
Future prospects
Specific structures & functions; typical species
Area covered by habitat type (FRV) Habitat for the species
Population (FRV)
Assessment unit: biogeographic regions in MS – allowing for biogeographic evaluation on EU-level Harmonised approach: agreed matrix
Future prospects
≼ favourable reference population and population structure normal
Stable or increasing and ≼ favourable reference range
Favourable status
Not qualifying for red or green
Not qualifying for red or green
Not qualifying for red or green
Inadequate status
Severe influence of pressures and threats, bad prospects re. long-term viability
Area of habitat clearly insufficient or habitat quality not allowing longterm survival
Large decline (> 1% per year*) or more than 25% below f.r.p. or pop.struct. strongly deviating from normal
Large decline (> 1% per year*) or more than 10% below f.r.r.
Bad status
Pressures and threats not significant, long-term viability ensured
Habitat sufficiently large and habitat quality suitable for long-term survival
Not qualifying for red or green
Example: Evaluation matrix for species - simplified
Code: xxxx
Range Population Habitat for species Future prospects
*within period specified by MS
Publicly available but presentation in reportnet Summary of data from each MS
Report to Council & Parliament – Published on 13th July 2009
Composite Report by the Commission
EU-level analysis. Conservation status results online (MS & EUlevel)
Technical Report by ETC/BD (web-based)
National Summaries
Member State reports
What are the “products” of the process?
What is special about this process?
Results in unique pool of information from EU25 (next EU27)
A substantial effort from MS in mobilising expertise and data
This reporting:
Milestone to identify gaps in knowledge = additional efforts in monitoring
A quantum leap: from process reporting to outcome & results
Data and information – even if not perfect – opens the way to (finally) start understanding what is going well / so-so / wrong and why
Caution in drawing conclusions…
Further analysis possible
Limitations due to data quality
A baseline about conservation status is now (finally!) available
In conclusion…
What needs to be improved High number of 'unknowns', mainly for species Marine species & habitats: the big ‘dark’ blue Trends & trend magnitude: very little reported – next reporting round: strong focus on trends
Quality of data needs improvement: very little is coming from monitoring Further harmonisation & standardisation needed
A glimpse on the EU-level results – “trafficlight” legend favourable unfavourable-inadequate unfavourable-bad unknown
Results - species
Results - habitat types
Percentages relate to the number of assessments on biogeographical level
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Species by biogeogaphical regions BOR (174) MAC (171) ALP (358) PAN (214) MED (652) CON (338) ATL (230)
MATL (34) MMAC (33) MMED (32) MBAL (4) 0%
80%
90%
100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Groups of habitat types rocky habitats (64)
sclerophyllous scrub (32)
forest (181)
heath & scrub (36)
freshwater habitats (84)
coastal habitats (84)
bogs, mires & fens (56)
grasslands (102)
dunes habitats (62)
0%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Some specific analysis
0%
7%
52%
Habitats dependant on agriculture (204 assessments)
13%
4%
24%
21%
30%
Habitats not dependant on agriculture (497 assessments)
1% 13%
5%
30%
Message: Health-check for EU habitats and species shows - More efforts are needed
EU Member States have, for the first time, systematically assessed the conservation status (BIG effort)
Only a small proportion of the habitats and species are in a favourable status.
In some cases where trends are already positive, more time is needed to achieve good status
The findings highlight the critical importance of conservation actions and the need to urgently intensify efforts
Outlook: Streamlining Reporting under the nature directives
Objective: Streamline & modernise data-flows under the nature directives, incl. Natura 2000. This involves…
Switch to e-Reporting (e.g. reportnet under EIONET)
Synchronisation of reporting cycles, merging of reports
Standardisation of required content / data (INSPIRE for spatial data)
Ensure links between different data-flows & others Develop ideas for presentation of the data and their analysis to a wide range of users
New Expert Group (MS & stakeholders), much work done in sub-groups under the various work-packages
•
•
•
•
•
•
Develop vision for the presentation & access to data;
Improve notification procedure on compensatory measures under Art. 6.4 (HD);
Finalise HaBides (derogation reporting);
Revision of dataflow re. Natura 2000 sites (+updating SDF);
Find methods for the evaluation of Natura 2000 impact (as part of progress reporting);
Align (merge) progress reporting under both directives;
Review of the Art.17 (HD) reporting exercise 2001-2006;
Reporting WG - 7 work-packages:
•
rk Wo
es gr ro P in
Reviewing Art.17 reporting (WP1) General report threats & pressures population units range & distribution maps
Harmonisation of data
favourable reference values structure & functions suitable habitat for a species future prospects typical species
Improve definition of concepts
Review dataflow and QA/QC: web tool, validation, etc. Outcome: revised format & guidelines for 2013
s!
Challenges for the next report in 2013
Data should come from established monitoring systems The knowledge gap must be reduced! More coherent & comparable results More focus on trend information
Discussion in Expert Working Group (WP3)
How to assess the impacts of Natura 2000 on conservation status?
Monitoring results from the Natura 2000 network – effect of measures, updating SDFs
Documents, presentations & more‌ Composite Report Art.17
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2009&T3=358&RechType
CIRCA - Reporting and the nature directives
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/home ETC/BD technical report, detailed results
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 Nature & Biodiversity homepage
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm
Thank you for your attention!