Follow up of Article 17 Report CGBN Co-ordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature 6th meeting – 16/10/09 Agenda item 4.B Follow up of Article 17 Report

Introduction 13. July 2009: "Composite Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive“ - COM(2009) 358 final First systematic assessment of conservation status Only 17% of the biogeographic assessments give a favourable status for both habitat types and species

What now? What could/should be the follow up of the Art.17 on national / biogeographic / EU level? In-depth review of the Art.17 Reporting Method Develop methods to assess the impact of the Natura 2000 network on conservation status Fill data gaps - improve monitoring Stepping up implementation efforts in Member States Further assessments Specific EU-support to priority measures Define Targets

1. In-depth review of the Art.17 Reporting Conservation status assessment shall be repeated in 2013 Issues found in 1st reporting round to be solved in work-package (WP1) of the Expert Group on Reporting This includes harmonisation of data better definition of certain concepts improved guidelines on marine habitats/species and a better use of ‘trends’-information Result: improved/revised reporting format and guidelines

2. Methods to assess the impact of Natura 2000 on conservation status Judge the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network Focus on conservation status of habitat types and species Dealt with in work package 3 (WP3) under the Expert Group on Reporting First sub-group meeting: on 24 September 2009, defining questions & main parameters 2013 reports of Member States to include an assessment of the conservation measures for Natura 2000

3. Fill data gaps - improve monitoring Severe lack of data and monitoring efforts; also insufficient use of existing monitoring / data it is vital that in future sufficient resources are invested in well designed monitoring systems Especially problematic: marine habitats and marine species LIFE+ programme can support demonstration measures re. monitoring. Trans-national projects are particularly encouraged

Percentage of “unknown” overall assessment

4. Stepping up implementation efforts in Member States Primary message from Art.17 report: “We have to do more” The report points to certain habitat types which are under greatest threat: Grasslands (affected strongly by unsustainable agricultural practices or abandonment of land) Wetlands Coastal habitats A better integration between e.g. agricultural policies, land-use policies and nature conservation seems more pressing than ever.

5. Further assessments The ETC has made a first analysis of the data in its technical report More analysis of this valuable dataset is possible (partly data are already used in EEA's work e.g. on biodiversity and ecosystems assessment) Member States are encouraged to give ideas on what type of analysis they would consider useful.

Use of Art 17 data - examples in evaluations of Natura network / biogeographic process (as one source of data) results used in preparation of thematic “10 messages for 2010” e.g. indicating species/habitat types vulnerable on climate change study on otter – Art 17 distribution is used together with SCI designations & rivers in Europe from EEA data source specific query for ‘Remote sensing project’ on how many MS has used ‘remote sensing data’ on Art 17 reporting on certain habitat type

6. Specific EU-support to priority measures LIFE+ programme is a targeted instrument to support project measures for improving the conservation status First species action plans (SAPs) for Habitats Directive species are under way to improve and support European cooperation. Alytes obstetricans (midwife toad) Colias myrmidone (Danube clouded yellow) Spermophilus citellus (European ground squirrel) Should action plans on particular habitat types be considered - a new strategic approach to action planning?

7. Define Targets Post-2010 debate: visions and targets are currently discussed As a regular status and trend assessment, the Art.17 reporting could be used to propose sub-targets. Member States are encouraged to give their ideas and suggestions.

Key question to Member States Which particular needs do you see for following up the Art.17 report on… …national level? …biogeographic level? …EU level? Thank you for your attention