Dealing with change in Article 17 reporting Douglas Evans European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity

Context The 2007-2012 Article 17 report will be the second report but the first in which an assessment of change in conservation status is possible. Therefore it is necessary to consider how changes will be detected and presented and to ensure that the appropriate tools are ready in time

Target 1 of the 2020 Strategy is clearly linked to Article 17 reporting “To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: (i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.”

Identifying ‘real’ change For Range, Population & Habitat for species Member States are asked to indicate if reported change is due to Genuine change More accurate data Change in methodology This information is essential !

For regional assessments ? Use weighting as for regional assessments? For example by area Reason for Change Habitat Area (%) MS 1 a = genuine change 50 MS 2 c = use of a different method 30 MS 3 b = improved knowledge/more accurate data 20 At least 50% change ‘real’

What if a MS notes 2 or more reasons for a single change ?

Possible Presentation

Presenting progress to Target 1 701 assessments, Target is 34% (=238 assessments) N° Habitat Assessments FV U2>U1 +ve trends 2001-2006 119 - 17% 2007-2012 130 5 20 22% 2013 -2018 160 50 37% Should XX to FV be included ?

2007-12 2013-18 34% target 34% target

Making use of ‘Qualifiers’ (parameters & overall assessments) Little used in 2001-2006, hopefully will be more widely used for 2007- 2012 Will indicate progress even if few changes in class

Strength of change Score changes (+1 for positive change, -1 for a negative change ?) Large positive score would suggest improvement underway

Some questions

Changes due to EU Enlargement For regions which occur in Bulgaria & Romania should we also make regional assessments for the EU25 in order to make comparison ? Would be for Alpine, Continental & Pannonic regions Would increase work for ETC/BD

Should we revise 2001-2006 assessments before examining change ? Assessed as U1 for the Continental region using ‘N° of grids’ for weighting If 2007-20012 report allows use of population for weighting, should we reassess 2001-2006 before examining changes ? Cerambyx cerdo

Need to clarify ideas before we can start to develop necessary tools

Comments please ….