European Biodiversity Monitoring and the reporting according to Art 17 Gerald Dick, WWF for the European Habitats Forum

European Habitats Forum (EHF) Founded in 1991, EHF enables close co-operation between 14 NGO networks at the European level EHF provides input and advice to DG Environment & focuses on biodiversity policy, the establishment of Natura 2000 and implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives EU benefits from the input of NGOs, active at the local level , particularly relating to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. The EHF meets with DG Environment twice a year after the Habitats Committee meetings and provides a co-ordinated means of communication between DG Environment and European nature conservation NGOs.

Background of Report The Habitats Directive has a six-year cycle for reporting Second report now covers 2001 and 2006. First assessment of conservation status for all species and habitats of Community interest. This is not limited to the Natura 2000 network. Article 1 of the Habitats Directive indicates clearly that the overall situation of species and habitats needs to be assessed and monitored in order to judge if it is favourable or not. Official country reports are due 20 June 2007

Purpose of Report Influence guidance of reporting (Scientific Working Group of Habitats Committee, European Topic Center) Showcase how reporting forms are working Defining Gaps and make proposals for improvement Highlight Species & Habitats and their Conservation Status Make sure MS take the monitoring serious

Overall Aim To support a robust EU-reporting scheme to secure monitoring as basis for biodiversity conservation By: Testing the format Providing best practice examples Providing preliminary results on FCS (favourable conservation status)

19 Species, 8 Habitats, 9 Countries Amphibians & Reptiles: Toad species, Sand lizard, Loggerhead turtle Mammals: Brown bear, Lynx, Wolf, Lesser Horseshoe bat Plants, Ferns & Mosses: Early gentian, Petalwort, Mosses Birds: Stone curlew, Great white egret, European nightjar, White tailed eagle, Bearded vulture Habitats: Peat bogs, Fens, Mires, Calcareous rock, grassland, Cork oak forest Countries: Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Spain, UK, (Switzerland)

19 Species (5 Birds) Burhinus oedicnemus Casmerodius albus Lynx lynx Caprimulgus europaeus Haliaeetus albicilla Gypaetus barbatus Ursus arctos Bombina bombina Bombina variegata Lacerta agilis Bufo calamita Lynx lynx Caretta caretta Canis lupus Rhinolophus hipposideros Gentianella anglica Petallophyllum ralfsii Sphagnum warnstorfii Sphagnum capillifolium Drepanocladus vernicosus

8 Habitats Active raised peat bogs (7110) Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae (7210) Transition mires and quaking bogs (7140) Stable Buxus sempervirens formations on calcareous rock slopes (5110) Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion (7150) Petrifying springs with tufa formation (7220) Alkaline fens (7230) Quercus suber forests (9330)

Methodology Used the official EU-reporting format and guidance documents Included birds because: Objective of FCS for birds and their habitats as well Likely to be a similar monitoring system for birds in future Results based on best practice case studies, using expert/specialist knowledge for those species and habitats Undertook analysis at the country level but in some cases, used this to undertake an analysis at the biogeographic level

Main Results Trends Percentage of trend classes for the categories “range”, “population”, “habitat for the species” and “area covered by habitat”.

Main Results Reasons for trends Percentage of different trend classes for the categories “range”, “population”, “habitat for the species” and “area covered by habitat”.

! Main Results Conservation Status Overall assessment: Percentage of conservation status classes, combining all assessments.

Challenges Biogeographical assessment for unconnected parts of biogeographic regions (Alpine) The significance of trans-border populations in relation to country specific information Migrating marine species cause specific problems in terms of data availability / FCS judgement and taking a country specific approach For many Species/Habitats lack of data

10 Steps towards effective monitoring Streamlining monitoring requirements for various EU policies when using biodiversity data (nature conserv., water mgmt., rural development) Fully integrating civil society Paying special attention to the evaluation of the countries‘ reports when setting FRV Integrating NGO‘s recommendations for setting FRV‘s

10 Steps towards effective monitoring Integrating biogeographic implications (transboundary effects) Establishing relationship to Natura 2000 and species Improving the data Guiding on marine habitats & species Conducting biogeographic monitoring seminars Establishing a similar procedure for Bern

Copies of the Monitoring Report can be obtained from IUCN Downloaded http://www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/rofe_at_work/ehf.htm

Thank you for your attention!!