Assessments and reporting in Germany (Art. 17 Habitats Directive) Dr. Axel Ssymank Federal Office for Nature Conservation, Bonn 25 – 27 April 2007 PEER Nature2000 workshop, Roskilde (DK)

Assessments & reporting in DE  Introduction – Reporting on Natura 2000 in Germany  workflow and data handling  assessment procedures at site and national level  data aggregation from Länder data to national level  challenges and solutions for future reporting

Sites for Natura 2000 (without EEZ) 9.3% of the terrestrial surface 4,618 sites 3.3 Mio ha (+ 2 Mio ha marine) 8.4% of the terrestrial surface 539 sites 3.0 Mio ha (1.2 Mio ha marine) Natura 2000 in total: 13,5 % of the terrestrial surface of Germany (as of : February 2006)

Habitat area within proposed sites total habitat area in proposed Sites (SCI) in Germany 2.56 Mio ha, d.h. 48% of the sites are habitat-area, in terrestrial sites 41 %, in marine/EEZ-sites 60 % marine and intertidal 1,20 Mio ha46,8 % habitats coastal habitats dunes, salt meadows0,04 Mio ha1,6 % inland dunes:0,01 Mio ha0,5 % aquatic habitats0,17 Mio ha6,6 % heath and scrub- vegetation0,06 Mio ha2,2 % grasslands0,20 Mio ha7,6 % bogs and swamps0,06 Mio ha2,3 % rocky habitats and scree0,03 Mio ha1,1 % forests0,80 Mio ha31,2 % forests Marine and intertidal habitats other habitats 22 %

Species & habitats for reporting 3 biogeographical regions (atlantic, alpine, continental) with the following habitats and species to be reported on: alpinealtanticcontinental species (species of Annex II) Habitat types data sheets for the reporting to be filled in

Assessments & reporting in DE  Introduction – Reporting on Natura 2000 in Germany  workflow and data handling  assessment procedures at site and national level  data aggregation from Länder data to national level  challenges and solutions for future reporting

Member State Länder Natura 2000 Sites Outside Natura 2000 Sites Report on measures taken & their effects Report on conservation status (surveillance Art. 11) Measures taken in relation with plans & projects Measures to avoid deterio- ration Conserva- tion measures taken Conservation status of habitats (I) & species (II,IV,V) 16 Länder reportsReport on other measures taken (e.g. for coherence, Art. 10) National report (Art. 17) EU: composite report Conserva- tion status of habitats (I), species (II)

creation of a national data set including automated pre-assessment procedures Technical organisation Centralized data base (BfN) range, area, population data base for species and habitats first data validation biogeographic assessment conferences and 2nd data validation GIS-based map production, algorythms for range calculation DE reporting tool, decentralized data collection Länder level: datasets final national data set DE package upload of maps and data to EU reporting tool (BfN)

LRT 2110: embryonic shifting dunes ? small gaps are connected for natural range larger gaps are not connected

Assessments & reporting in DE  Introduction – Reporting on Natura 2000 in Germany  workflow and data handling  assessment procedures at site and national level  data aggregation from Länder data to national level  challenges and solutions for future reporting

Frame of assessment – mountain hay meadows

Ex: Myotis daubentonii: Key-components of survey methods

Annex E: Habitat evaluation matrix Parameter Conservation Status Favourable ('green') Unfavourable – Inadequate ('amber') Unfavourable - Bad ('red') Unknown (insufficient information to make an assessment) RangeStable (loss and expansion in balance) or increasing AND not smaller than the 'favourable reference range' Any other combination Large decrease: Equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year within period specified by MS OR More than 10% below ‘favourable reference range’ No or insufficient reliable information available Area covered by habitat type within range Stable (loss and expansion in balance) or increasing AND not smaller than the 'favourable reference area' AND without significant changes in distribution pattern within range (if data available) Any other combination Large decrease in surface area: Equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year (indicative value MS may deviate from if duly justified) within period specified by MS OR With major losses in distribution pattern within range OR More than 10% below ‘favourable reference area’ No or insufficient reliable information available Specific structures and functions (including typical species) Structures and functions (including typical species) in good condition and no significant deteriorations / pressures. Any other combination More than 25% of the area is unfavourable as regards its specific structures and functions (including typical species) No or insufficient reliable information available Future prospects (as regards range, area covered and specific structures and functions) The habitats prospects for its future are excellent / good, no significant impact from threats expected; long-term viability assured. Any other combination The habitats prospects are bad, severe impact from threats expected; long- term viability not assured. No or insufficient reliable information available Overall assessment of CS All 'green' OR three 'green' and one 'unknown' One or more 'amber' but no 'red' One or more 'red' Two or more 'unknown' combined with green or all “unknown’

A + B aggregation of data at biogeografical level Conservation status, biogeografical level favourable inadequate bad unknown Range Population Habitat of the species Future propects Overall Assessm. range population species inventory stuctures AB impacts/future prosp. CCS at local level for sites / occurences: Aggregation

Assessments & reporting in DE  Introduction – Reporting on Natura 2000 in Germany  workflow and data handling  assessment procedures at site and national level  data aggregation from Länder data to national level  challenges and solutions for future reporting

Data types for aggregation 1. data text informations often difficult to handle, have to be rewritten often with additional background knowledge 2. statistical informations, e.g. number of SAC‘s: direct aggregation 3. weighted aggregation of data – algorythms adapted for every parameter developping and applying algorythms technical pre-assessment data verification, expert control consolidated basic data set for application of EU- Matrices

Necessity to standardize 1. Example population counts: Species population counts have been standardized as a consensus between BfN and the Länder authorities and this reference list for all species is integrated in the German national reporting tool in order to ensure data, that can be combined into a national report. The chosen standard was as close as possible to the best available data set for the whole region, that means for species groups, where detailed data were available this could be individuals, for less well-known groups occupied grid cells The general German reference list has been provided as an example on CIRCA-platform Deviations from this list are possible, under the condition that this is valid for a whole biogeographic region within Germany (a few examples in the alpine region) 2. Example: Annex V species groups: as the species groups are often large (e.g. 35 Sphagnum- species) and ecologically heterogenous with very common and rare and threatened species a reporting at genus level was impossible. Thus an individual reporting will be done at species level Species groups have been allowed only in Annex A when giving lists of measures etc.

Data inside – outside Natura Data quality and availability in and outside Natura 2000 is a difficult problem. Outside data are scare or not existent (mainly expert judgement), however a monitoring systems will be built up for future reporting and the main methodical issues (Sample sizes, statistical background etc.) have been discussed and are agreed between the Länder. -assumption so far: if more than 80% of all occurrences are within Natura 2000 – the total CS is regarded as being identical with the CS inside Natura DE hopes for forests to integrate the federal forestry inventory and to a adapt it to the needs of Art. 17 in order to get the highest possbile data density for monitoring

Area covered, changes in distribution pattern „without significant changes in distribution pattern“ significant changes in distribution pattern losses of area in smaller continuous areas, for example at higher altitudes, while still present in valley bottoms complete loss of at least one subtype in at least one larger natural region subtpes are based on all known biotope types and plant associations belonging to the variation of a habitat type major losses in distribution pattern losses of (almost) all occurrences/ areas or grids within a larger natural region (e.g. a whole mountain range like the Black forest, in DE 69 natural regions + 4 marine regions)

Example trend range (based on expert judgements) a)calculate Länder proportion of the range b)summing up percentages within every category: % percent times values of +, =, -, -- and u c)defining the threshold where the unknown proportion is too high to use the data (general unknown as result) d)defining the translation of final calculated results into the categories needed to fill in the Annex B or application of the Matrix e)final expert check: specific cases, for example almost whole population in one country, in other countries only scattered individuals example: HH (-) 0,05; SH 0,8 (+) ; NI 0,15 (--) +1+0,8 = , (<1%/a) -0,3 sum: +0,45 defining translation: v <-1 unfavourable -1<v<0 declining (-) =0stable (0) >0increasing (+)

Applying weighted algorythms -all Trend values (range, area covered, population) -population (only if no standardized units) -population structure -habitat of a species -future prospects (species and habitats) -distribution pattern -structures and functions (ha of every category needed)

Assessments & reporting in DE  Introduction – Reporting on Natura 2000 in Germany  workflow and data handling  assessment procedures at site and national level  data aggregation from Länder data to national level  challenges and solutions for future reporting

Challenges for 2007 onwards and for future reporting Selected topics (I):  Defining the Assessment of measures taken in terms of effects on Conservation Status  Creating a useful standard for most of the issues so far only reported as simple text files in Annex A  Setting up procedures how to deal with an unfavourable conservation status – analysis of causes, measures to be taken, reponsabilities etc.  Standardizing reference data to allow for a meaningful data aggregation at community or biogeografical level  setting up the full Art. 11 monitoring and how to integrate these data into reporting  integration of other data sources for mutual support e.g. Water Framework Directive, Forestry monitoring

Challenges for 2007 onwards II A few preliminary ideas for data aggregation from DE experience :  In principal assessemnt at biogeografical or EU level is possible in a two step procedure: 1st weighted data aggregation and 2nd application of the EU Assessment Matrices  Range maps, area covered and population provide an important background for using weighted automated data aggregations  Specifically for data aggregation of parameters like sturctures and functions, no mean values at any lower spatial level are useful; every value has to be reported separately on a ha or area basis  data aggregation is only meaningful if the measures are standardized (for example units for population counts, any option like „others“ without a precise description is useless)  data aggregation rules have to be established to ensure comparable results in consecutive reporting periods  the proportion of unknown leading to an overall unknown when aggregating data is depening on the methods of data aggregation and has to be checked carefully  special attention is needed when aggregating data of very different levels of confidence (expert judgements, real data etc.)

BfN-Manuals & Life-Project: Rückriem & Roscher 1999 Recommendations for the implementation of reporting obligations Art. 17 F+E (national research project) Fartmann et al Reporting in Natura 2000 sites standardized recording methods for species & ecological habitat characteristics) BfN-Handbooks: Ssymank et al. 1998: habitats Species handbooks: 3 volumes: Species data sheets and distribution maps CD-Rom : Info Natura 2000

Thank you very much for your attention! Mönchsgut, Rügen Mai 2005