1. Expert Group on the Birds and Habitats Directives (NADEG) 22.10.2015
Agenda item 2b
Follow-up to the 'State of Nature' report: Towards achieving Favourable Conservation Status
Expert Group on the Birds and Habitats Directives (NADEG)

2. Purpose of the paper…
initiate a discussion on how to achieve jointly a favourable conservation status (FCS) for an increasing number of features the coming years.
proposes an approach using Art.17 information for framing the necessary conservation measures
considerations made could be used in particular to inform
the further development of the new biogeographic process and
the setting of conservation objectives and measures for Natura 2000 sites

3. Background – CS status and trends
The May 2015 ‘State of Nature in the EU’ report showed that while there was some progress achieved, significant deteriorating trends in status were continuing
Target 1 of the Biodiversity Strategy (relating to the implementation of the nature directives) was at this stage not in reach.

4. Outline approach based on Art.17 data
Parameter
Reason for an unfavourable assessment
Conservation need as a basis for specific conservation targets & measures
HABITAT TYPES
Area
(habitat quantity)
Ongoing loss of habitat area and/or too little surface area remaining (below favourable reference value)
Take measures to stop any additional area loss and/or increase the area of the habitat type (quantitative restoration)
Structure and functions (habitat quality)
A significant part of the habitat area is unfavourable as regards its specific structures and functions
Improve the habitat quality where it is unfavourable (qualitative restoration)
Future prospects
(threats and pressures)
Existing pressures likely to continue in the near future
Manage / reduce / stop relevant pressures

5. Advantages
Easier identification of implementation priorities and measures
Strengthened cooperation and exchange on monitoring, strategies and measures for species/habitats beyond national borders
Improved and more robust knowledge on status, trends and conservation needs

6. Focusing further work on FCS
Natura 2000 biogeographical process
Work in the frame of the Reporting Review
Work on financing, in particular …
Updating and Improving PAFs, implementing LIFE Integrated Projects

7. Discussion points
Do Member States agree with the proposed outline approach of strengthening the link between biogeographic conservation status assessments and conservation measures (in particular for SACs)?
What do Member States consider the most effective way forward?
How could Member States imagine combining national conservation work with operational biogeographic cooperation?
What further analysis on the Art.17 data would be useful to better understand the connection conservation status – pressures – conservation measures?