1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Percentage of “unknown”
overall assessment

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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?

12. 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.

13. 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