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

2. Context
The 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

3. 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.”

4. 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 !

5. 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’

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

7. Possible Presentation

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

9.
34% target
34% target

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

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

12. Some questions

13. 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

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

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

16. Comments please ….