Upload
dialogos-setoriais
View
222
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
E u r o p e a n C o m m is s io n A n g e li k a R u b in & D a n n y C h a r b o n n e a u , D G E n v ir o n m e n t , W h a t is r e q u ir e d a n d w h y ? T h e 2 0 0 7 r e p o r t S o m e r e s u lt s C h a ll e n g e s T w o “ p il la r s ” C o n s e r v a ti o n S ta tu s N a tu r a 2 0 0 0 O u t lo o k R e p o r t in g u n d e r A r t .1 7 E x p e r t G r o u p o n R e p o r ti n g T h e n e x t r e p o r ti n g c y c le
Citation preview
Rep
ortin
g u
nd
er the B
irds
and
Hab
itats Directive
Angelika R
ubin & D
anny Charbonneau, D
G Environm
ent, European C
omm
ission
Presen
tation
– O
verview
C
ontext
The Nature D
irectives
Two “pillars”
C
onservation Status
N
atura 2000
Reporting under A
rt.17
What is required and w
hy?
The 2007 report
Som
e results
Challenges
O
utlook
Expert G
roup on Reporting
The next reporting cycle
Co
ntex
t
W
e need to have good information on the state of
biodiversity
To steer (biodiversity) policy, to support political decision
To know w
hether conservation efforts are successful, targets are reached (e.g. 2010 &
2020 target)
The B
irds & the H
abitats Directive are central instrum
ents of EU
biodiversity policy
Assessing the effectiveness of these instrum
ents is crucial
Monitoring and R
eporting become m
ore and more im
portant in the policy cycle
Legislatio
n: T
he N
ature D
irectives
The EU
’s policy on nature conservation consists of two legal
instruments:
The C
ouncil Directive 79/409/E
EC
on the protection of wild birds (april
1979) -- Birds D
irective
The Council D
irective 92/43/EE
C on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (m
ay 1992) -- Habitats D
irective
Two pillars to the H
abitats Directive:
S
pecies & habitats protection provisions – valid on all territory / sea of a
MS
S
ite protection provisions – Natura 2000
O
ver 220 habitat types (Annex I) &
over 1.000 species of C
omm
unity interest (Annex II, IV, V) + all european w
ild birds
"all areas that are protected under the Birds and H
abitats Directives
form an ecological netw
ork known as N
ATUR
A 2000. The main purpose
of this network is to m
aintain or restore the habitats and species at a favourable (good) conservation status (FC
S) in their natural range".
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/index_en.htm
Favou
rable C
on
servation
Statu
s - Defin
ition
(part of Art.1)
N
atural habitat types:
natural range and areas covered stable or increasing
specific structure and functions necessarily exist and are likely to exist for the foreseeable future
typical species are in FC
S
Species:population dynam
ics - viable over the long-term
natural range not reduced
sufficiently large habitat
Concept is not restricted to N
atura 2000 sites
Wh
at is requ
ired b
y “Art.1
7 R
epo
rting
”?
Im
plementation / progress reporting under the H
abitats Directive:
“Is the directive working?”
Relevant provisions:
A
rt.11: obligation to survey the conservation status of habitats/species
A
rt.17: implem
entation report every 6 years
Mem
ber States: inform
ation concerning the conservation measures (A
rt. 6.1) as w
ell as evaluation of their impact on the conservation status of
habitat types (Annex I) and species (A
nnex II) and the main results of the
surveillance referred to in Article 11.
The C
omm
ission: composite report , w
hich shall include an appropriate evaluation of the progress achieved and, in particular, of the contribution of N
atura 2000 to the achievement of the objectives set out in A
rticle 3.
Art.1
7 rep
ortin
g p
eriod
s (H
abitats D
ir.)
Reporting period
National report
(EU synthesis)
Main focus
1994-20002001(2003/4)
Progress in legal transposition &
establishing N
atura 2000
2001-20062007(2009)
First assessment of
conservation statusof habitat types &
species→
input 2010
2007-20122013(2014/15)
Renew
ed assessment of
conservation status & assessm
ent of Natura 2000
impact
Th
e repo
rting
form
at & g
uid
elines (2
00
7)
R
eporting format agreed in A
pril 2005 in Habitats C
omm
ittee
General report
R
eports on species & habitat types
D
etailed guidelines provided by ETC
/BD
Principle: M
S to provide data (range, population, area, trends,
pressures & threats, including m
aps) & assessm
ents on species and habitat types on a biogeographical level
Internet-based reporting tool developed by E
TC/E
EA (w
ithin E
ION
ET)
Bio
geo
grap
hical reg
ion
s – E
U2
5 (7+4)
Assessin
g co
nservatio
n statu
s
M
ethod developed based on definitions given in directive
3+1 classes (“traffic-light system
”)
Includes “favourable reference values”
A
ssessment unit:
biogeographic regions in MS
– allowing for biogeographic
evaluation on EU
-level
Harm
onised approach: agreed m
atrix
Species H
abitat types
Range (FR
V)R
ange (FRV)
Population (FR
V)A
rea covered by habitat type (FR
V)
Habitat for the
speciesSpecific structures &
functions; typical species
Future prospects
Future prospects
Parameters used
Ex
amp
le: Evalu
ation
matrix
for sp
ecies - sim
plified
Code: xxxx
Favourable status
Inadequate status
Bad status
Range
Stable or increasing and ≥ favourable reference range
Not qualifying for red or
greenLarge decline (> 1%
per year*) or m
ore than 10% below
f.r.r.
Population≥ favourable reference population and population structure norm
alN
ot qualifying for red or green
Large decline (> 1% per
year*) or more than 25%
below f.r.p. or pop.struct.
strongly deviating from norm
al
Habitat for
species
Habitat sufficiently large
and habitat quality suitable for long-term
survivalN
ot qualifying for red or green
Area of habitat clearly
insufficient or habitat quality not allow
ing long-term
survival
Future prospects
Pressures and threats not significant, long-term viability ensured
Not qualifying for red or
greenSevere influence of pressures and threats, bad prospects re. long-term viability
*within period specified by M
S
Wh
at are the “p
rod
ucts” o
f the p
rocess?
M
ember State reports
P
ublicly available but presentation in reportnet
N
ational Summ
aries
Sum
mary of data from
each MS
Technical R
eport by ETC/B
D (w
eb-based)
EU
-level analysis. Conservation status results online (M
S &
EU
-level)
C
omposite R
eport by the Com
mission
R
eport to Council &
Parliam
ent – Published on 13th July 2009
This reporting:
A substantial effort from
MS
in mobilising expertise and data
R
esults in unique pool of information from
EU
25 (next EU
27)
A quantum
leap:from
process reporting to outcome &
results
Milestone to identify gaps in know
ledge = additional efforts in monitoring
D
ata and information – even if not perfect – opens the w
ay to (finally) start understanding w
hat is going well / so-so / w
rong and why
In conclusion…
A baseline about conservation status is now
(finally!) available
Limitations due to data quality
Further analysis possible
C
aution in drawing conclusions…
Wh
at is special ab
ou
t this p
rocess?
Wh
at need
s to b
e imp
roved
H
igh number of 'unknow
ns', mainly for species
M
arine species & habitats: the big ‘dark’ blue
Trends &
trend magnitude: very little reported – next
reporting round: strong focus on trends
Quality of data needs im
provement: very little is com
ing from
monitoring
Further harm
onisation & standardisation needed
A g
limp
se on
the E
U-level resu
lts – “traffic-
ligh
t” legen
dfavourable
unfavourable-inadequate
unfavourable-bad
unknown
Resu
lts - species
Percentages relate to the num
ber of assessments on biogeographical level
Resu
lts - hab
itat types
Sp
ecies by b
iog
eog
aph
ical regio
ns
0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
MB
AL (4)
MM
ED
(32)
MM
AC
(33)
MAT
L (34)
ATL (230)
CO
N (338)
ME
D (652)
PAN
(214)
ALP
(358)
MA
C (171)
BO
R (174)
Gro
up
s of h
abitat typ
es
dunes habitats (62)
grasslands (102)
bogs, mires &
fens (56)
coastal habitats (84)
freshwater habitats (84)
heath & scrub (36)
forest (181)
sclerophyllous scrub (32)
rocky habitats (64)0%10%
20%30%
40%50%
60%70%
80%90%
100%
So
me sp
ecific analysis
Habitats dependant on agriculture (204
assessments)
52%
24%
4% 13%
0%7%
Habitats not dependant on agriculture
(497 assessments)
30%
30%
5%
13% 1%
21%
Messag
e: Health
-check fo
r EU
hab
itats and
species sh
ow
s - Mo
re efforts are n
eeded
EU
Mem
ber States have, for the first time, system
atically assessed the conservation status (B
IG effort)
O
nly a small proportion of the habitats and species are in a
favourable status.
In some cases w
here trends are already positive, more tim
e is needed to achieve good status
The findings highlight the critical im
portance of conservation actions and the need to urgently intensify efforts
Ou
tloo
k: Stream
linin
g R
epo
rting
un
der th
e n
ature d
irectives
Objective: Stream
line & m
odernise data-flows under the
nature directives, incl. Natura 2000. This involves…
S
tandardisation of required content / data (INS
PIR
E for spatial
data)
Synchronisation of reporting cycles, m
erging of reports
Sw
itch to e-Reporting (e.g. reportnet under E
ION
ET)
E
nsure links between different data-flow
s & others
D
evelop ideas for presentation of the data and their analysis to a w
ide range of users
New
Expert Group (M
S & stakeholders), m
uch work done in
sub-groups under the various work-packages
Rep
ortin
g W
G - 7
wo
rk-packag
es:
•R
eview of the A
rt.17 (HD
) reporting exercise 2001-2006; •
Align (m
erge) progress reporting under both directives;•
Find methods for the evaluation of N
atura 2000 impact (as
part of progress reporting);•
Revision of dataflow
re. Natura 2000 sites (+updating SD
F);•
Finalise HaB
ides (derogation reporting);•
Improve notification procedure on com
pensatory measures
under Art. 6.4 (H
D);
•D
evelop vision for the presentation & access to data;
Review
ing
Art.1
7 rep
ortin
g (W
P1
)
G
eneral report
Harm
onisation of data
threats & pressures
population units
range &
distribution maps
Im
prove definition of concepts
favourable reference values
structure & functions
suitable habitat for a species
future prospects
typical species
R
eview dataflow
and QA
/QC
: web tool, validation, etc.
O
utcome: revised form
at & guidelines for 2013
Work in Progress!
Ch
alleng
es for th
e nex
t repo
rt in 2
01
3
D
ata should come from
established monitoring system
s
The knowledge gap m
ust be reduced!
More coherent &
comparable results
M
ore focus on trend information
H
ow to assess the im
pacts of Natura 2000 on conservation
status?
Discussion in E
xpert Working G
roup (WP
3)
Monitoring results from
the Natura 2000 netw
ork – effect of m
easures, updating SD
Fs
Com
posite Report A
rt.17http://eur-lex.europa.eu/R
esult.do?T1=V5&T2=2009&
T3=358&R
echType=REC
H_naturel&
Submit=Search
CIR
CA - R
eporting and the nature directiveshttp://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/m
onnat/home
ETC/B
D technical report, detailed results
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17 N
ature & B
iodiversity homepage
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm
Thank you for your attention!
Do
cum
ents, p
resentatio
ns &
mo
re…