State of nature in the EU: results from the reporting under the nature directives

Transcription

1 State of nature in the EU: results from the reporting under the nature directives th Meeting Co-ordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature 12 March

2 EEA technical report Contents Introduction Results Birds Directive Article 12 Results Habitats Directive Article 17 Results by ecosystem (MAES typology) Natura 2000 & conservation status Progress towards Targets 1 & 3 Publication (online PDF) together with Commission's composite report April

3 Which data & information? Birds Directive Article 12 ( ) Member States reports on bird population sizes & trends Assessments of EU population status, sizes and trends (European Red List of Birds Consortium contract with European Commission) Habitats Directive Article 17 ( ) Member States reports on habitats and species conservation status Assessments of conservation status at EU biogeographical level (EEA and ETC Biological Diversity) 3

4 Birds Directive reporting 4 (c) Otars Opermanis

5 EU population trends breeding winter 5

6 6 EU population status

7 7 Pressures & threats - birds

8 Data issues - birds Proportion of information reported as unknown 8

9 9 Breeding bird populations by MS Short-term trend Long-term trend

10 Habitats Directive reporting 10 (c) Otars Opermanis

11 Conservation status EU biogeographical level habitats species 11

12 Conservation status trends ( / ) EU biogeographical level habitats species 12

13 Conservation status EU biogeographical level - regions habitats species 13

14 Pressures & threats habitats species 14

15 Conservation status by MS habitats species 15

16 16 Data issues habitats & species conservation status 'Unknown'

17 MAES ecosystem types Terrestrial ecosystems Cropland Grassland Woodland and forest Wetlands Heathland and shrub Sparsely vegetated land (Urban - not included) Freshwater ecosystems Rivers and lakes Marine ecosystems Marine inlets and transitional waters Coastal Shelf Open ocean 17

18 Status by MAES ecosystem type Birds population status Habitats & species conservation status 18

19 Nature of change between reporting periods Ca. 65 % of Member States assessments did not change between the two reports This is reflected in the EU biogeographical assessments According to Member States reports (audit trails) genuine non genuine unknown 19

20 Distance to Target 1 birds 61% Secure Improving 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% species 28% Targets: Favourable Birds 78% habitats 21% Improving Species 25% (35%) Habitats 34 % Percentage of assessments 20

21 Progress towards Target 1 (Habitats Directive) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Habitats Species Unfavourable deteriorating Unfavourable stable Unknown 21

22 Progress towards Target 1 main conclusions Proportion of Secure bird species remains the same (52%) Over 8% of birds have an improving population status, but 16% have declining at short- and long-term trends No (real) new Favourable assessments for habitats & species of the Habitats Directive Unfavourable-improving assessments (ca. 5%) are less than unfavourable-deteriorating (30% habitats, 22% species) Large proportion of unfavourable assessments not improving or deteriorating (42% habitats, 33% species) 22

23 Progress towards Target 3 Agriculture (Cropland & Grassland) 28% 11% 48% 4% 1% 1% 8% 46% 20% 1% 14% Secure birds 39% 4% Unknown Non secure, but improving trend Non secure, and uncertain/unknown trend Non secure, but stable/fluctuating trend Non secure, and decreasing trend habitats 53% 22% species Favourable assessments Improved assessments Assessments which have deteriorated 23 Unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change Assessments that became 'unknown'

24 Progress towards Target 3 Forestry (Woodland and forest) 13% 7% 1% 1% 1% 15% 14% 64% 3% 26% 53% Secure Unknown birds 28% 51% 6% Non secure, but improving trend Non secure, and uncertain/unknown trend Non secure, but stable/fluctuating trend Non secure, and decreasing trend habitats Favourable assessments 17% species Improved assessments Assessments which have deteriorated Unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change 24 Assessments that became 'unknown'

25 Progress towards Target 3 main conclusions Agriculture (Cropland & Grassland ecosystems) Increase of Favourable and Unfavourable due to better information: only 3% for habitats and 16% for species, compared to over 17% and 27% in Status of habitats and species worse in 'agricultural' ecosystems than overall: less Secure & Favourable, more Threatened & Unfavourable-bad Forestry (Woodland and forest ecosystem) 'Forest' bird species better status than overall (64% Secure compared to 52%, 22% non-secure compared to 32%) Conservation status of 'forest' habitats & species similar to the overall 25

26 Natura 2000 and conservation status Note: Includes SPAs, SACs, SCIs and pscis end 2012 Croatia did not join the EU until

27 Natura 2000 and conservation status Habitats with smaller areas / Species with smaller populations or more restricted distribution: better coverage by the network Annex I habitats / Annex II species No significant statistical relation between coverage by network and conservation status But significant with trend in conservation status: unfavourable declining decreases with increased area of habitat / population of species in the network 27

28 Natura 2000 and conservation status Results from EEA-ETC/BD study on 'Impact of N2000 on non-target birds and butterflies' (V. Pellissier) EBCC & BCE monitoring data For many species (particularly birds), higher abundance corresponds to higher coverage by network Farmland bird populations have steeper decreases outside the network No network effect for woodland birds Bird communities inside the network more functional: longer trophic chains, more diverse 28

29 Natura 2000 and conservation status Results from EEA-ETC/BD a literature review (ca. 150 published papers) More focus on problems than successes Good coverage of the network for most habitats/species, but improvements identified; marine part largely incomplete Networks also delivers conservation benefits for nontarget species Benefits for birds more clear, lack of identical studies for other species groups: lack of pan-european monitoring and data harmonisation issues Lack of studies looking at the ecological effectiveness of the network Climate change not yet a 'big deal', but increasing impacts expected 29

30 Links to main documents and outcomes Reporting format & guidelines ETC/BD dedicated website Scoreboards on data delivery and quality Dedicated viewers: browse & search data & access MS reports Summaries of data for each MS Access to all tabular and spatial data Birds Directive (Article 12) BD Reference portal for Article 12 ference_portal eports_2013/member_state_deliveries d b5 1a db1 EEA data service (soon available) Habitats Directive (Article 17) HD Reference portal for Article 17 ference_portal eports_2013/member_state_deliveries d d1f ed6c9879cce5 EEA data service and maps/data/article 17 database habitats directive eec 1 Reports summarising and analysing the data EEA Technical report State of nature in the EU: results from the Reporting under the Nature Directives / April

31 31 Additional slides

32 Wintering bird populations by MS Short-term trend Long-term trend 32

33 EU population status by taxonomic order EU short-term breeding by taxonomic order 33

34 Conservation status and trends by MS habitats species 34

35 Conservation status nature of change habitats species 35

36 'Genuine' changes between the two reporting periods Changes between the two reports by conservation status HABITATS Changes between the two reports by conservation status SPECIES 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% FV U1 U2 XX FV U1 U2 XX Improvement No change Improvement No change Not known Deterioration Not known Deterioration

37 Interpretation of previous slide: 'Genuine' changes between the two reporting periods 100 % of the FV assessments in where already FV in ; no additional FV assessments in period % of the U1 assessments did not change between the two reporting periods (U1=) 5 % represent an improvement (either from U2 to U1, or are U1+) 28 % deteriorate (from FV to U1, or are U1-) 35 % of the U2 assessments did not change between the 2 reporting periods (U2=) 7 % are improved compared to (U2+) 58 % are deteriorated compared to (U1 to U2, or U2-) 85 % of the unknown assessments remain unknown further 15 % became unknown 98 % of the FV assessments in where already FV in only 2 % became FV 62 % of the U1 assessments did not change between the two reporting periods (U1=) 8 % represent an improvement (either from U2 to U1, or are U1+) 30 % deteriorate (from FV to U1, or are U1-) 42 % of the U2 assessments did not change between the 2 reporting periods (U2=) 7 % are improved compared to (U2+) 52 % are deteriorated compared to (U1 to U2, or U2-) 94 % of the unknown assessments remain unknown further 6 % became unknown

38 Progress towards Target 3 Agriculture (Cropland & Grassland) 16% 22% 48% 11% 3% 49% 17% 20% 14% Secure Unknown Near Threatened, Declining or Depleted Threatened birds 37% Favourable Unknown Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitats 16% 47% Favourable Unknown Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad species 38

39 Progress towards Target 3 Forestry (woodland and forest) 9% 13% 26% 15% 5% 14% 64% 16% 26% Secure birds Unknown Near Threatened, Declining or Depleted 54% Threatened Favourable Unknown Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad habitats 44% 14% species Favourable Unknown Unfavourable inadequate Unfavourable bad 39