1. Results from Article 17 & 12 reports - Some data related issues Douglas Evans European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity
Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives March 2015

2. Large decrease in ‘unknown’ Article 17 assessments
Habitats 6%
13%
Species
16%
27%
But still very high, particularly for species

3. Population trends frequently missing for birds (especially for long lived species)
Means proportion of species where the status is unknown is similar for birds & non bird species
No bird reports from Greece and only for Annex I species for the Czech Republic

4. No habitats in Bulgaria are Unfavourable-bad
Some variation between countries & regions is expected but some of the variation in Conservation Status is difficult to explain ecologically
For example
No habitats in Bulgaria are Unfavourable-bad
95% of habitats & 70% of species are Favourable in Cyprus
Species
Habitats

5. Population units – Art. 12 Agreed population unit not always used
For example Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) was reported as breeding females (rather than calling or lekking males, as requested) by Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland
Possible to convert but adds uncertainty
Photo from

6. Population units – Art. 17
Guidelines ask for individuals to be used as unit except for an agreed list of exceptions
Frequently not respected

7. N° where recommended unit used in all reports
Species group
N° of species
N° where recommended unit used in all reports %
Vascular plants
572
335
58.6
Non vascular plants 34 8
23.5
Mammals
133 32
24.1
Reptiles 81 9
11.1
Amphibian 56 6
10.7
Fish
108 17
15.7
Arthropods
125 15
12.0
Mollusc 41 3
7.3
Other invertebrates –
Total
1153
425
36.9

8. Consequences
For most species it is not possible to directly assess ‘population’ from MS data
Method
Species
Habitats
Region = MS
55%
39%
Estimated directly from MS data 6%
26%

9. Consequences
Where weighting is required, cannot weight by population (preferred method)
Species
Habitats
Region = MS
57%
37%
Preferred method used 6%
38%

10. Habitat interpretation
Distribution of habitat ‘3150 Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition type vegetation’
Are the differences seen between e.g. Latvia & Lithuania
Poland & Germany
Bulgaria & Romania
genuine ?

11. Threats & pressures
Level
Improvement over previous period but a mix of levels used – complicates analysis

12. Variation between countries (pressures on habitats)

13. List of threats & pressures needs further revision
Agreeing a single level for reporting would help analysis
Pressures & threats reported separately for Art 17 but together for Art 12 – harmonise approach ?

14. Further harmonisation also needed for
structure & functions
future prospects
favourable reference values
These will be addressed by the ad hoc working groups

15. Further information will be in the ‘State of nature in the EU’ report
Thank you