1. Measuring progress towards Target 1
Joint Habitats/Ornis Committee meeting April 2014
Measuring progress
towards Target 1 1

2. Background 5th version of the paper
Expert Group on Reporting commented in , 2013 & 2014
Habitats Directive component endorsed by Habitats Committee on
Ornis Committe on asked for review of the Birds Directive component (prioritise use of MS birds population trends)
Ad hoc workshop on (9 MS represented, 1 stakeholder, DG ENV, EC consultant, EEA, ETC/BD)
Methodology revised and agreed at workshop 2

3. Target 1 – Habitats Directive
(c) Carlos Romão 3

4. Measuring progress towards Target 1 Habitats directive
… 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status
TWO components
Species and habitat types in Favourable CS
Unfavourable species & habitat types with improved CS
Baseline for EU target: 17 % of Habitats and 17 % of species with a Favourable conservation status – Article 17 reporting
NB: 'assessments' mean EU biogeographical assessments 4

5. Conservation Status in 2007 - 2012
Measuring 'improvement'
Change in conservation status
Conservation Status in FV
U1 + U1
U1 -
U2 + U2
U2 - XX CS in
A (=)
C (-)
E (x)
A (+)
B (+)
D (=)
A – Favourable
B – Unfavourable but improving
C – Unfavourable and deteriorating
D - No change
E – Became unknown
(=) no change
(+) improvement
(-) deterioration
(x) not known 5

6. Genuine changes 2007 reports: first attempt, improvements needed
Improved guidelines / harmonisation
A few methodological changes (e.g. range calculation, future prospects)
Re-evaluation of threasholds at MS level
Better data, but also 'worse' data (outdated, no monitoring)
Change in CS not always a 'true' change of condition
Compare 2007 with 2013 (1 to 1) not 'possible', but needed 6

7. Ca. 65 % of assessments did not change!
Genuine change – from available audit trails
Ca. 65 % of assessments did not change!
Only ca. 20 % of genuine change 7

8. Genuine change – possible approaches
At the EU biogeographical level
Based on MS reports and ‘audit trails’ (nature of change)
EEA-ETC/BD experts
Overall conservation status
Conservation status trend (+), (-), (=)
‘Nature of change’ for target calculation
At the MS biogeographical level
Further explore 'best and full use of audit trails'
Make statistics 'genuine' / 'non-genuine' change
To go together with statistics about 'conservation status change' 8

9. Results – dummy example (pages 6-8 Target 1 paper)
20 % FV, 31 % U1, 37 % U2, 12 % XX
10 % improved, but remained unfavourable
76 %
100
Target 1 is 76 % fulfilled (+13 out of 17 % reached in 2013)
DUMMY DATA 9

10. Results – dummy example (pages 6-8 Target 1 paper)
30 % favourable or improved assessments
No change for 58 % of unfavourable assessments
12 % unknown assessments
Net change of + 2 % (improvement – deterioration) D C
A+B
DUMMY DATA 10

11. Results – dummy example (pages 6-8 Target 1 paper)
Using conservation status trends (qualifiers)
DUMMY DATA 11

12. Target 1 – Birds Directive
(c) Otars Opermanis 12

13. Measuring progress towards Target 1 Birds directive
… 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status
TWO components
Species with a secure status
Non-secure species with improved status
Baseline for EU target: 52 % species with a Secure status - Birds in the European Union: a status assessment (BirdLife, 2004)
NB: 'assessments' mean assessments at the EU level 13

14. Criteria to identify component A: secure species (see Table 3, page 10 of Target 1 Paper)
Sufficient data to assess all extant native bird species in the EU27?
Is the species Critically
Endangered, Endangered
or Vulnerable in the EU27?
The species is considered to be Secure in the EU27
Is the species Near Threatened, Declining or
Depleted in the EU27? No
Yes
Threatened
Not Secure
Secure
Unknown 14

15. Compares trend direction of non-secure species
Criteria to identify component B: 'improving' species
Fully based on bird population trend data reported by MS under Article 12
Compares trend direction of non-secure species
Long-term trend ( )
Short-term trend ( )
Increasing
Stable/Fluctuating
Declining
Unknown
Yes No
'Yes' count as improvement 15

16. Component of calculation
Dummy examples
Component of calculation
Definition
2004 Baseline
2014 Scenario 1
2014 Scenario 2
Number of Threatened species 54 50 60
Number of Not Secure species
159
150
170 A
Number of Secure species (Figure 1; Table 3)
232
245
215
Total number of species assessed
445 A%
Percentage of Secure species
52%
55%
48% B
Number of Improving species (i.e. non-secure but with stable or increasing trends; Table 4)
n/a 15 30 B%
Percentage of Improving species 3% 7%
A + B
Total number of species in target condition (i.e. Secure + Improving)
260
A% + B%
Total percentage of species in target condition (i.e. Secure + Improving)
58% 16

17. Results – dummy example (page 12 Target 1 paper, Scenario 1)
55 % Secure, 11 % Threatened, 34 % Not Secure
3 % improved, but still not secure
23 %
100
Target 1 is 23 % fulfilled (+ 6 out of 26 % reached in 2013)
DUMMY DATA 17

18. Methodology to be approaved by Habitats and Ornis Committes
Follow-up
Methodology to be approaved by Habitats and Ornis Committes
EEA-ETC/BD to process data after finalisation of EU biogeographical assessement (July-August)
First results available September 2014
Thank you for your attention 18