1. NERI
PEER Natura 2000 workshop
“Concepts, Methods and Tools for Conservation Status Assessment, Reporting and Monitoring”
Comwell Hotel & Conference Centre
Roskilde - Denmark
25 – 27th April 2007

2. ● Workshop Introduction – Geoff Groom (NERI)
Concepts, Methods and Tools for Conservation Status Assessment, Reporting and Monitoring
● Workshop Introduction
– Geoff Groom (NERI)
● The Danish National Environment Research Institute
– Svend Binnerup (NERI)
● The Partnership for European Environmental Research
- Raoul Mille (Cemagref / PEER)
Workshop information and arrangements
- Geoff Groom, Annie Laursen (NERI)

3. Workshop Introduction
Geoff Groom (NERI)
● Workshop Topic and Scope
● Context & Background
● Aims and Expected Outputs
Structure and Programme
● “Welcome” to Denmark and this workshop !

4. Workshop Topic and Scope
● The concepts, methods and tools that EU member states are using, and developing for current and future nature assessment and monitoring as required by the EU Habitats Directive.
● Focus on the scientific aspects of that work :
- e.g. scientific aspects of the habitats and species
- e.g. scientific data available and its application
● NW Europe Atlantic, Continental, Boreal biogeographic regions

5. Context and Background
● EU Habitats Directive Article 17
requiring MSs to report the Conservation Status of Habitat Directive annex listed habitats and species
Reporting Period
- Establish Natura 2000 network
Reporting Period
 june 2007
20.june 2007
 jan 2008
 mid 2009
- CS assessment by MSs based on best available data
- MS to submit national reports
- Review, clarifications, corrections
- Technical analysis, consultation
 Composite Report
Reporting Period
 2012
2013
- CS assessment by MSs based on estd. monitoring
- National reporting
EC : Parameters of CS, Definitions of FCS, reporting IT tools
MS : Implementation for national assessment and monitoring
- different concepts and methods
- different species and habitats
- different data resources
need for dialogue
& development

6. e.g. Assessing conservation status of a HABITAT type
Parameter Conservation Status
Favourable
('green')
Unfavourable – Inadequate
('amber')
Unfavourable - Bad
('red')
Unknown
(insufficient information to make an assessment)
Range
Stable … or increasing AND not smaller than the 'favourable reference range'
Any other combination
Large decrease: … a loss of more than 1% per year … OR
More than 10% below FR range
No or insufficient reliable information available
Area covered by habitat type within range
Stable … or increasing AND not smaller than the FR area AND without significant changes in distribution pattern within range …
Large decrease in surface area: … a loss of more than 1% per year …
OR With major losses in distribution pattern within range
OR More than 10% below FR area
Specific structures and functions (including typical species)
Structures and functions (including typical species) in good condition …
More than 25% of the area is unfavourable as regards its specific structures and …
Future prospects (as regards range, area covered, … etc)
The habitats prospects for its future are excellent / good, no significant ….
The habitats prospects are bad, severe impact from …
Overall assessment
of CS
All 'green'
three 'green' and one 'unknown'
One or more 'amber' but no 'red'
One or more 'red'
Two or more 'unknown' combined with green or all “unknown’

7. Workshop Aims and Expected Outputs
● dialogue and discussions
- exchange of MSs’ Art.17 CS assessment work & experiences
- also with those doing other European biodiversity work
● providing input to the 2nd reporting period
- identification and illustration of assessment issues relevant to the Composite Reporting
● a basis for developments during the 3rd reporting period
- identification of needs and possibilities for work to develop MSs’ conservation assessment actions for
- identification of linkages and implications with respect to other EU environment & biodiversity work, e.g. EU climate change impact policy issues

8. Workshop Structure and Programme
● Day-1 : The current Reporting Period
- presentations of MSs’ (and other) current CSA work
- groups discussions of current experiences
● Day-2 : The next Reporting Period
- presentations, with relevance to RP-3
- groups discussions of needs and possibilities for longer term CSA and applied developments
● Day-3 : Field Excursion
- “Ejby Ådal” : habitat types 6210, 7230
- “Ryegaard Dyrehave” : habitat types 6230, 7140
in situ presentation & discussion of Danish CSA and monitoring and nature management methods

10. Workshop Information & Arrangements
● Presentation files to PC before sessions begin
● Thursday : who would like to walk into Roskilde (ca. 3 km)?
● Internet access
● Friday : “drop-off” en-route to Copenhagen airport?
● Other assistance : Annie, Rasmus, Flemming, Jesper, Bjarne

12. Group Discussion Sessions
Green
(room H2 )
Amber
(Room H, garden side)
Red
(Room H, outer side)
Adrian Newton
Annemiek Adams
Bianca Bauch
Chris van Swaay
Doug Evans
Emma Verling
Erik Hellberg
Han van Dobben
Johan Abenius
Enili Viik
Rania Spyropoulou
Sandra Luque
Axel Ssymank
Angelika Rubin
Ulla-Maija Liukko
Bjarne Søgaard
Dolores Hedo Cassinello
Eduard Osieck
Odette Kerr
Flemming Skov
Flemming Rune
Hans Gardfjell
Luc De Bruyn
Pille Koorberg
Raoul Mille
Bas van Vliet
Anne Schmidt
Camiel Aggenbach
Desiré Paelinckx
Elena Cantarello
Erik Buchwald
Gerald Dick
Jacob Palsgaard Andersen
Marc Dufrêne
Kristijan Civic
Rense Haverman
Sylvie Vanpeene
Svend Binnerup
Floor van Gaasbeek
The general purposes of the group discussion sessions are to:
Discuss items raised in the presentations
Add to the issues raised in presentations with further examples
Address the specific question and tasks set for each group discussion session
Groups should appoint a recorder and reporter, and prepare a 5 – 10 minute summary (flipchart or ppt) presentation of their discussions.

13. First Group Discussion Session
Objectives:
discuss experiences from the current conservation status assessment activities
discuss further the issues raised in MSs’ workshop presentations
identify issues in the assessment that will be significant for the onward
interpretation of the MSs’ reports, such as for the Europe-wide composite reporting
Tasks / suggestions of questions to consider:
What have been the main challenges in making the Natura 2000 assessments for the
current reporting period? e.g.
- what have been particular challenges in setting of favourable reference values?
- has it been a problem to acquire and process suitable data?
- has application of the conservation status parameters, such as defining range or
habitat extents for species been a problem ?
In what specific ways might characteristics of the assessments in different MSs impact on inter-MS report data integrations and interpretations ?
Discuss and make comparison (worked examples) of the assessment processes
undertaken for 1 species (plant or animal) and for 1 habitat type in each of 2 or 3 countries.

14. Second Group Discussion Session
Objectives:
identification of needs and possibilities for work to develop MSs’ conservation assessment actions for – problems, solutions, activities
identification of linkages and implications with respect to other EU environment & biodiversity work, e.g. EU climate change impact policy issues
Tasks / suggestions of questions to consider:
What new challenges will there be for the next reporting period? e.g.
- further assessment in terms of structure and function,
- establishment of a monitoring system and its use in assessment,
- the linkage of CS assessment and nature management work
- ensuring greater consistency between national reports
- integration of nature assessment processes with other EU policy issues, such
as climate change issues?
What issues can most benefit (e.g. find solutions to problems) from concerted collaboration and development between countries?
What types of actual research and development work are most needed to address the requirements for the third reporting period?
What mechanisms would be most suitable to implement solution developments e.g. an informal network, occasional focussed meetings, issue/task specific projects.