Transcript Article 17 report

EU Reporting obligations according to
Habitats and Birds Directive
RO2004/IB/EN-09
Thomas Ellmauer
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 1
Content




Reporting Obligations under the Nature
Directives
How to prepare the Article 17 report (Example
from Austria)
Working Session: Assessing Conservation
Status for Habitat types and species
Monitoring acc. to Article 11
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 2
System of Nature Directives
Protection
Conservation Measures /
Derogation Regulation
EUBiodiversity
Evaluation
Monitoring/ Reporting
Adaptation
Amendment of Annexes
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 3
Reporting Obligations
Derogation
Implementation
Compensation
Art.9
Every 3 years
Art.
12
Birds
Directive
Each year
Every 2
years
Art.
17
Habitats
Directive
Art. Art.
6(4) 16
On the occasion
Red: Form available
Every 6 years
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 4
Report on Art. 6(4)
If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the
site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or
project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative
reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social
or economic nature, the Member State shall take all
compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall
coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the
Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.
Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type
and/or a priority species the only considerations which may be
raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to
beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment or, further to an opinion from the
Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public
interest.’
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 5
Report on Art. 6(4)
Alernative solutions ?
yes
no
Does the site host *species or *
habitats?
no
Imperative reasons of
overriding public interest ?
no
Authorisation must not be
granted
review plan or project,
consider alternatives
yes
human health, safety, or important
environmental benefits
no
yes
other imperative
reasons of overriding
yes
public interest
Commission Commission
information
Opinion
Authorisation may be granted:
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie
6
Compensation Measures
have
to be taken
Report on Art. 6(4)

Obligation: Information of the Commission of
the compensatory measures adopted

Form: Provided by the Commission

Praxis: 42 cases reported in 2004-2006;
Assessment of effects frequently vague and
too general; scarce information on concrete
impacts; mix up of mitigation and
compensation measures; compensatory
measures not related to the impacts 6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 7
Report on Art. 6(4)
Form
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 8
Derogation Regulation

Birds Directive, Art. 9:
Member States may derogate from the provisions of Art. 5, 6, 7 and 8
(protection, trading, hunting) where there is no other satisfactory
solution for some reasons

Habitats Directive, Art. 16
Member States may derogate from the provisions of Art. 12, 13, 14 and
15 (protection, exploitation, trading) where there is no other satisfactory
solution for some reasons
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 9
Derogation Regulation
Reasons reported in Art. 9 of Birds Directive
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 10
Derogation Regulation
Permitted actions
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 11
Derogation Regulation
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 12
Derogation Regulation


HaBiDes: In order to streamline reporting
required by Birds and Habitats Directive and
by the Bern Convention, the EC developed a
web based application
First Version already developed, system not in
place yet
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 13
Derogation Regulation
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 14
Derogation Reporting
Derogation Form















Species (dropdown list with species from Annex IV and V of Habitats Directive)
Region (checkbox; NUTS 2)
License: Valid From (date picker) - Valid Until (date picker)
Bio-geographical region (checkbox)
Alternatives assessed (text area)
Conservation Status (radio-button)
Permitted Activities (checkbox)
Permitted Method (checkbox)
Reason for Granting Licence (checkbox)
Licensed: Individuals (textbox for number), Eggs (textbox for number), Breeding Sites (textbox for number),
Resting Places (textbox for number), Others
Actually taken: Individuals (textbox), Eggs (textbox), Breeding Sites (textbox), Resting Places (textbox),
Others
Impact on Population and scientific sources used
Supervisory Body and Measures (text area)
Sensitive information (radio-button): Yes/No
Comments and Notes (text area)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 15
Derogation Regulation
Habides – approximate timing
 Decision on the implementation of an online derogation
reporting system (Habides) in the „Reportnet“-system
of EEA – October 2008
 Technical development of Habides to start – January
2009
 Testing period of the Habides tool – March/April 2009
 Finalising of the tool – Mid 2009
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 16
Derogation Regulation
Composite Report Art. 9
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 17
Derogation Regulation
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 18
Derogation Regulation
Composite Report Art. 16
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 19
Article 12 report
Member States shall forward to the Commission every three
years a report on the implementation of national provisions.
2005-2007: last report (full calendar years)
2008-2010: upcoming report
A scheme has been agreed between the Commission and the
ORNIS committee for the second report covering the periode
1984-1987
The report provides almost no information on the status or trend
of birds
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 20
Article 12 reporting
Agreed reporting scheme
1. Species covered by the directive (art. 1):
2. Protection of habitats (art. 3 & 4)
2.1 State of progress for the classification of SPAs
2.2 Targeted measures drawn up per SPA during reporting period
2.3 Actions undertaken outside SPAs during reporting period
2.4 Targeted measures taken for birds habitats in wider countryside (e.g. agri-environmental
schemes, etc.)
3. Protection of species (Art. 5, 7, 8 & 9)
3.1 General system of protection (art. 5)
3.2 Hunting and capture of bird species (art. 7)
3.3 Means, arrangements or methods used for the large-scale or non-selective capture or killing
of birds (art 8).
3.4 Synthesis of derogations from provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8
3.5 Authorisation of sale of bird species referred to in Annex III/2 (art. 6)
3.6 Introduction of species of bird which do not occur naturally in the wild state in the EU (art.
11).
4. Encouragement of research (Art. 10).
4.1 Research efforts completed during reporting period or on-going
4.1 Research efforts completed during reporting period or on-going
4.2 Education, information and communication in relation to bird protection
5. Texts of the main provisions of national law (Art. 18).
6. Other complementary information relevant to the conservation of wild birds
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 21
Article 12 report

Composite Report: very week conclusions,
data missing, evaluation of measures hardly
feasible
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 22
Article 12 report
SPAs (Art. 12)
SPAs (Barometer)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 23
Article 12 report
the reporting format or guidelines are insufficient or
insufficiently precise;
 the reports produced by the Member States do not always
fully respond to the guidelines, and/or are late or incomplete;
and
 the information is not sufficiently validated at EU level, and
cannot be compared to independent data on trends and status
to assess effectiveness.

 Alignment and synchronisation of reporting under Art. 12 BD
and Art. 17 HD
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 24
Article 12 report


Loyal Cooperation: Agreement on the
streamlined approach in the frame of the
committees
Modification of the provisions
Harmonising the timing of progress reports
Cau
tion
ft!
: Dra
2013:
1st common report
Reports
Birds
Directive
(Art.12)
Habitats
Directive
(Art.17)
‘93-’95 ‘96-’98 ’99-’01 ’02-’04 ’05-’07 2008-2012
1994-2000
2001-2006
2007-2012
2013-2018
2013-2018
__|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|____|_
‘94 ‘96 ‘98 ’00 ’02 ‘04 ’06 ’08
’10 ’12 ‘14 ’16 ’18
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 25
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 26
Article 17 report
Article 17 of Habitats Directive asks Member
States to report every 6 years about the
measures taken under the Directive
1st report:
 1994-2000: unstructured report about
establishing Natura 2000
2nd report:
 2001-2006: using a template (DocHab-0403/03-rev.3)
3rd report
 2007-2012: using monitoring data
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 27
Article 17 report

Decision of the Habitats Committee concerning a reporting
format (DocHab 04-03/03 rev-3)

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix




A: General reporting format
B: Reporting format species
C: Evaluation matrix species
D: Reporting format habitat types
E: Evaluation matrix habitat types
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 28
Article 17 report
General reporting format
Legal framework
2.
State of designation of Natura 2000
3.
Management tools
4.
Conservation measures (Art. 6(1))
5.
Measures to avoid deterioration (Art. 6 (2))
6.
Appropriate assessment (Art. 6. (3,4))
7.
Financing (Art. 8)
8.
Measures taken to ensure coherence (Art. 10)
9.
Measures taken to establish a surveillance system (Art. 11)
10. Measures taken to ensure the protection of species (Art. 12-16)
11. Supporting measures
1.
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 29
Article 17 report
Assessment of Conservation status:
Parameter acc. to Art. 1 e, i
Habitat types
Species
Range
Range
Area
Population
Structure and function (incl.
Typical species
Habitat
Future prospects
Future prospects
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 30
Article 17 report
Biogeographical Region
unfavourable bad
unfavourable poor
favourable
Natura 2000
A
B
favourable
C
unfavourable
Conservation Status
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 31
Article 17 report
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 (> 1% per year)
OR More than 10% below ‘favourable
reference range’
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Area covered by habitat
type within range
Stable or increasing AND not
smaller than the 'favourable
reference area' AND without
significant changes in distribution
pattern within range
Any other combination
Large decrease in surface area (> 1% per
year) within period specified by MS OR
With major losses in distribution pattern
within range OR
More than 10% below ‘favourable reference
area’
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Specific structures and
functions (including typical
species)
Structures and functions (including
typical species) in good condition
and no significant deteriorations /
pressures.
Any other combination
More than 25% of the area is unfavourable
as regards its specific structures and
functions (including typical species)
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Future prospects (as
regards range, area
covered and specific
structures and functions)
The habitats prospects for its future
are excellent / good, no significant
impact from threats expected; longterm viability assured.
Any other combination
The habitats prospects are bad, severe
impact from threats expected; long-term
viability not assured.
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Overall assessment of CS
All 'green'
OR
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’
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 32
Article 17 report
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 decline (>1% per year)
OR more than 10% below favourable
reference range
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Population
Population(s) above ‘favourable
reference population’ AND
reproduction, mortality and age
structure not deviating from normal
Any other
combination
Large decline (> 1% per year) AND below
'favourable reference population'
OR More than 25% below favourable
reference population OR
Reproduction, mortality and age structure
strongly deviating from normal (if data
available)
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Habitat for the species
Area of habitat is sufficiently large
AND habitat quality is suitable for the
long term survival of the species
Any other
combination
Area of habitat is clearly not sufficiently
large to ensure the long term survival of the
species OR Habitat quality is bad, clearly
not allowing long term survival of the
species
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Future prospects (as regards
to population, range and
habitat availability)
Main pressures and threats to the
species not significant; species will
remain viable on the long-term
Any other
combination
Severe influence of pressures and threats to
the species; very bad prospects for its
future, long-term viability at risk.
No or insufficient reliable
information available
Overall assessment of CS
All 'green'
OR
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”
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 33
Article 17 report
Evaluation of Parameters
Trends
 0=stable
 += increasing
 - = decreasing
Reference Values
 Favourable Reference Range
 Favourable Reference Population
 Favourable Reference Area
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 34
Article 17 report
Natural Range (based on Art. 12 working group)
Describes roughly the spatial limits within which the habitat or
species occurs. The range includes areas that are not
permanently used.
Requirements:
 Surface area: in km2
 Trend
 Favourable Reference Range: Range within which all
significant ecological variations are included and which is
sufficiently large to allow the long term survival (at least the
size when the Directive came into force)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 35
Article 17 report
Future Prospect
is the species/habitat type viable on the long run?
Requirements:
 Non
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 36
Article 17 report
Population
Amount of individual organisms of a given species
Requirements:
 Distribution map
 Size: should be measured as exactly as possible
 Trend: (6% resp. 1% per year or other)
 Structure: Parameter of population such as age structure,
mortality, growth rate, despersion, density, sex ratio etc.
 Favourable reference population
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 37
Article 17 report
Habitat
ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by a particular
animal or plant species.
Requirements:
 Estimate of area in km2
 Trend
 Suitable Habitat for the species: Area of habitat which the
species could potentially occupy
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 38
Article 17 report
Area covered
plot of habitat type occurrences
Requirements:
 Distribution map
 Surface area in km2
 Trend (6% resp. 1% per year or other)
 Favourable reference area
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 39
Article 17 report
Structures & functions
Requisites of the habitat and ecological functions (incl. typical
species)
Requirements:
 Assessment according to the matrix
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 40
Article 17 report
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 41
Article 17 report
IT tool
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 42
Article 17 report
Article 17 consultation tool
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/
CIRCA-Webpage
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/lib
rary
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 43
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 44
Article 17 report - Austria


Austria is a Federal State
Nature Conservation is governed by the 9
Federal Provinces
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 45
Article 17 report - Austria
Preparation of Article 17 report
Contracting Body
Federal Provinces and Ministry for Environment
Contractor: Umweltbundesamt
Projectteam: Umweltbundesamt & 23 Subcontractors
Steering Group:
 Minstry
 Federal States
 Member to the SWG
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 46
Article 17 report - Austria
1.466 Data sources:
Biotope mappings
Inventories
Scientific papers
Monographs
Thesis
Project reports
Data bases
Information from experts
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 47
Article 17 report - Austria
Species:
Habitat types:
172.587
217.708
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 48
Article 17 report - Austria
Data management
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 49
Article 17 report - Austria
Distribution maps
 Presence-Absence of recent occurences (within the reporting
period)
5´
3´
10 x 10 km
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 50
Article 17 report - Austria
Making thresholds for actual and historic
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 51
Article 17 report - Austria
Distribution Maps
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 52
Article 17 report - Austria
Range




Actual
Historic
Potential
Favourable
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 53
Article 17 report - Austria

Favourable Reference Range
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 54
Article 17 report - Austria
Trend Flussperlmuschel
vor 1980
nach
1980-1995
1995
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 55
Article 17 report - Austria
Future Prospects
Good prospects: no threat (=LC)
Poor Prospects: suspected decrease of population and habitats
(NT, VU)
Bad Prospects: very likely decrease of population and habitats
(CR, EN)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 56
Article 17 report - Austria
Population units
 Number of individuals
 Number of pairs
 Number of flowering stems , tufts shoots
 Number of reproduction units (mass of spawn)
 Number of colonized trees
 Number of localities …
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 57
Article 17 report - Austria
Favourable Reference Population
 Generally only for highly endangered species
(RE, CR, EN)
 Relative Numbers (>, >>)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 58
Article 17 report - Austria
Habitat
When we draw a habitat polygon on a map, we are formalizing
the relation between the occurence of a species and the
environmental conditions
Habitat models can be based on
Mapping
Statistical calculated prediction
Intuition of the experts knowledge
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 59
Habitats of Beetles
Exact mapping of habitats
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 60
Habitats of Bat Species
Deciduous
and mixed
forests
8 km
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 61
Modelling of Bird-Habitats
The more specific the habitat requirements of a species,
the better the habitat modelling using collateral data
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 62
Article 17 report - Austria
Areal photographs
Scale: 1:10.000
Basis for mapping
Infrared images
Detailed interpretetion
Satelite images
LANDSAT TM; Multispectral; Pixel size 30 m
Preselection of areas
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 63
Delineation of habitat types
Settlements
9130 Neutrophilous beech forests
6410 Molinia meadows
6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands
7110 Active raised Bogs
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 64
Article 17 report - Austria
Structure and function
B
A
Area of the stand
regeneration minimum resistance minimum
C
space minimum
Composition of tree-layer
natural
near natural
modified
Stock structure
natural
near natural
modified
high intensity
medium intensity
low intensity
Dead wood
high
medium
low
Indicative species
none
some
many
acceptable
warning light
unaccepatable
Utilization
Game damage
A
B
C
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 65
Article 17 report - Austria
Typical Species
 Diagnostic Species
 Indicator species
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 66
Article 17 report - Austria
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 67
Article 17 report - Austria

Habitat types
Alpine Region
Continental Region
7%
12%
15%
20%
33%
29%
45%
39%
FV
U1
U2
X
FV
U1
U2
X
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 68
Article 17 report - Austria

Habitat types
Alpine Region
Continental Region
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Range
Area
Structure &
Function
Future
Prospects
Range
Area
Structure &
Function
Future
Prospects
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 69
Article 11 Monitoring
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 70
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 71
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Questions to be answered:
 Was the trend of range or habitat area negative
throughout the reporting period (<6 %) ?
 Are the parameter range, area and structure or
function in a favourable status (compared to
reference values) ?
 Are the future prospects good ?
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 72
Article 11 monitoring-concept
What will not be answered by the monitoring


Size and trend of Range
Reference Values
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 73
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Basis for the conceptual work: Data from the Article 17
report



Occurrences in a Grid-System (3x5 Minutes)
Exact location only exceptional (biotope mappings …)
No population-data
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 74
Article 11 monitoring-concept
 Main unit of habitat types or species is not
known
Because of time constraints



Start the monitoring
Make basic investigation parallel
Check the monitoring design
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 75
Article 11 monitoring-concept
What is an occurrence?

Species: Locality with appropriate habitat where the species
very likely occurs and which is clearly separated from another
occurrence

Habitat type: Clearly delineated polygon
 Need for assessing the frequency of habitats and species
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 76
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Sampling approach

Complete sampling: Less than 100 occurrences.
Advantage: no statistics needed

Representative Sampling: Necessary if main unit is
too big; Recording of a representative sample.
Statistical Tests needed.
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 77
Article 11 monitoring-concept
The sample size is dependent on:
Level of Significance: Probability that a measured difference is real
Power: Probability to detect a differential
Effect size: measure of the strength of the relationship between two
variables
Standard deviation
Correlation between the observed dates
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 78
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Sample size
Simulation of decreasing and increasing areas
Low Variability (StDev = 12): N = 40; > 95% of test positiv (0.05)
medium Variability (StDev = 18): N = 60; > 80% of tests positiv (0.05)
High Variability (StDev = 24): N = 80-100; > 80% of tests positiv (0.05)
High Variability (StDev = 24): N = 60-80; > 80% of Tests positiv (0.1)
Very high Variabiltiy (StDev = 30): N = 70-80; > 80 % of tests positiv (0.15)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 79
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Amount of sampling units
Very high variablity:
 High variability:
 Medium variability:
 Low variability:

100
85
70
60
Rotation of sampling units
Every cycle 10% of sampling units renewed
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 80
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Sampling units of clearly defined size (e.g. 1x1 km)
helps

To identify occurrences

To record dynamic processes

To stabilise the variability
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 81
Article 11 concept
Grid – sampling unit
1 km
3 minutes
latitude
5 minutes
longitude
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 82
Article 11 concept
Step 1
Random selection of quadrants
Example 6410 – Molinia grasslands
blue: actual occurrence alpin; red: actual occurrence continental
green: random selection of 60 quadrants.
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 83
Article 11 concept
Step 2
Random selection of sampling units 1000x1000m
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 84
Article 11 monitoring-concept
Habitat types
Species
Range:
Range:
Status, Trend, Reference Range
Status, Trend, Reference Range
Area:
Population:
Status, Trend, Reference Area
Status, Trend, Reference Population
Structur and Function (incl. typical
species):
Habitat:
Size and Status
Status
Future prospects:
Future prospects:
Prognosis
Prognosis
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 85
Article 11 monitoring - concept
Similarities
 Complete sampling vs. representative sampling
 Fixed sample units
Differences
 Sample units
 Sample size
 Selection of sample units
 Rotation of sample units
 Synergy effects
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 86
Article 11 - Austrian Forest Inventory




Monitoring of Forests since 1961
Quadratic tracts systematically distributed over Austria
in a regular grid system of 3,89 x 3,89 km.
Sampling units for sample plots per tract each 300 m2.
11.000 sample plots
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 87
Article 11 - Austrian Forest Inventory
Sampling Units
300 m2
200 m
Tract
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 88
Article 11 - Austrian Forest Inventory
Indicators relevant for Forest-Biodiversity
 Vegetation type (PNV, Herb-vegetation)
 Tree layer composition
 Diameters of trees
 Volume and structure of Deadwood
 Natural regeneration
 Game impact on regeneration
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 89
Article 11 monitoring –concept
Personal resource within reporting period
Habitat types
Species
6.212 d (4.349)
28.571 d (19.979)
Personal resource per year
Habitat types
1.035 d (725) = 4 MJ (2,9)
Species
4.761 d (3.330) = 19 MJ (13,3)
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 90
Article 11 monitoring - concept
First estimation of total costs:
App. 18 Mio € per cycle
= 3 Mio € per year
6.-7.4.2009 | Folie 91