assessments and reporting in germany (art. 17 habitats directive) dr. axel ssymank federal office...

fü r N a tu rs c h u tzBundesam t

Assessments and reporting in Germany(Art. 17 Habitats Directive)Assessments and reporting in Germany(Art. 17 Habitats Directive)

Dr. Axel SsymankFederal Office for Nature Conservation, Bonn

25 – 27 April 2007

PEER Nature2000 workshop, Roskilde (DK)


Assessments & reporting in DEAssessments & reporting in DE

Introduction – Reporting on Natura 2000 in Germany

workflow and data handlingassessment procedures at site and

national leveldata aggregation from Länder data to

national levelchallenges and solutions for future

reporting


Sites for Natura 2000 (without EEZ)Sites for Natura 2000 (without EEZ)

9.3% of the terrestrial surface4,618 sites3.3 Mio ha (+ 2 Mio ha marine)

8.4% of the terrestrial surface539 sites3.0 Mio ha (1.2 Mio ha marine)

Natura 2000 in total:13,5 % of the terrestrial surface of Germany

(as of : February 2006)


Habitat area within proposed sitesHabitat area within proposed sites

total habitat area in proposed Sites (SCI) in Germany 2.56 Mio ha,

d.h. 48% of the sites are habitat-area,

in terrestrial sites 41 %, in marine/EEZ-sites 60 %

marine and intertidal 1,20 Mio ha 46,8 %habitats

coastal habitatsdunes, salt meadows 0,04 Mio ha 1,6 %

inland dunes: 0,01 Mio ha 0,5 %

aquatic habitats 0,17 Mio ha 6,6 %

heath and scrub-vegetation 0,06 Mio ha 2,2 %

grasslands 0,20 Mio ha 7,6 %

bogs and swamps 0,06 Mio ha 2,3 %

rocky habitats and scree 0,03 Mio ha 1,1 %

forests 0,80 Mio ha 31,2 %

forestsMarine and intertidal habitats

other habitats 22 %


Species & habitats for reportingSpecies & habitats for reporting3 biogeographical regions (atlantic, alpine, continental)

with the following habitats and species to be reported on:

alpine altantic continental

species 120 151 227

(species of Annex II)

29 49 93

Habitat types

41 65 80

684 data sheets for the reporting to be filled in







reporting


Member State

Länder

Natura 2000 Sites

Outside Natura 2000 Sites

Report on measures taken & their effects

Report on conservation status (surveillance Art. 11)

Measures taken in relation with plans & projects

Measures to avoiddeterio-ration

Conserva-tion measures taken

Conservation status of habitats (I) & species (II,IV,V)

16 Länder reports Report on other measures taken (e.g. for coherence, Art. 10)

National report (Art. 17)

EU: composite report

Conserva-tion status of habitats (I), species (II)


creation of a national data set including automated pre-assessment procedures

Technical organisationTechnical organisation

Centralized data base (BfN)

range, area, populationdata base for species and habitats

first data validation

biogeographic assessment conferences and 2nd data validation

GIS-based map production,algorythms for range calculation

DE reporting tool, decentralized data collection Länder level: 16 + 1 datasets

final national data set DE

package upload of maps and data to EU reporting tool (BfN)


LRT 2110: embryonic shifting dunesLRT 2110: embryonic shifting dunes

?

small gaps are connected for natural range

larger gaps are not connected







reporting


Frame of assessment – mountain hay meadowsFrame of assessment – mountain hay meadows

Conservation status

A – excellent B –good C – average or reduced

Completeness of typical structures

(Conservation of the structures)

low grasses dominating, herb-rich (% cover):

base-rich: > 40% herbs base-poor: > 30% herbs

natural structure and variation complete

low grasses frequent, herbs-reduced (% cover):

base-rich: > 30-40% herbs base-poor: > 15-30% herbs natural structure and variation reduced

high grasses or tall herbs dominating, species-poor:

base-rich: < 30% herbs base-poor: < 15% herbs

homogenous structure and variation misssing

typical species: species list: Astrantia major, Crepis mollis, Carum carvi, Campanula rotundifolia Crocus albiflorus …., regional specific adaptations on Länder level

Completeness of typical species inventory

(conservation of functions by indicator species)

typical species ³ 15,

at least 6 frequently occurring indicators for nutrient poor soils

typical species 8-14

at least 3 frequently occurring indicators for nutrient poor soils

typical species < 8,

indicators for nutrient poor soils rarely present

negative impacts /restoration possibilities

not visible untypical species groups present in low density, for example indicators for eutrophication, ruderalization, pasture weeds (# 5%)

untypical species groups present in higher density, for example indicators for eutrophication, ruderalization, pasture weeds (> 5%)

Recommendations for monitoring (art. 11)

Parameter Recommendation

outside pSCI’s statistical sampling

fauna facultative, has to be regionally adapted/ designed


htt

p:/

/ww

w.b

fn.d

e /03

/030

306 .

htm

PARAMETER Methodolgy Frequency Population size Maternity roosts Counts 2x season May to July, counts of

individuals Search for new maternity roosts via telemetry

Every 6 years

Foraging area Relative Abundance via: Net catches 6 per site, 5 detector transects per site

Every 6 years

Hibernating roosts

Net catches an controls where appropriate

Populations structure

Materinity roosts

Net catches, 2x season Every 6 years (selected every year)

Foraging area Net catches s. a. Every 6 years Hibernating

roosts Net catches during swarming period every year

Habitat Maternity roosts and foraging area

1. Telemetry to work out habitat preferences 2. Interpretation of biotope maps etc.

concerning abundance of (potential) roosts, structural forest parameters etc.

Every 6 years

Threats/Pressure Checklist based survey Every 6 years

Ex: Myotis daubentonii:Key-components of survey methods

Ex: Myotis daubentonii:Key-components of survey methods


Annex E: Habitat evaluation matrixAnnex E: Habitat evaluation matrixParameter Conservation Status

Favourable('green')

Unfavourable – Inadequate

('amber')

Unfavourable - Bad('red')

Unknown(insufficient

information to make an

assessment)

Range Stable (loss and expansion in balance) or increasing AND not smaller than the 'favourable reference range'

Any other combination

Large decrease: Equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year within period specified by MSORMore than 10% below ‘favourable reference range’

No or insufficient reliable information available

Area covered by habitat type within range

Stable (loss and expansion in balance) or increasing AND not smaller than the 'favourable reference area' AND without significant changes in distribution pattern within range (if data available)


Large decrease in surface area: Equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year (indicative value MS may deviate from if duly justified) within period specified by MS ORWith major losses in distribution pattern within range ORMore than 10% below ‘favourable reference area’


Specific structures and functions (including typical species)

Structures and functions (including typical species) in good condition and no significant deteriorations / pressures.


More than 25% of the area is unfavourable as regards its specific structures and functions (including typical species)


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; long-term viability assured.


The habitats prospects are bad, severe impact from threats expected; long-term viability not assured.


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’


A + B

aggregation of data at biogeografical levelaggregation of data at biogeografical level

Conservation status, biogeografical level

favourable

inadequate

bad

unknown

Range

Population

Habitat of the species

Future propects

Overall Assessm.

range

population

species inventory

stuctures

A B

impacts/future prosp.

CCS at local level

for sites / occurences: Agg

rega

tion

Aggregation







reporting


Data types for aggregationData types for aggregation1. data text informations often difficult to handle,

have to be rewritten often with

additional background knowledge

2. statistical informations,

e.g. number of SAC‘s: direct aggregation

3. weighted aggregation of data – algorythms adapted

for every parameter

developping and applying algorythmstechnical pre-assessment

data verification, expert control

consolidated basic data set for application of EU-Matrices


Necessity to standardizeNecessity to standardize1. Example population counts:

Species population counts have been standardized as a consensus between BfN and the Länder authorities and this reference list for all species is integrated in the German national reporting tool in order to ensure data, that can be combined into a national report.

The chosen standard was as close as possible to the best available data set for the whole region, that means for species groups, where detailed data were available this could be individuals, for less well-known groups occupied grid cells

The general German reference list has been provided as an example on CIRCA-platform

Deviations from this list are possible, under the condition that this is valid for a whole biogeographic region within Germany (a few examples in the alpine region)

2. Example: Annex V species groups:

as the species groups are often large (e.g. 35 Sphagnum- species) and ecologically heterogenous with very common and rare and threatened species a reporting at genus level was impossible. Thus an individual reporting will be done at species level

Species groups have been allowed only in Annex A when giving lists of measures etc.


Data inside – outside Natura 2000Data inside – outside Natura 2000

-Data quality and availability in and outside Natura 2000 is a difficult problem. Outside data are scare or not existent (mainly expert judgement), however a monitoring systems will be built up for future reporting and the main methodical issues (Sample sizes, statistical background etc.) have been discussed and are agreed between the Länder.

-assumption so far: if more than 80% of all occurrences are within Natura 2000 – the total CS is regarded as being identical with the CS inside Natura 2000

-DE hopes for forests to integrate the federal forestry inventory and to a adapt it to the needs of Art. 17 in order to get the highest possbile data density for monitoring


Area covered, changes in distribution patternArea covered, changes in distribution pattern

„without significant changes in distribution pattern“

significant changes in distribution pattern• losses of area in smaller continuous areas, for example at

higher altitudes, while still present in valley bottoms• complete loss of at least one subtype in at least one larger

natural regionsubtpes are based on all known biotope types and plant

associations belonging to the variation of a habitat type

major losses in distribution pattern• losses of (almost) all occurrences/ areas or grids within a larger

natural region (e.g. a whole mountain range like the Black forest, in DE 69 natural regions + 4 marine regions)


Example trend range (based on expert judgements)Example trend range (based on expert judgements)

a) calculate Länder proportion of the range

b) summing up percentages within every category: % percent times values of +, =, -, -- and u

c) defining the threshold where the unknown proportion is too high to use the data (general unknown as result)

d) defining the translation of final calculated results into the categories needed to fill in the Annex B or application of the Matrix

e) final expert check: specific cases, for example almost whole population in one country, in other countries only scattered individuals

example: HH (-) 0,05; SH 0,8 (+) ; NI 0,15 (--)

+ 1 +0,8

= 0

- -1 -0,05

-- -2 (<1%/a) -0,3

sum: +0,45

defining translation: v

<-1 unfavourable

-1<v<0 declining (-)

=0 stable (0)

>0 increasing (+)


Applying weighted algorythmsApplying weighted algorythms

-all Trend values (range, area covered, population)

-population (only if no standardized units)

-population structure

-habitat of a species

-future prospects (species and habitats)

-distribution pattern

-structures and functions (ha of every category needed)




workflow and data handling assessment procedures at site and national

level data aggregation from Länder data to national

level challenges and solutions for future reporting


Challenges for 2007 onwards and for future reportingChallenges for 2007 onwards and for future reporting

Selected topics (I): Defining the Assessment of measures taken in terms of effects

on Conservation Status Creating a useful standard for most of the issues so far only

reported as simple text files in Annex A Setting up procedures how to deal with an unfavourable

conservation status – analysis of causes, measures to be taken, reponsabilities etc.

Standardizing reference data to allow for a meaningful data aggregation at community or biogeografical level

setting up the full Art. 11 monitoring and how to integrate these data into reporting

integration of other data sources for mutual support e.g. Water Framework Directive, Forestry monitoring


Challenges for 2007 onwards IIChallenges for 2007 onwards IIA few preliminary ideas for data aggregation from DE experience :

In principal assessemnt at biogeografical or EU level is possible in a two step procedure: 1st weighted data aggregation and 2nd application of the EU Assessment Matrices

Range maps, area covered and population provide an important background for using weighted automated data aggregations

Specifically for data aggregation of parameters like sturctures and functions, no mean values at any lower spatial level are useful; every value has to be reported separately on a ha or area basis

data aggregation is only meaningful if the measures are standardized (for example units for population counts, any option like „others“ without a precise description is useless)

data aggregation rules have to be established to ensure comparable results in consecutive reporting periods

the proportion of unknown leading to an overall unknown when aggregating data is depening on the methods of data aggregation and has to be checked carefully

special attention is needed when aggregating data of very different levels of confidence (expert judgements, real data etc.)


BfN-Manuals & www.bfn.deBfN-Manuals & www.bfn.deLife-Project:Rückriem & Roscher 1999Recommendations for the implementation of reporting obligations Art. 17

F+E (national research project)Fartmann et al. 2001Reporting in Natura 2000 sites standardized recording methods for species & ecological habitat characteristics)

BfN-Handbooks:Ssymank et al. 1998: habitats

Species handbooks:3 volumes: Species data sheets and distribution maps

CD-Rom : Info Natura 2000


Thank you very much for your attention!

Thank you very much for your attention!

Mönchsgut, RügenMai 2005

assessments and reporting in germany (art. 17 habitats directive) dr. axel ssymank federal office...

Documents

lnder data

data sheets

deintroduction reporting

national levelchallenges

inassessments reporting

national leveldata aggregation

national report

species habitats