measuring progress under target 1 of the eu biodiversity ... · measuring progress under target 1...
TRANSCRIPT
March 2014
1
European Environment Agency
Measuring progress under Target 1 of the EU biodiversity strategy
This paper is the fifth draft that presents proposals on how to measure progress towards Target 1 of
the 2020 EU biodiversity strategy.
This version takes into account the comments made by:
- Member States and stakeholders of the Expert Group of Reporting under the Nature
Directives, namely those made during the meetings of November 2012 and March 2013
- Member State representatives of the Habitats and Ornis Committees, including at the
meetings of April and October 2013.
The methodology proposed for the Habitats Directive component of Target 1 was endorsed by the
Habitats Committee on 3 October 2013.
At its meeting of 4 October 2013, the ORNIS Committee requested further work on the Birds
Directive section. This has now been done, and a revised proposal was discussed in depth at an ad hoc
workshop with a few Member State representatives and stakeholders on 21 November 20131.; The
Birds Directive section of this paper was therefore revised in line with conclusions reached at the ad
hoc workshop.
Additionally, this paper includes contributions from the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD), DG Environment, and the consortium led
by BirdLife International under contract with the European Commission to prepare the European and
EU Red Lists of Birds.
Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Habitats Directive ................................................................................................................................... 4
Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1 ................................................................... 5
A worked example with dummy data ............................................................................................. 6
Birds Directive ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Criteria to identify component A of Target 1(ii): ‘secure’ species ................................................. 9
Criteria to identify component B of Target 1(ii): ‘improving’ species ......................................... 11
Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1 for birds ................................................... 12
Presenting other data as ancillary information to aid interpretation ............................................. 12
Appendix 1 – Policy context of Target 1 .............................................................................................. 14
Appendix 2 – EU population status of birds in 2004 ............................................................................ 16
Minutes and paper with outcome from the workshop are available at
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/68325be7-3aa8-47ae-81e0-221bda6e0475
March 2014
2
European Environment Agency
Introduction
Member States were expected to submit their reports under Article (Art.) 17 of the Habitats Directive
by mid-2013, and by the end of 2013 the first report under Article (Art.) 12 of the Birds Directive
using the new format established in 2011. This new format puts the focus on data about the status and
trends of all wild birds in the EU, and thereby streamlines the reporting with that used under Art. 17
of the Habitats Directive. However, there remain significant differences between the reports. For
example, Art. 17 requires Member States to assess the status of relevant species and habitats in their
national-biogeographic region(s), according to a general matrix that refers strongly to definitions
given in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive. Under Art. 12 reporting, however, Member States do not
have such an obligation.
At EU level, the Art. 17 data are compiled and assessed to determine the EU-biogeographic status of
each species and habitat. Essentially, this is achieved by applying the general assessment matrix to the
compiled data from Member States. For Art. 12 data, the Commission also intends to make an EU-
level assessment. As with Art. 17, the national data will first be compiled, then assessed. The two
main differences with the Art. 17 process are: (1) the assessment will be done at the level of the
EU27, and not at biogeographic level; (2) a different assessment method will be used. After some
debate in the respective working groups that led to the new Art. 12 reporting process, the view was
taken by the Commission that an existing assessment method should preferably be used, allowing
trends since an earlier (baseline) assessment to be calculated in a comparable way.
The policy context of Target 1 is given in Appendix 1 at the end of this paper.
Target 1
To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU
nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their
status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments:
(i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the
Habitats Directive show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status; and
(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or
improved status
The starting point to measure progress towards Target 1 is to identify the species/habitats from the
Habitats Directive with a ‘favourable’ or an ‘improved’ status, and the species with a ‘secure’ or an
improved status and compare those to the baseline situation.
Ideally, only genuine changes of conservation/population status should be taken into account when
assessing progress towards the 2020 target. However, there may be many changes in the assessment
of conservation status that do not reflect real improvement or deterioration of the
conservation/population status; rather, they reflect changes in knowledge (better or newer data, data
becoming old due to the lack of monitoring), changes in methodology, taxonomic changes
(aggregation or separation of taxa), etc. Where these factors cause ‘non-genuine’ changes in status,
they should ideally be excluded from calculations.
Member States have been asked to document in their Article 17 reports the ‘reason for change’ (for
Article 12, this will only be requested from 2019), namely to indicate if the change observed in
several conservation status parameters are ‘genuine’ or not. In addition, Member States have been
requested to provide information (‘audit trail’) on the nature of change in the overall conservation
March 2014
3
European Environment Agency
status between the previous and the current assessments2. The EEA-ETC/BD will further investigate
how to take the above information into account when measuring progress towards Target 1.
Assessments at the EU level of many habitats and species from the Habitats Directive for the Alpine,
Continental and Pannonian regions may change as the regions include Bulgaria and Romania who
will be reporting for the first time in 2013: this involves about 200 species and 75 habitat types.
Additionally, there will be a series of new assessments for the Steppic and the Black Sea
biogeographical regions, which may also influence the overall statistics of conservation status.
Therefore, a pragmatic approach is proposed: to consider the assessments from these countries as
‘Unknown’ in the previous reporting period (2001-2006) and use the approach summarised in Table 1
(see below); however, the results shall be complemented by a detailed audit trail about the changes
between the two periods; this should also be highlighted when presenting and publishing the results.
The same principle applies to birds. A preliminary unpublished study by BirdLife International
assessed the status of all bird species at EU27 scale, by combining the national data gathered from
Bulgaria and Romania in 2004 with those from the EU25, and reapplying the same criteria and
thresholds, but at the EU27 scale. At that time, only three bird species were considered to occur
regularly in these two Member States but nowhere else in the EU27. Overall, the EU status of only 14
species (out of 451, i.e. 3%) differed when assessed the EU25 and EU27 scales, and only three (i.e.
<1%) of these differences involved changes between ‘secure’ and ‘non-secure’ categories.
In this case, therefore, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is considered to have had little impact
on the EU status of bird species, reflecting the widespread distribution of many European birds and
the lack of any endemics in these countries. For similar reasons, the accession of Croatia is also
unlikely to have many implications for the EU status of bird species when Art. 12 data from the EU28
are collated and assessed in 2019. However, this should not be taken as a general case, as the
implications of enlargement will depend greatly on the countries under consideration. The accession
of Turkey, for example, would have a much greater impact. Thus, it is imperative that all ‘non-
genuine’ changes are coded as such, presented clearly in resulting products, and excluded from
calculations for assessing progress towards Target 1.
The continued enlargement of the EU (from 25 to 27 Member States in 2007, to 28 in 2013, and
possibly even more before the next reporting round in 2019) poses its own challenges, as the
geographical baseline shifts over time. This strengthens the case for retaining the existing set of core
criteria (clarifying and adapting it only where necessary), to avoid generating results that cannot be
compared meaningfully. The 2014 assessment will be applied at the scale of the EU27, because
Croatia was not concerned by the reporting period 2007-2012.
Given the differences between the two nature directives and respective targets, the proposals are
organised directive by directive.
2 Letter of 11.06.2013 from DG ENV.B3 to the Habitats Committee
March 2014
4
European Environment Agency
Habitats Directive
(i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive
show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status
The baseline (2001-2006) is 17 % of favourable assessments for species and 17 % for habitat types3;
therefore, achieving the target means that at least 25 % of the assessments for species are favourable
or have an improved conservation status, and that at least 34 % of the assessments for habitat types
are favourable or have an improved conservation status in 2020.
The first step for measuring progress towards the target is to identify the changes between the two
periods and which changes contribute to the target. The ‘matrix of changes’ below (Table 1) maps the
(theoretically) possible type of changes in conservation status between period 2001-2006 (hereafter
‘p’) and period 2007-2012 (hereafter ‘p+1’).
Table 1 Matrix to classify changes between two reporting periods
Change in
conservation
status
CS in 2007-2012
FV U1+ U1= U1- U2+ U2= U2- XX
CS
in
2001
-
2006
FV Same Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Unknown
U1 Improve. Improve. Same Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Unknown
U2 Improve. Improve. Improve. Improve. Improve. Same Deterior. Unknown
XX Same Improve. Same Deterior. Improve. Same Deterior. Same
Note: there is almost no information on 'qualifiers' (+ or -) in the 2007 reports (voluntary field), but this
information was more widely reported by Member States in 2013 (obligatory field)
The change matrix above is built on the following assumptions for ‘Unknown’ assessments:
- XX assessments in period ‘p’ that are FV in period ‘p+1’assumed to be FV also in period ‘p’
- XX assessments in period ‘p’ that are ‘U1+’ or ‘U2+’ in period ‘p+1’ considered as an
‘improvement’
- XX assessments in period ‘p’ that are ‘U1-’ or ‘U2-’ in period ‘p+1’ considered as a
‘deterioration’
- Conservation status assumed to be the ‘same’ for XX assessments in period ‘p’ that became
‘U1=’ or ‘U2=’ in period ‘p+1’
The Habitats Directive element of Target 1 was formulated using the statistics from the EU
biogeographical assessments4; these assessments were made by the EEA-ETC/BD using the data
reported by the Member States. Therefore, the references to conservation status in this chapter
concern the EU biogeographical assessments, not the national biogeographical assessments
made by the Member States.
3 Commission staff working paper: Impact assessment (SEC (2011) 540)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 4 http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2007/chapter4
March 2014
5
European Environment Agency
Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1
The change matrix above is represented below (Table 2) in a format that allows a more direct link to
the measurement of Target 1, i.e. identifying its two components: ‘favourable’ AND ‘improved’
assessments; in addition, it indicates the ‘deterioration’ of the conservation status, the ‘unknown’
assessments, and those assumed to be the ‘same’ between the two periods.
Table 2 Matrix for measuring progress under Target 1 and deriving other related statistics
Change in
conservation status
between reporting
periods
CS in 2007-2012
FV U1 + U1 U1 - U2 + U2 U2 - XX
CS
in
2001
-
2006
FV A (=) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) E (x)
U1 A (+) B (+) D (=) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) E (x)
U2 A (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) D (=) C (-) E (x)
XX A (=) B (+) D (=) C (-) B (+) D (=) C (-) D (=)
The signs between brackets indicate the type of change in the conservation status between periods ‘p’ and ‘p+1’: (=) no change, (+) improvement, (-) deterioration, (x) not known.
‘A’ indicates ‘favourable’ assessments, ‘B’ ‘improved’ assessments, ‘C’ ‘deteriorated’ assessments, ‘D’ unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change, and ‘E’ assessments that became ‘unknown’.
For the Habitats Directive component of Target 1, measuring progress between reporting period ‘p’
(baseline: 2001-2006) and reporting period ‘p+1’ (2007-2012) will include two components:
- Percentage of features with a Favourable conservation status (FV) in (p+1)
(sub-value A)
- Percentage of Unfavourable and Unknown assessments in (p) that show an improving trend
(+) in (p+1)
(sub-value B)
A + B will give us the number/percentage of assessments with a favourable or improved
conservation status in period p+1 when compared to period p.
Since we are comparing changes in the conservation status of individual species and habitats, each
cell of the table above is net of changes; therefore, there is no need to subtract the cells corresponding
to deteriorations: doing that would lead to double counting. For example, any assessment that was
‘favourable’ in the past and it is now ‘unfavourable’ represents ‘deterioration’; however, from an
arithmetical point of view, this ‘deterioration’ is already accounted for in the lower number of
‘favourable’ assessments.
It does not seem worthwhile using other data or information fields from the national reports or the EU
calculations to measure improvement of conservation status within any of the four parameters of the
overall conservation status (e.g. to account for the increase of population size or habitat area of a
feature whose status remains unfavourable). This would concern a very limited number of features,
associated with all the standardization and quality issues that these parameters suffer – and that are
not likely to be fully addressed in the coming reporting cycle. Accounting for improvement of any of
the conservation status parameters where the overall conservation status is unfavourable would also
imply complex calculations difficult to be understood by non-specialists. However, improvement or
March 2014
6
European Environment Agency
deterioration in individual conservation status parameters should be expressed (and accounted for)
through the qualifiers of the overall conservation status (U1+, U1-, U2+, U2-).
Data from Table 2 allow for additional statistics that provide a better context to the measurements of
Target 1. For example, comparing the number/percentage of improved and deteriorated conservation
status assessments would give us a ‘net change’ (sum of all ‘+’ minus the sum of all ‘-‘). See example
on next page.
A worked example with dummy data
In p (2001-2006): we had 17 assessments FV, 28 U1, 37 U2, and 18 XX at the EU-biogeographical
level
Calculations to be done row by row, comparing what happened in p+1 (2007-2012) to the
assessments in p
From the 17 FV in p we have in p+1: 15 that remained FV, 1 that became U1+, and 1 that became
U2=
From the 28 U1 in 2007 we have now: 2 that became FV, 3 became U1+, 17 remained U1=, 4 that
became U1-, and 2 became XX
From the 37 U2 in 2007 we have now: 1 that became U1+, 2 became U1=, 3 became U2+, 28
remained U2, and 3 became U2-
From the 18 XX in 2007 we have now: 3 that became FV, 2 became U1=, 1 became U1-, 1
became U2+, 1 became U2=, and 10 remained XX
P p+1
FV U1+ U1= U1- U2+ U2= U2- XX total
17 FV 15 1 1 17
28 U1 2 3 17 4 2 28
37 U2 1 2 3 28 3 37
18 XX 3 2 1 1 1 10 18
Totals 20 5 21 5 4 30 3
12 100 31 37
= Remained favourable in 2013 or Unknown becoming favourable (15+3) 18
+ Became favourable in 2013 (2+0) 2
+ B (improved in 2013 compared to 2007) (3+1+2+0+3+0+1) 10
- C (deteriorated in 2013 compared to 2007) 10
= No change 58
x Unknown in 2013 12
A + B = 20 + (3+1+2+3+1) = 20 + 10 = 30
Therefore, we would have 30 % of assessments that are favourable or improved compared to 17 %
2007; this means 76 % more compared to the 17 % baseline (30 x 100 / 17).
For habitats, the 2020 Target 1 is to achieve 34 % of favourable or improved assessments; therefore, a
value of 30 % would indicate that Target 1 is 88 % fulfilled in 2013 (30 x 100 / 34).
For species, the 2020 Target is to achieve 26 % of favourable or improved assessments; therefore, a
value of 30 % would indicate that Target is reached by more than 15 % (30 x 100 / 26).
March 2014
7
European Environment Agency
The net change between the two periods, i.e. total number of improvements minus the total number of
deteriorations, is
- [A (+) + B (+)] – C (-)
- [2 + (3+1+2+3+1)] – (1+1+4+3+1)
- + 2
The net change is +2, which represents a net improvement of 2 % when comparing the two
reporting periods.
The graphs below are given as possible examples of presenting the data used to measure progress
towards Target 1.
Conservation status in 2013 Progress towards Target 1
2010 State:
17 %
Favourable
Status in 2013:
Target 1 is 88 % fulfilled
2020 Target:
100 % more
Favourable or
improving
(e.g. 34 %)
Conservation status in 2013 showing trends for the unfavourable status
(two different representations of the same data)
20
31 37
12
FV U1 U2 XX
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
FV U1 U2 XX
-
=
-
+ +
=
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
FV U1+ U1= U1- U2+ U2= U2- XX
March 2014
8
European Environment Agency
Status in 2013: - 30 % with a favourable or improved conservation status
- 10 % with a deteriorated status
- net change is slightly positive (+ 2 %)
- 58 % did not improved or deteriorated status
- 12 % with an unknown conservation status Note: these percentages add more than 100 % since the same feature may be accounted twice
e.g. ‘favourable A(=)’ and ‘no change (=), ‘unknown (x)’ and ‘no change (=)’, ‘favourable A(+)’ and ‘improved +)’
Statistics from the change matrix (comparing 2007 and 2013): - 20 % favourable
- 10 % unfavourable with an improved status
- 10 % unfavourable with a deteriorated status
- 58 % maintained their unfavourable status or remained unknown
- 2 % became unknown Note: these percentages add 100 %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Favourable orImproved
Deteriorated Net change No change Unknown
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D E
March 2014
9
European Environment Agency
Birds Directive
(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status
The baseline for birds is 52%, based on the number of species considered to be secure in the only EU-
level assessment conducted to date (in 2004, at EU25 level5). If the target was simply to increase this
figure by 50%, then it would mean that 78% of species (rounded up to 80% in some EC documents6)
would need to be in secure status by 2020. However, the target includes species whose status is either
secure or improving. It is therefore necessary to use the data reported under Art. 12 to: (a) determine
which species are secure; and (b) define the conditions under which non-secure species will be
classified as improving. This is very important, as many species are a long way from being secure, but
some are recovering, some remain depleted and others are still declining.
The method and parameters used to assess the conservation status of habitats and taxa under Article
17 of the Habitats Directive do not apply to birds. However, retaining the logic of the proposal above
for the Habitats Directive, and striving for consistency, the formula to be used for measuring progress
between the baseline assessment p (2004) and the next assessment p+1 (2014) is proposed as follows :
% of bird species in target condition = A (% secure) + B (% improving)
The result can be compared with the baseline figure (52 %) to assess progress towards the target.
Criteria to identify component A of Target 1(ii): ‘secure’ species
To ensure comparability with the baseline assessment, it is important to distinguish secure from non-
secure species in the same (or a very similar) way. The method used in 2004 involved applying a
series of criteria and thresholds (See Table in Appendix 2) to the data for all species at EU level,
which filtered out different species at different levels. Those passing through all the ‘filters’ were
classified as secure, as shown in Appendix 2.
Feedback from Member States has led to various changes to these criteria and thresholds being
proposed over the past year. More details can be found below (Table 3), but some of the more
significant changes have included replacing the categories Rare and Localised with the IUCN
category Near Threatened, and changing the proposed threshold for Declining and Depleted from
10% to 20%.
Following those changes, most Member States have now accepted the proposal for the European
Commission to use this method to calculate the number of secure species in 2014, using the data
submitted under Art. 12. Thus, Figure 1 shows the refined set of ‘filters’ proposed for application in
2014. The figure required under component A (secure) of Target 1(ii) is the number of species
classified as Secure (green box). For the figure needed under component B (improving), a second step
is applied only to those species that are Threatened or Not Secure.
For full details of proposed changes to the categories and criteria, this paper should be read in
conjunction with the outcome paper from the ad hoc workshop of 21 November 2013‘Using the data
reported by Member States under Article 12 of the Birds Directive to summarise and present species’
population status at EU level and measure progress towards Target 1(ii) of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy. March 2014’ 7.
5 BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife
International. http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/birds_in_europe/birds_in%20_the_eu.pdf 6 Commission staff working paper: Impact assessment (SEC (2011) 540)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 7 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/68325be7-3aa8-47ae-81e0-221bda6e0475
March 2014
10
European Environment Agency
Figure 1 Flowchart showing filters proposed to assess the EU population status of birds in 2014
Table 3 A comparison of the criteria and thresholds used to allocate species to population status categories in Birds in the European Union (BirdLife International 2004a) and those proposed for application to the data from Art. 12 reporting in 2014, highlighting major changes in red italics.
EU population
status category
Brief description of criteria and thresholds
2004 (applied) 2014 (proposed)
Regionally
Extinct n/a
As per IUCN (i.e. no reasonable doubt that last
individual in EU27 has died)
Critically
Endangered
Meets any of the IUCN Red List
criteria for CR at EU25 scale
Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for CR
at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥80%8)
Endangered Meets any of the IUCN Red List
criteria for EN at EU25 scale
Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for EN
at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥50%3)
Vulnerable Meets any of the IUCN Red List
criteria for VU at EU25 scale
Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for VU
at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥30%3)
Near
Threatened n/a
Close to meeting IUCN Red List criteria for VU
at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥20%3)
Declining EU25 population declined by >10%
in 10 years or three generations
EU27 population or range declined by ≥20%
since 1980, with continuing decline since 2001
Depleted Not yet recovered from earlier (1970-
1990) population declines in EU25
EU27 population or range declined by ≥20%
since 1980, but no longer declining since 2001
Rare EU25 population <5,000 pairs and
not marginal n/a (now covered partly by NT)
Localised ≥90% EU25 population concentrated
at ≤10 sites n/a (now covered partly by NT)
Secure Does not currently meet any of the
criteria above in EU25
Does not currently meet any of the criteria
above in EU27
Data Deficient Inadequate information available to
assess EU25 status
Inadequate information available to assess
EU27 status
Not Evaluated EU25 population not evaluated
against criteria
EU27 population not evaluated against criteria
(e.g. occurs only on passage)
8 Over ten years or three generations, whichever is longer.
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
No
Yes
Yes
Threatened
Not Secure
Secure
Unknown
No
Yes
March 2014
11
European Environment Agency
Criteria to identify component B of Target 1(ii): ‘improving’ species
Owing to the way in which Target 1 is formulated, improvements are only relevant to species
classified as non-secure (i.e. Threatened or Not Secure) using the set of ‘filters’ above (Figure 1).
Previous versions of this document included a ‘matrix’ that classified all possible changes between
status categories since 2004 as improvements or deteriorations, in an attempt to achieve consistency
with the Art. 17 approach. However, feedback from Member States indicated that this was too
complex and less relevant under Art. 12, and that a simpler system based on the EU-level trends of
species would be preferred, making more direct use of the short- and long-term trend data being
reported by Member States. Table 4 presents the simplest way of doing this, based solely on changes
in trend direction. The most important element is that species whose long-term trend is declining, but
whose short-term trend is stable or increasing, count as improvements. Figure 2 presents some
illustrative examples of applying this approach to species, using existing trend data from PECBMS.
Table 4 Classifying changes in trend direction of non-secure bird species at EU level as improvements.
Long-term trend
(1980-2012)
Short-term trend (2001-2012)
Increasing Stable/Fluctuating Declining Unknown
Increasing Yes No No No
Stable/Fluctuating Yes No No No
Declining Yes Yes No No
Unknown Yes No No No
Figure 3 Examples using data from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS)
For illustrative purposes, the vertical lines in 2001 indicate the point at which the change is being assessed.
Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Increasing
Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Declining Improvement since last assessment? No
Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Declining
Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Increasing Improvement since last assessment? Yes
Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Declining Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Stable
Improvement since last assessment? Yes
Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Stable Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Increasing
Improvement since last assessment? Yes
March 2014
12
European Environment Agency
This method makes good use of the national population data provided by Member States under Art.
12. It combines the direction and magnitude of species trends in each country, taking into account the
relative size of each national population, to produce overall short- and long-term trends at EU level. It
is also easy to communicate. If a species has stopped declining but remains depleted (and is thus non-
secure), it contributes towards the 2020 target, because the loss of this particular aspect of biodiversity
has been halted (i.e. improvement). Conversely, if a species is still declining, albeit it at a slower rate
than previously, it does not contribute towards the 2020 target, because it represents ongoing
biodiversity loss (i.e. deterioration).
Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1 for birds
Table 5 presents two examples (dummy data) of how the elements described above could be
combined to assess progress towards Target 1(ii). Under Scenario 1, progress is achieved because of
an increase in the numbers of both secure and improving (non-secure) species. Under Scenario 2,
progress has been achieved only because of an increase in the number of improving (non-secure)
species, which ‘offsets’ the (smaller) reduction in the number of secure species. In practice, Scenario
2 is unlikely to arise. However, in discussion with Member States, it was agreed that it was important
to present the two elements of the calculation separately, to show their relative contributions towards
the target. This reflects the significant difference between species that are secure and species that are
improving, which should not be concealed when reporting the results.
Table 5 Worked examples of measuring progress towards Target 1(ii) under two example
scenarios.
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 445 445 445
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 n/a 3% 7%
A + B Total number of species in target condition (i.e.
Secure + Improving) 232 260 245
A% + B% Total percentage of species in target condition (i.e.
Secure + Improving) 52% 58% 55%
Presenting other data as ancillary information to aid interpretation
Much of the most recent discussion with Member States on this subject revolved around whether non-
secure species whose rate of decline has slowed significantly (sometimes as a result of conservation
measures) should count as improvements and contribute towards the 2020 target. Ultimately, as stated
above, it was concluded that they should not contribute towards the target, because their continuing
declines represent an ongoing loss of biodiversity, which is very difficult to communicate as positive
progress towards the target.
However, such species do constitute a different type of improvement, and it is important to
communicate this as supporting information, alongside the ‘headline’ figures above. It often takes a
long time for conservation action to take effect, and for the populations or ranges of declining species
to stabilise and eventually start to increase again. Efforts to slow, halt and reverse such declines
deserve acknowledgement, as they are essential steps on the road to the recovery from non-secure to
March 2014
13
European Environment Agency
secure. The public is familiar with such cases, as they form the bulk of the improvements reported in
updates to the IUCN Red List9, and positive news stories about successful wildlife comebacks are rare
but very popular10
.
Highlighting species in this condition may also indicate where additional investment in the coming
years is most likely to deliver genuine improvements, which will help to ensure that the 2020 target is
achieved. Equally, there is value in drawing attention to non-secure species and groups whose status
has deteriorated further since the last assessment, for which current measures are evidently not
sufficient and new approaches may be needed. Deeper analysis of the Art. 12 data set and other
sources of information may be required to shed light on the underlying reasons for these patterns, but
important messages can already be conveyed.
Consequently, besides the formal assessment and presentation of progress towards the 2020 target, a
number of complementary statistics will also be calculated and reported, to make even more use of the
Art. 12 data and provide a more complete picture of how birds are faring in the EU. Table 6
summarises a few ideas.
Table 6 Examples of relevant additional information to report, based on analyses of the Art. 12 data
Number, names, habitat/ecosystems associations and regional distributions of non-secure species whose declines
have slowed, to the extent that they have moved into a lower status category since last assessed.
Number, names, habitat/ecosystems associations and regional distributions of non-secure species whose declines
have accelerated, to the extent that they have moved into a higher status category since last assessed.
Number, names, habitat/ecosystems associations and regional distributions of secure species that have increased
dramatically (e.g. by >20%) since last assessed.
9 e.g. http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/red-list-birds-2013-number-critically-endangered-birds-hits-new-high 10 e.g. http://www.rewildingeurope.com/news/articles/wildlife-comeback-in-europe-study-released/
March 2014
14
European Environment Agency
Appendix 1 – Policy context of Target 1
In May 2011 the Commission adopted a new Biodiversity Strategy that followed on from the 2006
Biodiversity Action Plan:
Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
(COM(2011) 244)11
The Commission’s Communication builds on the long-term vision and headline target endorsed by
EU leaders in 2010
2050 vision
By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides — its natural capital —
are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and for their
essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes
caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided.
2020 headline target
Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and
restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global
biodiversity loss.
The framework for action up to 2020 includes six targets and a series of actions under each target:
Conserving and restoring nature – Target 1
Maintaining and enhancing ecosystems and their services – Target 2
Ensuring sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries – Target 3 and 4
Combating invasive alien species – Target 5
Addressing the global biodiversity crisis – Target 6
Target 1
To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and
achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to
current assessments:
(i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive
show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status; and
(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status
The basis and justification for the figures in Target 1 are given in the ‘Commission staff working
paper: Impact assessment (SEC(2011) 540)’12
. The calculations that led to the values in Target 1 can
be found in Annex 8 of the ‘Annexes to the impact assessment’13
. The summary of the impact
assessment is available in all EU languages14
.
11
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf 12
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 13
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part2_v4.pdf 14
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_resume_impact_assesment_part1_v6.pdf
March 2014
15
European Environment Agency
In June 2011 the Council (ENV) adopted conclusions on the EU 2020 biodiversity Strategy:
Environment Council Conclusions of 21 June 201115
The Council globally endorsed the six targets since they respond to the main obstacles that prevented
the achievement of the previous EU targets related to biodiversity; it also indicates that further work
on the EU biodiversity strategy would be carried out.
In December 2011 the Council (ENV) adopted more detailed conclusions, namely highlighting
several of the actions from the Commission’s Communication:
Environment Council Conclusions of 19 December 201116
Meanwhile, in October 2011 the European Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on
the EU 2020 biodiversity Strategy:
EESC opinion of 26 October 201117
In April 2012 the European Parliament adopts a resolution on the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy:
European Parliament Resolution of 20 April 2012 (2011/2307(INI))18
Concerning the quantitative aspects of Target 1 the EP
21. Emphasises the need to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats
covered by EU nature conservation legislation and achieve a significant and measurable
improvement in their status at EU level; stresses that this should take the form of an improvement
in at least one of the parameters for conservation status defined in Article 1 of the Habitats
Directive, without any deterioration in the other parameters;
24. Stresses that, in order to establish a clear pathway to achieving the 2050 vision, at least
40 % of all habitats and species must have a favourable conservation status by 2020; recalls that,
by 2050, 100 % (or almost 100 %) of habitats and species must have a favourable conservation
status;
15
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st11/st11978.en11.pdf 16
http://consilium.europa.eu/media/1379139/st18862.en11.pdf 17
http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/EESCopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=ces\nat\nat491\ces1600-2011_ac.doc&language=EN 18
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-146
March 2014
16
European Environment Agency
Appendix 2 – EU population status of birds in 2004
Flowchart showing filters applied to assess the EU population status of birds in 2004.
Table A summary of the criteria and thresholds used to allocate species to population status
categories in Birds in the European Union (BirdLife International 2004). EU25 population status
category (and acronym) Brief description of criteria and thresholds
2004 baseline
n spp %
Critically Endangered (CR) Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for CR at EU25 scale 8 2
Endangered (EN) Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for EN at EU25 scale 14 3
Vulnerable (VU) Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for VU at EU25 scale 32 7
Declining (D) Declined in EU25 by >10% in 10 years or three generations 76 17
Depleted (H) Not yet recovered from earlier declines in EU25 (1970-1990) 40 9
Rare (R) EU25 population <5,000 pairs and not marginal 35 8
Localised (L) ≥90% EU25 population concentrated at ≤10 sites 8 2
Secure (S) Does not currently meet any of the criteria above in EU25 232 52
Data Deficient (DD) Inadequate information available to assess EU25 status 1 <1
Not Evaluated (NE) EU25 population not evaluated against criteria 2 <1
Total 448 100
232 species
Yes
Threatened
Not Secure
Secure
54 species
159 species
Unknown:
Data Deficient
Not Evaluated 3 species
Sufficient data to assess all
extant native bird species
in the EU25? (448 species)
Yes
No
Is the species Critically
Endangered, Endangered
or Vulnerable in the EU25?
The species is considered
to be Secure in the EU25
Is the species Declining,
Rare, Depleted or
Localised in the EU25?
No
No
Yes