Do something for our planet, print this page only if needed. Even a small action can make an enormous difference when millions of people do it!
Indicator Assessment
Progress towards the 2020 target of improving the conservation status of habitats covered by the EU Habitats Directive has not been substantial since 2010. This indicates that significant conservation efforts need to be implemented to revert current trends.
At the EU level, only 16 % of the assessments of habitats protected under the Habitats Directive have a favourable conservation status.
Bogs, mires and fens have the highest proportion of unfavourable assessments, followed closely by grasslands.
Conservation status trends are quite variable across biogeographic regions, however, more habitats are stable than decreasing in the terrestrial regions. There are still significant gaps in knowledge on marine habitat types.
At the EU Member State level, the majority of assessments indicate a low number of habitats with a favourable conservation status.
Progress in meeting the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy Target 1 for habitats (Habitats Directive): proportion of EU regional assessments that are favourable or improving
Note: These are habitats from the Habitats Directive.
Target 1 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy addresses nature conservation objectives through proper implementation of the nature directives. The target aims at improving the conservation status of habitats covered by the Habitats Directive, so that, by 2020, 34 % of habitat assessments are favourable or improving. Currently (Figure 1), only 21 % of habitat assessments meet the target conditions: over 16 % are favourable and over 4 % have improved.
Across the EU-27, only 16 % of habitat assessments are favourable and 77 % indicate unfavourable conservation status (Figure 2).
In terms of the unfavourable conservation status trends, only 4 % of assessments indicate an improving status and 33 % are stable. However, the status of a further 30 % is still declining (Figure 3).
Looking at the conservation status trends by habitat group (based on Annex I of the Habitats Directive), bogs, mires and fens have the highest proportion of unfavourable assessments. Almost half of these habitats are deteriorating, followed closely by grasslands (40 %). Forests and freshwater habitats are also predominantly unfavourable but stable (Figure 4).
In the majority of biogeographic regions, more habitats are stable than declining, with the exception of the Boreal region, where almost half the habitats are unfavourable and declining. Despite the high proportion of habitats with an unfavourable status in the Atlantic region, this is also where the greatest proportion of habitat types is improving (11 %). For marine regions, there is a significant share of improving unfavourable habitats in the Marine Atlantic region (43 %), followed by the Marine Macaronesian region with almost 17 %. By contrast, the share of declining habitat assessments in the Marine Baltic region exceeds 70 %, followed by the Marine Black Sea with 43 %. However, these results may also be attributable to the very low number of assessments available for marine regions (Figure 5).
At the Member States level, the majority of assessments indicate a low number of habitats in a favourable condition, with some exceptions: Cyprus, Romania, Estonia, Malta and Slovenia reported more than 40 % of favourable habitat assessments. Northern European countries report the most habitat assessments with unfavourable status (Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark and the Netherlands) (Figure 6).
Member States have also reported trends in the conservation status within the reporting period (2006-2012). Overall, there are more declining than improving habitat assessments. However, almost all Member States reported some unfavourable habitat assessments that are improving, ranging from less than 1 % (Italy) to almost 31 % (United Kingdom). No improvements were reported from Romania, Malta, Lithuania and Bulgaria (Figure 7).
This indicator shows changes and trends in the conservation status of habitats of European interest listed in the Habitats Directive.
It is based on data collected under the reporting obligations of Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). This reporting obligation contributes to the further development of EU and international biodiversity policy by providing a reliable measure of the status and trends in nature at both species and habitat levels.
The unit used in this indicator is percent (%).
This indicator covers habitats that are considered to be of European interest (listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive). This set comprises 'habitats which are in danger of disappearance in their natural range or have a small natural range following their regression or by reason of their intrinsically restricted area or present outstanding examples of typical characteristics of one or more of the biogeographical regions' (Article 1 of the Habitats Directive).
Trends in this indicator should primarily be influenced by the implementation of measures under the Habitats Directive, such as the establishment of the Natura 2000 Network, and habitat and species protection measures. Therefore the indicator reflects progress achieved by the Habitats Directive, one of the main legislative pillars of EU nature conservation policy.
Target 1 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 states that:
‘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 an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50 % more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.’
The indicator is also relevant for measuring progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, especially the Strategic Goals B and C, to reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use, and to improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity respectively.
Under Article 17 reporting, each Member State provides an assessment of all habitats of European interest (habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive) at national biogeographic level, and supporting data, such as those on habitat surface area. Monitoring of conservation status is an obligation arising from Article 11 of the Habitats Directive, and is not limited to Natura 2000 sites. EU regional assessments of conservation status are made by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD), based on data and assessments reported by Member States.
The conservation status is illustrated in three 'traffic light' categories ('favourable' - green, 'unfavourable inadequate' - amber, 'unfavourable bad' - red, plus 'unknown') characterised by four parameters:
The indicator is based on the number of habitat assessments in the three conservation status categories and on changes between categories over time. In addition, the indicator also looks at current trends in habitat conservation status, as well as showing progress in meeting the Target 1 of the EU biodiversity to 2020.
The baseline for measuring progress to Target 1 for habitats under the Habitats Directive is based on the proportion of assessments which were 'favourable' from 2001 to 2006, i.e. 17 %.
The majority of changes in conservation status in the 2007-2012 assessments reported by the Member States were due to better data or changes in the methodology used, with many species previously reported as unknown now being reported under one of the theree conservation status classes. This in turn means that many of the EU assesments for biogeographical and marine regions also changed. As the nature of change was noted by the assessor for each EU regional assessment, it is possible to identify which assessments have changed due to different methods and improved data, and to 'backcast' the previous conservation status using the new data.
A comparison of the 2007-2012 assessments with the 'backcast' 2001-2006 assessmets indicates that little has changed in terms of conservation classes, as only some 3 % of changes were reported as genuine (i.e. not due to change in methods, better data etc.).
Further about conservation status assessment:
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2007/index_html
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2013/index_html
No methodology for gap filling has been specified.
Further streamlining and harmonisation in methodologies used by Member States are needed at EU level to reduce the differences that that make aggregation and interpretation of data at the EU level difficult. The quality of the data reported (often based on simple expert judgement) also indicates that Member States need to further develop or complement their inventories and monitoring schemes.
Due to improved data and changes in methodology in the 2013 round of Article 17 reporting, it is difficult to make direct comparisons and measure progress since the first reporting round (2007).
MAIN DISADVANTAGES OF THE INDICATOR
For references, please go to https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/habitats-of-european-interest-1/assessment or scan the QR code.
PDF generated on 25 Apr 2024, 10:40 PM
Engineered by: EEA Web Team
Software updated on 26 September 2023 08:13 from version 23.8.18
Software version: EEA Plone KGS 23.9.14
Document Actions
Share with others