Assessment and reporting under Article 17
of the Habitats Directive
Explanatory Notes & Guidelines
for the period 2007-2012
Final Draft
July 2011
Compiled by Douglas Evans and Marita Arvela
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity

INTRODUCTION
CONTENTS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ABBREVIATIONS
5
I INTRODUCTION
6
II
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
8
II.a CONSERVATION STATUS
8
II.b
9
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS AT
BIOGEOGRAPHICAL LEVEL AND ASSESSING NATURA 2000 SITES
II.c FCS AND OTHER BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS
10
II.d QUALIFYING CONSERVATION STATUS
10
II.e SPATIAL DATA
11
II.f SPECIES & HABITAT TYPES TO BE REPORTED
11
II.f.i Reporting for species groups
13
II.g
14
Reporting on Annex I habitat types and Annex II species within the
Natura 2000 network
III ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
15
III.a FAVOURABLE REFERENCE VALUES
15
III.a.i Favourable Reference Range
16
III.a.ii Favourable Reference Population (species only)
17
III.a.iii Favourable Reference Area (habitat types only)
19
III.a.iv Using operators
21
III.b TRENDS
22
III.b.i Short & long term trends
23
III.c MAIN PRESSURES AND THREATS
23
III.c.i Time span for Art 17 reporting for threats and pressures
24
III.c.ii Relative importance of threats and pressures
24
III.c.iii Pollution qualifier (optional)
25
IV ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
27
IV.a PARAMETERS COMMON TO SPECIES & HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
27
IV.a.i Range
27
IV.a.i.a Calculation of range
28
IV.a.i.b The Range tool
30
IV.a.i.c Some issues related to assessing range
31
IV.a.i.d How the calculated area of range
will be used
31
IV.a.ii Future prospects
32
IV.a.iii Evaluation matrix for future prospects
34
IV.b PARAMETERS ONLY USED FOR SPECIES ASSESSMENTS
37
IV.b.i Sources of information for species assessments
37
IV.b.ii Transfrontier populations
38
IV.b.iii Population units
39
IV.b.iv Recommended population units
39
IV.b.vi Using other population units and converting to individuals
40
IV.b.vii Population structure and genetics
41
IV.b.viii Habitat for the species
42
IV.c PARAMETERS ONLY USED FOR ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT TYPES
45
IV.c.i Sources of information for assessing habitat types
45
IV.c.ii Area covered by habitat
46
IV.c.iii Structures and functions (including typical species)
46
2

INTRODUCTION
IV.c.iv Overlapping habitats
50
V MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
51
V.a MARINE REGIONS
51
V.b MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
52
V.c SUBTYPES FOR MARINE HABITAT TYPES
53
VI THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
54
VI.a ANNEX A: GENERAL REPORTING FORMAT
55
1 Main achievements under the Habitats Directive
55
2 General information sources on the implementation of the Habitats Directive –
links to information sources of the Member States
56
3 Natura 2000 – site designation
56
4 Comprehensive Management plans for the Natura 2000 sites (Art. 6(1))
57
5 Measures taken in relation to approval of plans & projects (Art. 6.4)
58
6 Measures taken to ensure coherence of the
Network (Art. 10)
58
7 Reintroduction of Annex IV species (Art 22.a)
58
VI.b ANNEX B: REPORTING FORMAT FOR SPECIES
59
1. NATIONAL LEVEL
60
1.1 Maps – distribution and range
60
2 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL OR MARINE REGIONAL LEVEL
61
2.1 Biogeographical region or marine region
61
Biogeographical region or marine region concerned within the MS
61
2.2 Published sources
62
2.3 Range
62
2.4 Population
64
2.5 Habitat for the species
66
2.6 Main pressures
68
2.7 Main threats
68
2.8 Complementary information
69
2.9 Conclusions
70
3 NATURA 2000 COVERAGE & CONSERVATION MEASURES - ANNEX II SPECIES
70
3.1 Population
71
3.2 Conservation measures taken by the Member State
71
VI.c
73
ANNEX C: EVALUATION MATRIX FOR ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
OF A SPECIES
VI.d ANNEX D: REPORTING FORMAT FOR HABITAT TYPES
74
1 NATIONAL LEVEL
74
1.1 Maps – distribution and range
74
2 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL OR MARINE LEVEL
76
2.1 Biogeographical region or marine region concerned within the MS
76
2.2 Published sources
76
2.3 Range
76
2.4 Area covered by habitat
78
2.5 Main pressures
80
2.6 Threats
80
2.7 Complementary information
81
2.8 Conclusions
82
3 NATURA 2000 COVERAGE & CONSERVATION MEASURES - ANNEX I HABITAT
TYPES
82
3.1 Area covered by the habitat type
82
3

INTRODUCTION
4
3.2 Conservation measures taken by the Member State
83
VI.e
85
ANNEX E: EVALUATION MATRIX FOR ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
OF A HABITAT TYPE
QUICK REMINDERS
86
REFERENCES
87
APPENDICES
93
APPENDIX 1: DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE ARTICLE 17 REFERENCE PORTAL
93
APPENDIX 2: LYCOPODIUM SPECIES IN EUROPE
93
APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLES OF REPORTING THREATS & PRESSURES
95
APPENDIX 4: CONVERTING POPULATION DATA TO INDIVIDUALS
103
APPENDIX 5: STRUCTURE & FUNCTION AND SELECTING TYPICAL SPECIES
104
APPENDIX 6: TRANSBOUNDARY ASSESSMENTS - AN ANNOTATED EXAMPLE
114
Roman numbers are used for sections of guidelines while Arabic numbers are
used for sections of the reporting format

 
QUICK REMINDERS
GLOSSARY OF TERMS & ABBREVIATIONS
Term/Abbreviation
Meaning
Annex
The agreed reporting forms and assessment matrices given in
the annexes of DocHab.
Appendix Additional information to fill in the format available in the
online Art.17 reference portal.
Conservation Status
The result of an evaluation of the status of a species or habitat
type at the scale of a biogeographical or marine region using
the assessment matrix based on 4 parameters.
Field
Section of the reporting format where information is entered,
may be numeric or text.
FCS Favourable Conservation Status
FRA Favourable Reference Area
FRP Favourable Reference Population
FRR Favourable Reference Range
FRV
Favourable Reference Value
Habitat
Many different definitions exist; here it is used to mean the
requirements of a species (‘habitat for the species’).
Habitat type
An area with uniform biological conditions (species
composition, physical factors), synonymous with biotope type.
In this document it is usually one of the habitat types listed on
Annex I of the Habitats Directive.
MSFD
The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/index_en.htm
).
Operator
An inequality (> or >>) to indicate that a FRV is unknown but
greater than (or much greater than) the present day value.
Parameter
One of the 4 components of Conservation Status; - range,
area, structure & function & future prospects (habitats); range,
population, habitat for species & future prospects (species).
Pressure
Activity impacting a species/habitat type during the reporting
cycle.
pSCI
Site proposed by a Member State as a Site of Community
Importance but not yet included on a Community List.
Qualifier
‘+’ (plus), ‘=’ (stable) or ‘-’ (minus) added to an assessment of
Conservation Status’ (or parameter) to indicate ‘but improving’,
‘stable’ or ‘but declining’. For example ‘U1+’ means
‘Unfavourable-Inadequate but improving’ while ‘U2=’ indicates
‘Unfavourable-Bad but stable’.
Region
Biogeographical or marine region
SAC
Special Area of Conservation – site designated under the
Habitats Directive.
SCI
Site of Community Importance – site accepted and published
on a Community List.
SDF
Standard Data Form – used to describe each Natura 2000 site.
Threat
Activity expected to have an impact on a species/habitat type
in the future.
WFD
The EU Water Framework Directive (see
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/index_en.html
).

 
INTRODUCTION
I
INTRODUCTION
Article 17 section 1 of the Habitats Directive
1
states
“Every six years from the date of expiry of the period laid down in Article 23,
Member States shall draw up a report on the implementation of the measures
taken under this Directive. This report shall include in particular information
concerning the conservation measures referred to in Article 6 (1) as well as
evaluation of the impact of those measures on the conservation status of the
natural habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II and the main results
of the surveillance referred to in Article 11. The report, in accordance with the
format established by the committee, shall be forwarded to the Commission and
made accessible to the public.”
The Directive asks for reports every six years and demands that the European Commission
then produce a consolidated EU report (The ‘Composite report’
2
) based on the national
reports. The reporting format aims to standardize the reports to allow the aggregation of
national data to produce the EU report.
The first report in 2000 focused on implementation of the Directive but the second report in
2007 (covering the period 2001-2006) was focused on the conservation status of the species
and habitat types listed by the Directive. A guidance document was published in 2006 to
assist Member States and to try to ensure harmonised data where possible. During the
compilation of the Commission ‘Composite Report’
3
and assessments made by the ETC/BD
for the Technical Report
4
it became clear that both the reporting format and the guidance
published in 2006 needed to be improved and the Member States were asked to report on
their experiences and difficulties.
This revised guidance for the reporting period 2007-2012 attempts to ensure a harmonised
use of the reporting format by all Member States, which will enable a better compilation and
analysis of the data received on EU-level. Examples are provided to guide those undertaking
assessments, in some cases two or more differing approaches are given to allow for variation
in data availability or differing national circumstances.
Further guidance may be necessary for specific topics at a later stage. This version revises
the guidance published in 2006 and takes into account comments received from Member
States following discussions by the Expert Group on Reporting and the Habitats Committee.
As such, the document reflects the views of the Commission services and is not of a binding
nature.
The guidance document is divided into 2 major sections:
Explanatory notes: the first 5 chapters cover the concepts and methods which are
used in the assessments of conservation status.
1
Council Directive 92/43/EEC
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20070101:EN:NOT
2
The report for 2001-2006 can be found at
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009DC0358:EN:NOT
3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_habitats/docs/com_2009_358_en.pdf
4
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17
6

INTRODUCTION
7
Step-by-step guidance on how to complete the reports: chapter VI gives field by field
advice.
The guidance ends with a series of appendices of additional information including examples
and references.
An Article 17 Reference Portal
5
has been created where further information including tables
of codes, checklist of species and habitat types etc. can be found that are needed for the
filling of the formats. This will also be used for updates if necessary.
The ETC/BD is planning to establish a Frequently Asked Questions for Article 17 reporting on
its website if a need becomes evident. This could help with practical questions which
Member States may have after the guidelines are finalised.
5
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal

 
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
II
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
II.a CONSERVATION STATUS
‘Favourable Conservation Status’ (FCS) is the overall objective to be reached for all habitat
types and species of community interest and it is defined in Article 1 of the Habitats
Directive. In simple words it can be described as a situation where a habitat type or species
is prospering (in both quality and extent/population) and with good prospects to do so in
future as well. The fact that a habitat or species is not threatened (i.e.
not faced by any
direct extinction risk) does not mean that it is in favourable conservation status. The target
of the directive is defined in positive terms, oriented towards a favourable situation, which
needs to be defined, reached and maintained. It is therefore more than avoiding extinctions.
Favourable Conservation Status is assessed across all national territory (or by
biogeographical or marine region within a country where 2 or more regions are present) and
should consider the habitat or species both within the Natura 2000 network and in the wider
countryside or sea. Favourable Conservation Status is defined in the Habitats Directive
(Article 1e for habitats and Article 1i for species).
The conservation status of a natural habitat will be taken as ‘favourable’ when:
—its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and
—the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term
maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and
—the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i);
(Article 1e)
The conservation status will be taken as ‘favourable’ when:
—population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining
itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and
—the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced
for the foreseeable future, and
—there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its
populations on a long-term basis;
(Article 1i)
The Habitats Directive requires periodic assessment of the species and habitat types to see if
they are at FCS. For reporting under Article 17 a format with three classes of Conservation
Status has been adopted; - Favourable (FV), Unfavourable-Inadequate (U1) and
Unfavourable-Bad (U2). ’Favourable Conservation Status’ is defined in the Directive and
effectively describes the situation where the habitat or species can be expected to prosper
without any change to existing management or policies. The unfavourable category has been
split into two classes to allow improvements or deterioration to be reported: ‘Unfavourable-
Inadequate’ for situations where a change in management or policy is required to return the
habitat type or species to favourable status but there is no danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future and ‘Unfavourable-Bad’ is for habitats or species in serious danger of
becoming extinct (at least regionally). There is also an ‘Unknown’ class which can be used
where there is insufficient information available to allow an assessment. For graphical
representation, each class is colour coded, green for Favourable, amber for Unfavourable-
Inadequate’, red for Unfavourable-Bad and grey for unknown. Assessments should be
qualified with a plus or minus to indicate a trend (improving or declining) as described below
in section IId.

 
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
As habitat types and species were selected because they were thought to be threatened and
or rare it should not be a surprise that most habitat types and species listed in the Annexes
of the Directive are not at FCS. Given the time required to restore many habitat types and
species to recover from unfavourable status this is likely to remain true for some time even if
restoration measures are in place.
‘Conservation Status’ is a concept first developed in the context of Red Books or Red lists of
threatened or endangered species, either at global, regional or national scale and in this
context is understood as an assessment of the relative risk of extinction of a habitat type or
species. The categories currently used by IUCN for their Red Lists are described in detail by
the IUCN on their website
6
. So, while Red Lists assess the distance from extinction, the three
conservation status categories under the Article 17 report aim at assessing the distance from
a defined favourable situation.
However, while both Article 17 and Red Listing aim to assess conservation status of species
and habitat types they use related but different criteria and consequently there will not
always be a one to one relationship between an IUCN category and an Article 17 category
although it would be expected a species considered ‘Critically endangered’ by the IUCN
would normally be assessed as ‘Unfavourable-Bad’ for Article 17.
II.b DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS AT
BIOGEOGRAPHICAL LEVEL AND ASSESSING NATURA 2000 SITES
It should be noted that the Standard Data Form is for assessments of the conservation of a
habitat type or species on a particular site whereas the assessments for Article 17 concern
the status across all of a biogeographical region within a Member State. The term
"Conservation Status" is defined in Article 1(e) and 1(i) of the Habitats Directive as a term
describing the overall status for a habitat type or species in a biogeographical region. This
conservation status is now regularly assessed in the frame of the 6-yearly progress reports
according to Art.17 of the Habitats Directive. The assessment of sites according to criteria in
Annex III of the Habitats Directive includes an assessment of the 'degree of conservation' of
a habitat type or species in a specific site.
The term conservation status was also used by the former Natura 2000 Standard Data Form
for describing the condition of each habitat type and species present on an individual site,
with 3 classes, A (excellent), B (good) and C (average or reduced) while for Article 17
‘Conservation Status’ is assessed across the whole of a biogeographical region within a
Member State. Care should be taken when using the expression ‘conservation status’ to
ensure that it is clear if the reference is to a Natura 2000 site or to an assessment for a
biogeographical or marine region. In the revised SDF (adopted in 2011) the term
‘conservation status’ is replaced by “degree of conservation” in order to reduce confusion of
the terms. It is recommended not
to use the phrase ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ for a
feature on a single site.
Some Member States (e.g. Austria, Germany, United Kingdom) have developed methods for
the evaluation of features (habitat types or species) at a local (site) scale, often using an
indicator-based assessment. When the majority of occurences of a habitat or species are
covered by such methods, an aggregation of the results can directly give assessments of
“area” and “structure and function” for habitat types and “population” and “habitat for the
species” for species of the conservation status assessment on biogeographical level.
6
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
9

 
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
II.c FCS AND OTHER BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS
The EU Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives use the terms ‘Good
Ecological Status’ and ‘Good Environmental Status’ which relate to ‘Favourable Conservation
Status’ although the definitions are different and assess different aspects of biodiversity (see
Cochrane
et al (2010)
7
for further information). Clearly in many instances the same data will
be used for reporting under two or more directives and Member States are encouraged to
develop links between work for reporting under all three directives. Work is also ongoing at
EU-level to ensure synergies in definition of the various concepts.
II.d QUALIFYING CONSERVATION STATUS
Overall assessments of conservation status that are unfavourable should be qualified to
indicate if the status is improving, stable, declining or unknown by adding a plus, equal,
minus sign or an ‘x’, i.e. U1+ would indicate an assessment as ‘Unfavourable-Inadequate but
improving’, two examples are given in box 1. This is also strongly recommended for all
individual parameters with unfavourable status.
The
qualifier
should be based on trends over the reporting period that are expected to
continue into the future. This can help highlight where progress is being made or where
particular attention is needed. Trends in conservation status will also be exploited in future
policy analysis and used for a sub-target for the 2020 biodiversity target. Further details are
given in sections, VI.b (2.9) for species and section VI.d (2.8) for habitat types.
Box 1: Using qualifiers - examples from the United Kingdom from 2001-2006
a Felis silvestris
Range Favourable
Population
Unfavourable – Bad
Habitat
Unknown
Future Prospects
Unfavourable - Bad and known to be getting worse
The overall assessment is, therefore, Unfavourable - Bad and declining (U2-)
(from
http://www.jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Article17/FCS2007-S1363-audit-Final.pdf
)
b
91C0 Caledonian forest in the United Kingdom
Range Favourable
Area
Unfavourable- Inadequate but increasing (U1+),
Structure & Function Unfavourable-Bad but improving (U2+)
Future Prospects
Unfavourable-Inadequate but expected to improve (U1+)
The overall assessment is therefore Unfavourable-Bad but improving (U2+).
(from
http://www.jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Article17/FCS2007-H91C0-audit-Final.pdf
)
7
Cochrane, S.K.J., Connor, D.W., Nilsson, P., Mitchell, I., Reker, J., Franco, J., Valavanis, V.,
Moncheva, S., Ekebom, J., Nygaard, K., Serrão Santos, R., Naberhaus, I., Packeiser, T., van de Bund,
W. and Cardoso, A.C. (2010).
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Task Group 1 report: Biological
diversity.
Joint report of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy and the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark. 120pp.
http://www.ices.dk/projects/MSFD/TG1final.pdf
10

 
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
II.e SPATIAL DATA
Submission of maps of the distribution and range of all Annex I habitat types and Annexes
II, IV & V species present in a Member State is a basic requirement of the Article 17
reporting. The distribution map should provide information about the actual occurrences of
the habitat type or species, which should be based on the results of a comprehensive
national mapping or inventory of the habitats and species wherever possible.
The distribution and range maps will consist of 10 x 10 km ETRS 89 grid cells in the ETRS
LAEA 52 10 projection
8
. The gridded data sent will consist of the 10 km grid cells where the
species or habitat type is recorded as occurring. The use of attribute data to indicate the
presence or absence of a species or habitat types in a grid cell is not permitted. The period
over which the distribution data was collected should be included in the metadata following
the INSPIRE guidelines. Once the INSPIRE guidelines for these themes become available
they should be used.
In some exceptional cases such as widely ranging but poorly known cetaceans it may be
relevant to submit maps of 50 x 50 km. For small Member States such as Luxembourg, Malta
and Cyprus 1 x 1 km grids (or 5 x 5 km) should be allowed, these will be then aggregated by
ETC/BD to 10 x 10 km for visualisation at the European level.
The EEA will produce the grid cells to be used by each Member State in reporting. These grid
cells will cover the entire extent of the Member State subject to the Article 17 reporting
process and will be available from the Article 17 Reference Portal
9
.
Geographical grids are an Annex I theme of the INSPIRE Directive
10
. The INSPIRE
specifications on Geographical grid systems
11
define the ETRS 89 LAEA grid as the pan-
European standard grid. For background information on why grids have been chosen in
preference to polygons or points, see JRC-IES-LMU-ESDI (2004)
12
.
Member States may also submit additional maps, for example giving more detailed
distribution data (e.g. at higher resolution). Any additional maps must be accompanied by
the relevant metadata and details of the projection used.
II.f
SPECIES & HABITAT TYPES TO BE REPORTED
In general,
all habitat types listed on Annex I and species listed on Annexes II, IV & V of the
Habitats Directive should be reported for each biogeographical or marine region in which
they occur by each Member State. A checklist of habitat types and species covered by the
8
European Terrestrial Reference System 1989 Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area Latitude of origin 52 N,
Longitude of origin (central meridian ) 10˚E.
http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gis/geographicinformationstandards.html
9
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
10
See
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
for more information on this Directive.
11 D2.8.I.2 INSPIRE specifications on Geographical Grid Systems–Guidelines.
http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Data_Specifications/INSPIRE_Specification_GGS_v3.0.pdf
12 JRC-IES-LMU-ESDI (2004) Short Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Reference Grids.
http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/alpsis/Docs/ref_grid_sh_proc_draft.pdf
11

image
image
image
image
image
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
Habitats Directive and their occurrence per biogeographical region and Member State is
available from the Article 17 Reference Portal
13
.
Since 1992 when the original Annexes of the Habitats Directive were published there have
been taxonomic revisions of several of the taxa listed leading to some taxa listed as a
species in the Directive now being considered to be 2 or more species. In general, wherever
it is feasible (e.g. the species can be determined in the field) there should be one Article 17
report for each species currently recognised. For example, the Directive lists
Gobio
uranoscopus
but following a taxonomic revision this is now considered to be 2 species, G.
uranoscopus
and Romanogobio elimeius and there should be a report for each of these taxa
- as indicated in the checklist.
Where a habitat type or species is very nearly all in one region but with the distribution just
extending across the boundaries of the region to a neighbouring region in the same country,
(marginal occurrence) a single report could be submitted. For example, in France the aquatic
mammal
Galemys pyrenaicus is mostly found in the Alpine region but its distribution extends
to adjacent parts of the Atlantic region (see Figure 1) and a single report covering both
regions would be acceptable. However, in Spain where the species has a wider distribution
across 3 regions this would not be appropriate.
Figure 1: The distribution of
Galemys pyrenaicus, colours indicate the biogeographical
regions with the distribution in grey (based on Article 17 reports from France, Portugal
& Spain).
For occasional species (species that are currently found only occasionally within the
boundaries of a region and do not have stable and regular occurrence, sometimes referred
to as ‘vagrant’) or newly arriving species, it is likely that little information will be available
13
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
12

 
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
and a full assessment is not possible. For these species a report should still be submitted
although in many cases it will only contain the name and code of the species, together with
the name of the region and Member State. However, this will ensure that the species is
correctly entered into the Article 17 database.
Species which became locally extinct before the Directive came into force should not be
reported unless there is a reintroduction project underway.
II.f.i
Reporting for species groups
The annexes
include several species groups, for example Annex II has ‘Alosa
spp. while
Annex IV has ‘Microchiroptera – All species’. Except for
Cladonia subgenus Cladina,
Lycopodium
and Sphagnum all species included in these groups should be reported
separately. For example there should be separate reports per region for
Alosa agone A.
alosa, A. fallax, A. killarnensis
etc. For Annex V ‘Acipenserida - All species not mentioned in
Annex IV' reports should be produced for
Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, A ruthenus, Huso huso
etc. The species to be included under each group are shown on the 'Checklist for Article 17
reporting' available from the Article 17 Reporting Reference Portal
14
.
For
Cladonia subgenus Cladina, Lycopodium spp and Sphagnum spp Member States should
submit a single report per group per region. It is also possible to report individual species in
those groups (where it is thought that a species needs special attention), but in this case
they should also be included in the report on the genus. For example if Germany considers
that e.g.
Sphagnum pulchrum in the Atlantic region is of special concern it can submit a
report for that species but the overall assessment for
Sphagnum spp for the region should
also take that species into account.
For these three species groups a report giving only the overall assessment of conservation
status (field 2.9.5 of annex B) is acceptable and no maps of range or distribution are
required. As it may be difficult to conclude the overall assessment if there are species with
different CS, Member State should explain the variation under field 2.8.2 Other relevant
information.
Box 2: Species to be included in
Cladonia, Lycopodium & Sphagnum
Cladonia subgenus Cladina – all European species in the subgenus according to Ahti (1961
15
and pers. com.): Cladonia arbuscula (incl, Cl. mitis and Cl. squarrosa), Cl. ciliata (incl. Cl.
tenuis), Cl. conspicua, Cl. portentosa (Cl. implexa), Cl. rangiferina, Cl. stellaris (Cl. alpestris),
Cl. stygia, Cl. azorica, Cl. macaronesica and Cl. Mediterranea.
Lycopodium – Listing on Annex V relates to commercial exploitation and commerce is not
limited to the genus Lycopodium. For Article 17 reporting Lycopodium should be interpreted
as all species in the family Lycopodiaceae (following Flora Europaea, see Appendix 2).
Sphagnum – All species in the genera Sphagnum
16
except Sphagnum pylasii (Annex II & IV).
14
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
15
Ahti, T. 1961: Taxonomic studies on reindeer lichens (Cladonia subgenus Cladina). Annales Botanici
Societatis Zoologicae Botanicae Fennicae.
32, No 1
16
Séneca, A & Söderström, L. (2009) Sphagnophyta of Europe and Macaronesia: a checklist with
distribution data.
Journal of Bryology 31( 4) pp. 243-254
13

 
CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS AND METHODS
14
II.g Reporting on Annex I habitat types and Annex II species within
the Natura 2000 network
Workpackage 3 of the Expert Group on Reporting (‘evaluation of the contribution of the
Natura 2000 network to the conservation status of habitats and species’) has identified three
sets of data considered necessary to evaluate the contribution of the Sites of Community
Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) components of the Natura 2000
network:
(1) relevance of the network for different species and habitats (proportion of
population (species) or area (habitat type) within the network);
(2) possible differences in trends within the network compared to the general
trend;
(3) understanding what type of conservation/management measures the
countries have implemented.
The contribution of the Natura 2000 network to the conservation status of habitat types and
species is likely to vary according to the dependence of the habitat types/species on sites,
coverage by the network and site management. Therefore, the habitat surface area of the
population size included in the network for each given biogeographical region should be
reported (fields 3.1.1 of Annexes B & D, see below).
Another element to be taken into consideration when evaluating the contribution of the
network is the possible difference in trends within the network and globally (optional field).
For species, this could be expressed by comparing the trend of the population size in the
biogeographical region (field 2.4.6 of the reporting format) with the trend of the population
size within the Natura 2000 network in that same biogeographical region (field 3.1.3).
For habitat types, a similar comparison can be made using the trend of the habitat surface
area in the biogeographical region (field 2.4.5 of the reporting format) and the trend of the
surface area within the Natura 2000 network (field 3.1.1).
In the Article 17 reporting format for the period 2001-2006 there was a free text field
concerning "Conservation measures – Art. 6(1) – and evaluation of their impact on the
conservation status – Art. 17(1)". Member States were asked to make a:
"General description of the main conservation measures taken at national level:
descriptions of measures taken should be brief and general and not detailed site-by-
site accounts. If relevant give references to published reports and websites."
"Impact of those measures on conservation status: provide a general overview at
national level, indicating species or habitats affected by the measures, impact on
conservation status and area concerned. Note that this is optional".
Experience from the last reporting showed that the format – a free text field – and the
guidelines were too vague and that this information could not be used in any meaningful
way.
The main purpose of the reporting under section 3.2 is to obtain information allowing for a
‘broad-brush’ overview of the conservation measures taken: their location – inside/outside
the Natura 2000 network- , their importance and evaluation. The current format and codified
list of conservation measures aims facilitating reporting in a more harmonised way and
promoting further use of the data reported, namely as part of the process to evaluate the
contribution of the Natura 2000 network to the conservation status of habitats and species.

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
III ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
Favourable Conservation Status is defined in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive by four
parameters for each habitat type and species. The agreed method for the evaluation of
conservation status assesses each of the parameters separately, with the aid of an
evaluation matrix, and then combines these assessments to give an overall assessment of
conservation status. The parameters, which are discussed in more detail below, are
Range
Population (species only)
Area (habitat types only)
Habitat for the species (species only)
Structure & function (habitat types only)
Future Prospects
Range, population (species), and area (habitat types), all require the setting of threshold
values to determine if the parameter is favourable or unfavourable. These are referred to as
‘Favourable Reference Values’ and are explained in the next section.
III.a FAVOURABLE REFERENCE VALUES
Favourable Reference Values (FRV) are key concepts in the evaluation of Conservation
Status. The reporting format requires Member States to identify threshold values for range
and area for the habitat types of Annex I and for range and population for the species of
Annexes II, IV & V in order to evaluate whether the actual range, area, or population are
sufficiently large to conclude the parameter is ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable’, and, if
‘unfavourable’, whether the status is ‘inadequate’ or ‘bad’. Favourable Reference Values
should be based purely on scientific grounds and may have to change between reporting
cycles as our understanding of a habitat type or species changes. Where such changes are
required this should be explained in the complementary information section of the reporting
format (field 2.8).
Determining these values will not be easy. However the concepts are not new and are
treated in many texts on conservation biology (e.g. Soule & Orians (eds) (2001)
Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade or Primack (2008) A Primer of
Conservation Biology, Fourth Edition).
In many cases our understanding of the biology is not
sufficient or data are not available, to make use of many of the approaches described in
these texts and it is likely that for many poorly known species expert judgement will have to
be used. This should be used as a starting point and improved upon in the future as better
understanding and further data become available (e.g. as a result of Article 11 monitoring
and surveillance).
For some species and habitat types ‘Action plans’ have been prepared, either at national or
European scale, and although these plans do not use the term ‘favourable reference value’
they do sometimes consider related concepts and may be a source of ideas and information.
For example the Council of Europe has published European action plans for large
carnivores
17
and the United Kingdom has published national plans for many habitats and
ecies
18
.
sp
17
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/Bern/LCarnivores/default_en.asp
18
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/newprioritylist.aspx

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
I
port
h a case information on historic distribution may be found useful
o
of other data.
II.a.i Favourable Reference Range
Range within which all significant ecological variations of the habitat/species are included for
a given biogeographical region and which is sufficiently large to allow the long term survival
of the habitat/species; favourable reference value must be at least the range (in size and
configuration) when the Directive came into force
19
; if the range was insufficient to sup
a favourable status the reference for favourable range should take account of that and
should be larger (in suc
when defining the favourable reference range); 'best expert judgement' may be used t
define it in absence
[Definition from
http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Legislation/DocHab-04-03-03%20rev3.pdf
]
The following factors should be considered when estimating Favourable Reference Range
count physical and ecological conditions (such
itat type/species, including consideration of
s.
ted by minimum winter temperatures. Alterra have modelled several habitat
pes using various parameters including soil types, altitude, species distribution and existing
istorically had much wider
ranges than at present, in such cases it may not be necessary for
(FRR) for both
species and habitat types:
-
Current range;
-
Potential extent of range taking into ac
as climate, geology, soil, altitude);
-
Historic range and causes of change;
-
Area required for viability of hab
connectivity and migration issue
-
Variability including genetics
20
.
For many species and habitat types we have sufficient understanding of their ecological
requirements that we can model their potential range, for example many arctic-alpine plant
species are limited by a maximum mean July temperature while Mediterranean species such
as the Olive tree (Olea
europaea, a key component of habitat type ‘9320 Olea and Ceratonia
forests’) are limi
ty
land cover
21 22
.
It should be noted that FRR is not necessarily equal to ‘potential range’: normally, FFR is
smaller. For some wide ranging species the FRR may be the entire biogeographic region
within a country, as for the Annex V frog
Rana esculenta (Edible frog)in several regions of
many Member States (see Figure 3). Some species, such as
Lutra lutra (Eurasian otter), have
h
all the historical range to be re-occupied to reach FRR if long term survival can be assured.
19
This means different years for different countries: 1994 for BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, LU, NL,
PT & UK , 1995 for AT, FI and SE, 2004 for CY, CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, MT, PL, SI & SK and 2007 for BG
& RO.
20
See Laikre, Linda, Torbjörn Nilsson, Craig R. Primmer, Nils Ryman, & Fred W. Allendorf. 2009.
Importance of Genetics in the Interpretation of Favourable Conservation Status.
Conservation Biology
23, no. 6: 1378-1381.
21
Mucher, C.A., Hennekens, S.M., Bunce, R.G.H., & Schaminée, J.H.J. (2004).
Mapping
European
habitats
to
support
the
design
and
implementation
of
a
pan-European
ecological
network;
the
PEENHAB-project
Alterra-rapport No. 952. Alterra.
22
Mücher, Caspar A., Stephan M. Hennekens, Robert G.H. Bunce, Joop H.J. Schaminée, and Michael
E. Schaepman. (2009). Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe.
Landscape and Urban Planning 92, no. 2 (September 15): 148-159.
16

image
image
image
image
image
 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
Many species, including some listed on the annexes of the Habitats Directive (e.g. The Marsh
fritillary
Euphydryas aurinia) are known to have a metapopulation structure with cyclical
extinction and recolonization (Warren 1994)
local
ould take account of this and include enough range to assure long-term survival and
variability, even though the species may have disappeared from major parts of that range.
23
. In such cases the favourable reference range
sh
Figure 3: Distribution of
Rana esculenta, a species where the FRR is equal to the area
of the region within a country for a number of countries (e.g. Germany).
I
sary to ensure
e size of
popul
tion; 'best expert judgement' may be used to define it in absence of other data.
tion in
http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Legislation/DocHab-04-03-03%20rev3.pdf
II.a.ii Favourable Reference Population
(species only)
Population in a given biogeographical region considered the minimum neces
the long-term viability of the species; favourable reference value must be at least th
the population when the Directive came into force
24
; information on historic
distribution/population may be found useful when defining the favourable reference
a
[Defini
]
avourable
Reference Population (FRP), field 2.4.14 in Annex B, should be given in the same
F
units as that used for ‘population’ (see IV.b.iii).
23
Warren, M.S. (1994) The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened
European butterfly, the Marsh Fritillary,
Eurodryas aurinia. Biological Conservation 67: 239-249.
24
This means different years for different countries: 1994 for BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, LU, NL,
PT & UK , 1995 for AT, FI and SE, 2004 for CY, CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, MT, PL, SI, SK and 2007 for BG &
RO.
17

ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
The following background information and parameters may be useful to set FRP:
and causes of change
ncluding clines
-
Population should be sufficiently large to accommodate natural fluctuations and allow
d to
t
ity analyses and their use in conservation are
iscussed in a recent paper by Traill
et al (2010)
26
. Estimates of Minimum Viable Population
ome countries have used the concept of carrying capacity together with estimates of the
l
nt of such situations needs to be undertaken and an explanation of the reasoning
hy this operator has been used should be given in the field Other relevant information
ox 3: Favourable Reference Values for
Canis lupus in the Continental region of
-
Historic distribution
and abundances
-
Potential range
-
Biological and ecological conditions
-
Migration routes and dispersal ways
-
Gene flow or genetic variation i
a healthy population structure
Favourable Reference Populations should be based on the ecology and genetics of the
species. For a few species population viability assessments are available and can be use
help set a FRP (e.g. for
Bison bonasus (European bison), Daleszczyk & Bunevich, 2009
25
) bu
for most species other approaches will need to be used. Even where such analyses are
available they are often for the entire population of a species which may include more than
one country or regions within a country. Viabil
d
(MPV) will,
by definition, be lower than FRP.
S
range or suitable habitat to estimate a FRP, an example for Poland is given in box 3 below.
If an operator is used to estimate a FRP it should be compared with the minimum population
estimate (see section IV.b.iii).
It is important to understand that the operator "less than" can
only be used in exceptional circumstances, where a species might have developed - due to
exceptional circumstances such as supplementary feeding - an exceptionally high population
level far beyond that considered as favourable in normal circumstances and which is unlikely
to be sustainable or which may even be detrimental to other species or habitats. A carefu
assessme
w
(2.8.2).
B
Poland
The model was elaborated in the Mammal Research Institute in Bialowieża (Jędrzejewski et
al 2008
27
). Data on distribution and numbers are fairly good (based on annual inventory).
Application of GIS tools allowed spatial analyses using data on land use (from CORINE Land
Cover 2000), density of ungulates, density of roads, and historical distribution of the wolf.
The frequency of records of wolf in a given category of land use allowed one to select
environments occupied by wolf most willingly and indicate areas which potentially meet the
habitat requirements of the species (suitable habitat). In addition to large dense forests,
certain marshy areas and areas in close vicinity to running and standing waters were also
25
Daleszczyk, Katarzyna, & Aleksiei N. Bunevich. (2009). Population viability analysis of European
bison populations in Polish and Belarusian parts of Bialowieza Forest with and without gene exchange.
Biological Conservation 142, no. 12 (December): 3068-3075.
26
Traill, Lochran W., Barry W. Brook, Richard R. Frankham, & Corey J.A. Bradshaw: (2010) Pragmatic
population viability targets in a rapidly changing world,
Biological Conservation 143 28–34.
27
Jędrzejewski, W., B. Jędrzejewska, B. Zawadzka, T. Borowik, S. Nowak, and R. W. Mysłajek. 2008.
Habitat suitability model for Polish wolves based on long-term national census.
Animal Conservation
11, no. 5 (10): 377-390.
18

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
included. The area of selected habitats and size of the wolf population in eastern Poland was
a basis for estimating the potential numbers of wolf in the remaining part of the country. The
results were then verified, taking into account food availability (biomass of ungulates per
area unit). The estimated FRR for the Continental region was 95 540 km
2
and FRP 1260-
1335 individuals, while suitable habitat is 53 575 km
2
. The present range in the Continental
b iogeographical region was estimated as 25 170 km
2
and population 310 – 420, while
rrently occupied habitat is 15 327 km
2
.
cu
(Example based on the 2001-2006 report from Poland).
III.a.
distribution may be found useful when
to
define it in absence of other data.
iii
Favourable Reference Area
(habitat types only)
Total surface area in a given biogeographical region considered the minimum
necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat type; this should
include necessary areas for restoration or development for those habitat types
for which the present coverage is not sufficient to ensure long-term viability;
favourable reference value must be at least the surface area when the Directive
came into force
28
; information on historic
defining the favourable reference area; 'best expert judgement' may be used
[Definition in
http://www.lcie.org/Docs/Legislation/DocHab-04-03-03%20rev3.pdf
]
This is probably the most difficult of the three reference values to establish. There is som
theoretical work on minimum area required for long term viability of some habitat types
(mostly forests) but this is based on single sites rather than a network of sites. In som
cases it m
e
e
ay be possible to estimate the Favourable Reference Area (FRA), section 2.4.10 in
nnex D, from a consideration of the conservation requirements of one or more ‘key’
n and parameters may be useful to set FRA:
n and causes of change
ty of habitat)
Dynamics of the habitat type
pe is necessary for
necessary structures or functions of the habitat type to exist,
en the FRA can be taken as the surface area of the habitat type when the directive came
to
re the habitat types are
A
species.
The following
background informatio
Historic distributio
Potential natural vegetation
Natural variation
Actual distribution and actual variation (including quali
Requirements of typical species (including gene flow)
If there is no information showing that enlarged area of the habitat ty
either
typical species to reach favourable conservation status, or for
the
th
into force.
If available, Red Lists of habitat types, plant communities or biotopes which correspond
the habitat types of Annex I of the Directive should be taken into consideration to identify
the favourable area of habitat types. For example, in cases whe
28
This means different years for different countries: 1994 for BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, LU, NL,
PT & UK , 1995 for AT, FI & SE, 2004 for CY, CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, MT, PL, SI & SK and 2007 for BG &
RO.
19

ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
“threatened by extinction”, “critically endangered” or similar, the present day area of the
type is unlikely to be sufficient to be considered as favourable.
Two examples of setting FRA are given in boxes 4 and 5.
Box 4: Favourable Reference Area
for 9010 Western Taiga in Sweden
A Swedish compilation of studies of 17 species which are habitat specialists (umbrella
species) dependent on the Western Taiga show that the threshold value of how much
habitat is needed vary from 10 % to 50 % with a mean value of 19 %. Thus, a value of 20
% has been chosen to be the threshold value of how much of the original area (i.e. before
industrial forestry) of western taiga 9010 is needed to maintain its specialised species in
viable populations.
The original forested land cover has been estimated as 250 000 km
2
, of which 9010 western
taiga has been estimated to be a little more than 205 420 km
2
. Hence, the Favourable
Reference Area is 20 % of the original area – 41 085 km
2
(reported value in 2007 was 18
975 km
2
). This figure applies to the whole territory but has then been split up to three
biogeographic regions.
(From Hans Gardfjell, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences).
Box 5: Favourable Reference Area for 9160 Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak
or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli in Poland
In Poland habitat type 9160 only occurs in the Continental biogeographic region and the
present area has been established at 300 km². The area is fairly stable (two opposing
processes: regeneration of 9160 in 80-120 years old pine plantations and destruction of 9160
as the result of regeneration and promotion of beech).
The FRA has been estimated at 360 km². It has been assumed that conservation of the
habitat type requires its restoration in places where it has been degraded by planted beech
and pine, so as to recreate the ecological continuity of 9160 in certain river valleys. To
achieve this requires the present area to be increased by about 20 %.
(Example from Paweł Pawlaczyk)
There will be cases where the area of a habitat type in a Member State or within a region of
a Member State is small with no possibility of enlargement through restoration due to natural
itations (e.g. calcareous grasslands in regions with predominately acidic soils). It would be
an
esults in the
ange of a non-priority habitat type into a priority habitat type, the reasoning for such
cases needs to be explained under field 2.8.2 Other relevant information.
lim
reasonable to conclude that this is the FRA.
Habitat type 7120 ‘Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration’ is a special
case as when restored it becomes ‘7110 Active raised bogs’ and the favourable reference
area will be less than the present day area and possibly be zero if all the habitat type could
be restored. There may be other cases where the operator ‘less than’ (<) (see III.a.iv) c
be justified for a habitat type, for example due to a restoration project which r
ch
20

image
 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
III.a.iv
Using operators
In many cases it is not possible to estimate a value for FRV but it is clear that the FRV is
greater than the present day value. For example, the Annex II moss
Buxbaumia viridis only
has one locality in the Atlantic region of Denmark which is not considered a large enough
population for the species to be at FCS. Although the FRP is not known, expert opinion is
that it must be more than 1 locality and an assessment can be made.
Using operators ‘greater than’ (>) and ‘much greater than’ (>>) can be preferable to
reporting a parameter as ‘unknown’. There will also be habitat types and species where FRV
= current value, especially for Favourable Reference Range. Figure 2 shows how this
decision can be taken. Expert judgement will be required to determine if the operator
should be ‘>’ or ‘>>’. If the operator is ‘>>’, the current value is very likely to be ‘more than
10% below FRV and the parameter ‘Unfavourable-Bad’.
The operator ‘less than’ (<) can be used only in limited cases, see above under section
III.a.ii Favourable Reference Population and III.a.iii Favourable Reference Area. If used, an
explanation must be provided in the ‘Other relevant information’ field (2.8.2 for species and
2.7.5 for habitat types).
Figure 2: Flow chart to help decide if a Favourable Reference Value should be equal or
larger than the present day value. A habitat or species is threatened if subject to
significant pressures or threats. Note that in some rare cases the FRV may be less
than the present day value (flow chart provided by Sweden).
If an operator is used, then there is no need to supply a value in the reference value field, or
the value reported must be the same as that of the actual value reported (e.g. 2.3.8 for
Favourable Reference Range for habitat types). If the value reported for a favourable
reference value differs from the actual reported value no operator should be used. The use
of operators should help to reduce the use of ‘unknown’ to a minimum.
The United Kingdom has produced a series of ‘keys’ to help estimate FRVs and to help
distinguish between ‘Unfavourable-Inadequate’ and ‘Unfavourable-Bad’ and this approach
may be useful elsewhere, see pages 33-38 in JNCC (2007)
29
.
29
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2007). Assessing Conservation Status: The UK Approach.
JNCC, Peterborough.
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/FCS2007_ukapproach.pdf
21

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
III.a.v
Possible conflict between habitat types
There are many instances where two or more Annex I habitat types form an ecological
succession and where estimates of favourable reference area will need to take into account
the requirements of both habitat types; this takes into account the nature conservation
priorities set by Member States within the legal framework of the Habitats Directive. For
example, in much of Europe ‘6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on
calcareous substrates (Festuco
Brometalia)’ if not managed will tend to develop to ‘9150
Medio-European limestone beech forests of the
Cephalanthero-Fagion’, possibly via ‘5130
Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands’. In such cases the
favourable reference range may be the same or very similar as it will be based on underlying
geology, topography and climate but the reference areas will need to be assessed together
and will be informed by national or regional conservation priorities.
III.b TRENDS
Trends are a component of the following parameters:
Range (habitat types & species)
Population (species)
Area (habitat types)
Habitat of the species (species)
The conservation status assessment stresses the importance of trend information: trends are
decisive for the assessment of conservations status since usually only stable or increasing
trends can result in a favourable conservation status. Trend is one of the most important
components of several parameters so ideally, more attention should be paid on the
methodology of the surveillance systems to improve the quality of trend information.
Trends are usually derived from modelling or existing monitoring schemes which are based
on sampling as complete surveys are exceptional and usually only undertaken for very rare
species. Sampling methods should be statistically robust wherever possible. In the absence
of dedicated monitoring schemes, trends are usually a result of expert opinion and in that
case should be reported only as directions (+/‐/0), without absolute values. Unknown trends
should be reported as ‘x’.
Trend is a directed change of a parameter over time. Trends (especially of population)
should ideally be the result of a regression of a time series. Fluctuation (or oscillation) is not
a directed change of a parameter, and therefore fluctuation is not a trend. However,
fluctuations can occur within a long‐term trend and can affect measurement of short‐term
trends, because it is difficult to assess whether there is a real trend in the short‐term, or
whether there is simply a fluctuation or population cycling effect.
Fluctuation is an intrinsic character of all natural systems and can be observed for all
directions of the trend (+,
, absolute value…). However, it is only detectable in regularly
surveyed populations or habitat types. Fluctuations are only likely to be detected when the
parameter is measured at least three times in any given time frame. Ideally, they will be
based on more frequent sampling. In reality, this is unlikely to happen in short time frames
(such as twelve year intervals) and setting short‐term trends in a long‐term context will help
to identify where fluctuations are occurring. For the 2001-2006 report Member States were
asked to report trends over the six year reporting period but trends over such a short time
period are unlikely to be reliable as they will be based on few samples and it is now asked to
base trends ion a 12 year period (see III.b.i). Fluctuations in range and area of habitat types
are rarely detectable over a 12‐year period and any fluctuation of these values is mostly
long‐term.
22

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
In summary: range, habitat for the species and area covered by habitat type are unlikely to
fluctuate in a 12 year period. However, measurement of these parameters can be quite
inexact and longer‐term information may be required to detect any real changes, given the
range of data availability, sample sizes and possible survey methods.
The trend of the ‘habitat of a species’ is the only trend parameter where only direction will
be reported (the reporting format does not ask for trend magnitude for the habitat of a
species).
An apparent directed change resulting from a change in monitoring methodology or
improved knowledge generally about distribution and size of a habitat or species population
should not be considered a trend and this should be indicated at the appropriate field
‘Reason for change’ (e.g. 2.3.10 for species range) and the trend reported as ‘unknown’,
unless other information also clearly shows a trend (e.g. documented losses of habitat).
Use of the range tool (
see section ‘IV.a Range’
) may give apparent trends for range if range
estimates for 2001-2006 are simply compared to 2006-2012, but this could simply be the
result of a methodological change. In many cases this could be overcome by using the range
tool with the 2001-2006 distribution data to produce a revised estimate of the former range.
If this is done, it is suggested that the revised former range is reported in field 2.8.2 Other
relevant information (species) or 2.7.5 Other relevant information (habitats) with a text
explanation.
III.b.i
Short & long term trends
The reporting
period for the Habitats Directive is six years but estimates of trend are more
likely to be statistically robust over longer time periods. It is therefore recommended to
estimate trend over two reporting cycles, i.e. 12 years (or a period as close to this as
possible), as this should give a more reliable and comparable estimate of the trend. Long-
term trends, which are likely to be more statistically robust, can also be reported (in a series
of optional fields). The recommended period for assessing longer term trends is four
reporting cycles (24 years).
The trend information to be used in the evaluation matrix which is based on a 6 years
reporting period, this is why the short trend information should be used in the assessment.
Any large scale deviation from this should be explained under field ‘Other relevant
information’ (2.8.2. for species and 2.7.5. for habitat types).
The trend magnitude reported should be the change over the relevant period (e.g. 12 years
for short term trend). Where magnitude is derived from data covering a different time
interval please estimate the change for the reporting period by simple proportion. For
example a change of 150 km
2
over 15 years would be equivalent to 10 km
2
per year or 120
km
2
over the 12 year interval for short term trend magnitude.
III.c
MAIN PRESSURES AND THREATS
Information on threats and pressures is required for the conservation status assessment, but
in addition information on main threats and pressures is needed for policy assessments.
For Article 17 reporting pressures are considered to be factors which are acting now or have
been acting during the reporting period, while threats are factors expected to be acting in
23

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
the future. It is possible for the same impact to be both a pressure and a threat if it is having
an impact now and this impact is likely to continue.
For the 2001-2006 report a list of threats and pressures originally devised for completing the
‘Standard Data Forms’ was used but this led to a number of problems and a revised list has
now been prepared which can be found at the Article 17 Reference Portal. This revised list
will also be used for the SDFs and for reporting under Article 12 of the Birds Directive.
During this revision care was taken to make the list compatible with similar lists used for
reporting under the Water and Marine Strategy Framework Directives and for the Ramsar
Convention as well as the proposals of Salafsky et al. (2008)
30
. Special attention was paid to
ensure potential marine threats and pressures were included.
Together with the new additions and changes this new version groups the threats and
pressures under 17 headings (including “X” for no pressures and threats and “U” for
unknown) and has 75 categories at the 2
nd
hierarchical level. For the purposes of the Art 17
reporting at least the 2
nd
hierarchical level of the list should be used e.g. A01 Cultivation.
However, Member States or users who need more precision can use 3
rd
level and 4
th
level
categories.
Headings (code with a letter only) are not meant to be used for data entry, but only for a
structured analysis of results in the national and composite report (except headings X, XO,
XE, and U). This is not a change to the previous system as headings were not used for data
entry in the previous version.
Some species on Annexes II, IV and V of the Habitats Directive may be subject to serious
threats and pressures from outside the Member State or even from beyond the EU. These
pressures and threats can be highlighted by using “XO threats and pressures from outside
the Member State” and “XE threats and pressures from outside the EU territory”. Combined
with the ranking of importance (see next section) a good indication for which species threats
and pressures from outside MS play a major role will be given and will allow more detailed
scientific studies to inform political decisions if necessary. At the same time MS who have
more detailed knowledge can explain the nature of threats and pressures in the non-
obligatory text field (2.8.2 for species and 2.7.5 for habitat types).
III.c.i
Time span for Art 17 reporting for threats and pressures
It is recommended
that the time span for pressure is the reporting period, i.e. 6 years.
For threat the recommended time span is 2 reporting periods (i.e. 12 years) into the future.
The threats should not include theoretical threats, but rather those issues judged to be
reasonably likely to occur.
III.c.ii
Relative importance of threats and pressures
The relative importance of a threat or pressure must be ranked in one of three categories:
30
Salafsky, N., et al. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of
threats and actions.
Conservation Biology 22: 897–911.
24

 
ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
Code Meaning
Comment
H
High importance/ impact
Important direct or immediate
influence and/or acting over large
areas.
M
Medium importance/ impact
Medium direct or immediate
influence, mainly indirect influence
and/or acting over moderate part of
the area/acting only regionally.
L
Low importance/ impact
Low direct or immediate influence,
indirect influence and/or acting over
small part of the area/ acting only
regionally.
As the intention is not to report every existing threat or pressure the total number of data
entries is strictly limited to a
maximum of 20
(to avoid very long lists of threats and
pressures of minor importance).
If there are no threats and pressures present, “X” should be used to indicate no pressures
and threats. Unknown threat or pressure should be indicated by “U”.
The number of entries with the
highest rank
is limited to a
maximum of 5
data entries.
This will make it possible to identify the most important factors at a European scale.
It is recommended to use the lowest number of possible data entries to adequately describe
the situation and it is recommended to use level 2 categories for “high importance” (for
example J02 “human induced changes in hydraulic conditions”).
III.c.iii
Pollution qualifier (optional)
As pollution
can have varying effects depending on the substances involved and have quite
different sources, for example nitrogen or phosphate input in (mostly P-limited) aquatic
ecosystems or atmospheric nitrogen input in terrestrial oligotrophic habitats, an additional
qualifier for the specific kind of pollutants can be used. This qualifier can be applied to a
number of different categories and subcategories present in the list, so it was decided not to
add a large number of subcategories which would make the list more complex and difficult to
use, but to allow a pollution qualifier to be added to threats and pressures.
This qualifier is optional, but can be used for the whole pollution section referring to the
main ecologically important component of the pollution, and may also be applied for other
categories which have an indirect pollution effect (see the examples in
Appendix 3
).
For practical reasons this qualifier is used for a minimum of necessary critical factors:
N Nitrogen input
P Phosphor/Phosphate input
A Acid input/ acidification
T toxic inorganic chemicals
O toxic organic chemicals
X Mixed pollutants
Eutrophication was noted as a cross-cutting issue of particular importance during data
analysis following the 2001-2006 reports. Direct nutrient input is coded under different
25

ASSESSING CONSERVATION STATUS
26
threats and pressures as for example ‘H03.02 air borne nitrogen input’. However, several
other threats such as lowering of the groundwater table can have indirect effects resulting in
eutrophication of the habitat.
Methods for assessing nitrogen deposition impacts on ecosystems are being developed by
scientific groups established under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution (CLRTAP). These methods, based on critical loads, are used to inform policy
development under the Convention (e.g. the revision of the Gothenburg Protocol) and also
support the assessments under the EU National Emission Ceilings Directive. Therefore, there
are harmonised assessment methods already established across Europe which should be
used where appropriate and the National Focal Centres (NFCs) for Critical Loads should be
contacted for further information. Guidelines have been produced by the Coordination Centre
for Effects
31
and more information can be found in Hettelingh et al (2009)
32
.
Four annotated examples are given in
Appendix 3.
31
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/Folder_Reference_Portal/Critical_loads
_based_N_deposition_assessments.pdf
32
Hettelingh JP, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2009) Progress in the modelling of critical thresholds,
impacts to plant species diversity and ecosystem services in Europe : CCE Status Report 2009,
Coordination Centre for Effects.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/themasites/cce/publications/040/index.html

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
IV ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
IV.a PARAMETERS COMMON TO SPECIES & HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
IV.a.i
Range
In order to evaluate the status of the range we need to look at two principal characteristics
of the range, first at the size of the range in relation to the size of the favourable reference
range and second at the range trend. However, it should be noted that range is rarely the
only parameter responsible for an overall assessment not being Favourable as changes in
range are invariably accompanied by changes in population size/ area of a habitat type.
Range was defined by DocHab 04-03/03-rev3 as
The natural range describes roughly the spatial limits within which the habitat or
species occurs. It is not identical to the precise localities or territory where a
habitat, species or sub-species permanently occurs. Such actual localities or
territories might for many habitats and species be patchy or disjointed (i.e.
habitats and species might not occur evenly spread) within their natural range. If
the reason for disjunction proves to be natural i.e. caused by ecological factors,
the isolated localities should not be interpreted as continuous natural range, for
example for an alpine species the range may be the Alps and the Pyrenees, but
not the lower area between. The natural range includes however, areas that are
not permanently used: for example for migratory species "range" means all the
areas of land or water that a migratory species inhabits, stays in temporarily,
crosses or overflies at any time on its normal migration
33
. Vagrant or occasional
occurrences (in the meaning of accidental, erratic, unpredictable) would not be
part of the natural range.
Natural range as defined here is not static but dynamic: it can decrease and
expand. Natural range can also be in an unfavourable condition for a habitat or a
species ie. it might be insufficient to allow for the long-term existence of that
habitat or species.
When a species or habitat spreads naturally (on its own) to a new area/territory or
when a re-introduction of a species consistent with the procedures foreseen under
art. 22
34
of the Habitats Directive has taken place of a species into its former
natural range, this territory has to be considered a part of the natural range.
Similarly restoration/recreation or management of habitat areas, as well as certain
agricultural and forestry practices can contribute to the expansion of a habitat or a
species and therefore its range. However, individuals or feral populations of an
animal species introduced on purpose or accidentally by man to places where they
have not occurred naturally in historical times or where they would not have
spread to naturally in foreseeable future, should be considered as being outside
their natural range and consequently not covered by the Directive.
33
See also article 1 of the Bonn Convention.
34
The term “native” as used in Article 22 should be interpreted so that a species or habitat is
considered native, when it is within its natural range (as defined in this paper), or within the limits of
any historical or potential (to where it spreads naturally) natural range.

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Range is defined as ‘the outer limits of the overall area in which a habitat type or species is
found at present. It can be considered as an envelope within which areas actually occupied
occur.
The range should represent a parameter suitable for assessing the spatial aspects of the
conservation status. However for both habitat types and species the spatial component is
also included in other parameters, namely ‘area’ for habitat types and ‘area of habitat’ for
species. The ‘range’ should be able to describe and detect changes in the extent of the
distribution.
Range is a technical parameter allowing for assessing the extent and the changes in the
habitat type or species distribution. The range should be calculated based on the map of the
actual distribution using a standardised algorithm. A standardised process is needed to
ensure repeatability of the range calculation in different reporting rounds.
The standardised process consists of 2 steps:
1 Gap closure using a predefined set of rules specifying when two distribution
points/grids will be joined together to form a single range polygon, and where an
actual gap in the range will be left.
2 The polygons created by gap filling will be then fitted to environmental
parameters to avoid the range covering areas which are not possible, for example
the range of a terrestrial species including marine areas.
The ETC/BD and EEA will ensure that a Range Tool using the methodology described in the
next section to facilitate an estimation of the range is made available. However, Member
States can still use their own methods to calculate ranges if their distribution data uses a grid
close to 10x10 km
2
(for this purpose field 1.1.4 Additional distribution map, is made
available). The main requirements are repeatability of the estimation and sensitivity to the
spatial changes of the distribution.
IV.a.i.a
Calculation of range
Discontinuities in the range
Most of the basic principles for the range estimation, including the size of gaps which will
represent a discontinuity in the range, were established so far during the 2000-2006
reporting round and will be still valid. Range should exclude major discontinuities that are
natural i.e. caused by ecological factors. What is considered as a natural discontinuity is
largely dependant on the ecological characteristic of the habitat type/species and the
character of the surrounding landscape.
The choice of recommended gap distance (see Table 1) corresponds with the definition of
range as an envelope generalising the distribution with major discontinuities excluded
suitable to detect large scale changes in the distribution. A discontinuity of at least 40–50 km
is suggested to be considered as a gap in the range. This value may be modified on the
basis of an expert judgement, for example dependent on dispersal and migration potential of
a species. A range calculated with larger gap distances (40–50 km) is more sensitive to
changes at the margins of the distribution and large scale changes within the outer limit of
the distribution. On the other hand range calculated with smaller gap distances (20 km) is
sensitive to small scale changes (see figure 4
Leucorrhinia caudalis).
28

image
image
image
image
image
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Figure 4: Image shows a difference between the range calculated with 20 km and 50 km
gap distances. Where a single marginal population occupying two grids on the map is lost
(dark brown grids) the range calculated with 50km gap distance will decrease by more
than 15 % of its original area (orange grids). While if the gap distance of 20 km was used
the decline in the range area will be around 3 %. With a 12 year reporting period the
same situation would lead to different conclusions; ‘unfavourable bad’ for the range with
50km gap and ‘unfavourable inadequate’ for the range with 20 km gap.
The gap distance should reflect the ecological characteristic of the habitat types and species.
This means that for mobile species the range will be calculated using larger gaps and
conversely smaller gaps will be used for more sedentary species. Exact knowledge on the
dispersal capacity of many species is still lacking and in addition the possible dispersal
distance will be greatly influenced by the quality of the surrounding landscape matrix.
Proposed gap distances are therefore rather broad and reflect major ecological differences
between broad species groups. The recommended gap distances for each species group are
outlined in Table 1 but other gap distances can be used if based on detailed knowledge of
the species within the Member State.
Table 1: Recommended gap distance for major species groups
Species group
Gap distance
Lower plants
40 km
Higher plants
40 km
Invertebrates 40 km
29

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Fish 50 km
Terrestrial mammals
40-90 km depending on
dispersal ability
Amphibians 50 km
Terrestrial reptiles
50 km
Marine mammals and reptiles
90 km
For relatively localised habitat types a gap distance of 40 km is recommended, which is equal
to the recommended gap distance for plant species which represent main structural
components of the majority of the habitat types. However, for wide spread habitat types
which are structurally similar to the surrounding landscape matrix the gap distance could be
increased to 50 km.
For very rare and/or localised species and habitat types, occurring in particular
environmental conditions (e.g. 1130 Estuaries, 8340 Glaciers) the range should be equal to
the distribution.
Generally, distribution data will be provided as presence on a 10 x 10 km grid (ETRS LAEA
5210 10 km grid). However this method is not appropriate for highly mobile or migratory
species. For these species distribution is mostly mapped on home-range basis, which is then
converted into 10 x 10 km grid system. The range in this case will represent a spatial
generalisation of the space that is used regularly by the population(s). If distribution is
represented as relatively broad polygons the Range Tool may not be the most appropriate
method for determining ranges and expert judgement might be more suitable.
Technically the range will be calculated by filling in unoccupied grids between cells of
distribution. A gap distance should be understood as the distance between two distribution
grids, that will not be joined together to form a single polygon, component of range.
The range calculated by the automated filling of gaps should be fitted to national
boundaries, environmental and biogeographical constraints. The following types of
unsuitable areas should be excluded from the calculated range:
marine areas from the range of terrestrial species
terrestrial areas from the range of marine species
areas beyond national boundaries
areas identified by the range tool as part of the range falling in adjacent
biogeographical regions for which the species/habitat is not noted on the checklist
areas more than 20 km from coastline for coastal habitat types
areas that do not overlap with the limnic environment for freshwater habitat types
and species.
Although the distinction between suitable and unsuitable areas is very coarse the purpose of
fitting is to solve only most important contradictions resulting from automated calculation.
The process of fitting should be simple and applicable across all Member States.
Grids that occur only in the unsuitable areas will be excluded from range. Grids will not be
cut by the limits of the area with unsuitable conditions, or limits of biogeographical region.
IV.a.i.b
The Range tool
The range
tool generates a standardised grid based range using the rules given in this
document. The tool uses two inputs to calculate the range. The first input is the distribution,
which can be any spatial object (point, polygon, or grid). The second input is the reference
grid system. Both inputs need to be in the same projection. The tool is based on calculating
30

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
the distances between the centroids of grid cells and then constructing a series of polylines
and polygons to connect other centroids of grid cells based on the ‘gap distance’ specified.
All cells that intersect these polyline and polygons, as well as all distribution cells, are used to
create the range. A separate set of technical guidelines regarding the range tool will be
developed in the near future.
IV.a.i.c
Some issues related to assessing range
Occasional
occurrences, outlying occurrences
The range for Article 17 reporting is drawn as an external envelope around the habitat
type/species distribution which excludes principal discontinuities. The size and shape of the
range is therefore to a large extent determined by the occurrences on the outer limits of the
distribution. Species are occasionally recorded beyond their usual area of distribution, and
these occasional records should not influence the shape and size of the range. The map of
range is based only on regular occurrences of the habitat type/species.
On the other hand, particularly on the boundaries of natural geographical range, habitat
types/species may occur in limited numbers in atypical conditions. These outliers should be
included in the distribution of the habitat type/species if they represent regular or stable
occurrences.
Metapopulations
Many species have a metapopulation structure, which is characterised by local extinctions
and (re)-colonisations. Although the range is a spatial generalisation of the actual habitat
type/species distribution, in this case the range should represent the space which is used by
metapopulation(s). Those localities with repeatedly recorded absence of the species but
where the suitable habitat is still present and recolonisation possible should be included in
the distribution map, if they form part of the area used by the metapopulation.
Incomplete distribution data.
Some of the gaps in the distribution, as well in the range maps, are likely to be due to gaps
in the data. After automated calculation of range it is possible to correct the gaps resulting
from incompleteness of data. The resulting range map will then be the output from of the
automated procedure as modified by expert judgement.
Another option for common and widespread habitat types and species would be to increase
the gap distance.
IV.a.i.d
How the calculated area of range will be used
The range
map created by the Member State will be used directly or indirectly to fill in
information requested by the reporting form.
31

image
 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Figure 5: Estimation of range and use of the estimate
Range maps are created for entire Member State, but the range parameters are reported
separately for each biogeographical region. The range in the biogeographical region is
represented by all grids which occur or partly occur within the region.
IV.a.ii
Future prospects
Article 1
(e):
The conservation status of a natural habitat will be taken as “favourable” when:
— its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing,
and
— the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long- term
maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future,
and
— the conservation status of its typical species is favourable
Article 1 (i):
The conservation status of a species will be taken as “favourable” when:
— population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is
maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural
habitats, and
— the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be
reduced for the foreseeable future, and
— there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to
maintain its populations on a long term basis
As shown by the extracts from the Habitats Directive the above definitions of the FCS for
habitat types and species, assessments of CS must take into account the likely future
prospects of habitat types and species. If they are not good (e.g. the population of a species
is likely to decrease) then the habitat type or species cannot be at FCS. The concept of
‘foreseeable future’ is not defined in the Directive but should be interpreted to mean 2
reporting cycles, i.e. the next 12 years.
32

image
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Future prospects could be evaluated using expert judgement and this was in fact the
approach used most often for the 2001-2006 report. However, the absence of a standard
approach meant it was difficult to aggregate data across biogeographic or marine regions.
It is recommended that future prospects should be evaluated by considering the future
trends and likely future status of the 3 other parameters using the methodology described
below and illustrated in Figure 6. However, only the result of the assessment should be
reported in field 2.9.4. for species and 2.8.4 for habitat types. Nevertheless, it is
recommended that documentation of the decision process is kept by the MS to aid reporting
in the future.
Figure 6: Assessment of the future prospects of a parameter based on its future trend and
predicted future status.
Future trends
Future trends of habitats and species are dependent on threats which will have a negative
influence, and on the other hand action plans, conservation measures and other provisions
can have positive influence. For example climate change, land-use scenarios, trends in
certain policies and regeneration potential of the habitat (type) are aspects that will influence
future trends and thus the future status. In most cases positive (management actions, policy
changes etc) and negative influences (threats) will simultaneously affect the habitat or the
species. The assessment of future trends therefore has to take into account whether positive
and negative influences (threats) will be in balance for the respective parameter of the
habitat type or species under consideration or whether the one will exceed the other.
Future trends should be evaluated using the results under ‘Main threats’ (2.7 for species, 2.5
for habitat types). If this field indicates a number of threats of high or medium importance
then the future trend of one or more parameter will very likely be decreasing (unless there
are measures in place to avoid this). If there are only threats of low importance or even no
threats indicated then the future trend can be evaluated as stable or even increasing. Either
33

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
prognosis models or expert judgements using the predicted threats will contribute to the
assessment of future trends. Taking it as given that the actual status and its relation in
respect of the favourable reference values is known, then the direction of future trends is
decisive for the evaluation of the likely future status (see Fig. 6).
Future status
The future status of each parameter can be evaluated by calculation or estimation via expert
judgements using available information. The favourable reference values (FRV) in the other
parameters can be used as thresholds for the assessment of the long-term viability of the
habitat or species. The other thresholds used in the general evaluation matrix for assessing
Unfavourable-Inadequate (amber) and Unfavourable-Bad (red) can also be used to
distinquish between poor and bad prospects.
Since it is hardly feasible to come to precise figures of the future status of the parameters,
the future status should be assessed in relation to the FRVs and other thresholds by using
operators (see Figure 6). FRVs are not reported for all parameters and an equivalent value is
required.
For ‘Structure & functions’ (habitats only) it is recommended to use a percentage of the area
in a favourable condition (for example 75 %) as the threshold for the FRV. For ‘habitat for
the species’ (species only) the value reported as ‘suitable habitat for the species´ could be
used as a reference. Otherwise it is up to an expert judgement to assess whether the future
area of the habitat will be sufficiently large (good prospects) or it will be clearly not
sufficiently large (bad prospects) for the long-term survival of the species.
Further information on the evaluation of future prospects is given in the discussion paper
used in the development of the recommended approach (on CIRCA
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/expert_reporting/work-package_revision/sub-
group_papers/future_prospects&vm=detailed&sb=Title
)
IV.a.iii
Evaluation matrix for future prospects
Following
the recommended method, each parameter should be assessed in respect of its
foreseeable future trends and the predicted future status (table 2).
Table 2. Evaluation matrix
Actual status
of parameter
Future
trend
Future status
Prospects
(numbers refer to notes below)
At/above FRV
+ (increasing) > (above FRV)
Good
At/above FRV
= (stable)
=/> (on/above FRV)
Good
At FRV
- (decreasing) </<< (under FRV)
Poor (1)
Bad (1)
Above FRV
- (decreasing) >/=/</<<
(above/on/under FRV)
Good (2)
Poor (2)
Bad (2)
Below FRV
+ (increasing) >/=/<
(above/on/under FRV)
Good (3)
Poor (3)
Bad (3)
Below FRV
= (stable)
< (under FRV)
Poor (1)
Bad (1)
Below FRV
- (decreasing) < (under FRV)
Poor (1)
Bad (1)
Unknown + (increasing)/
- (decreasing)/
= (stable)/
X (unknown)
X (unknown)
unknown
34

ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
under FRV
on/above FRV
X (unknown)
X (unknown)
unknown
Notes
1 - Depending whether or not the future status is anticipated to be below the threshold for
Unfavourable-Bad in two reporting cycles (12 years).
2 - Depending on whether the future status is anticipated to be on/above or under the FRVs
or even below the threshold for Unfavourable-Bad in two reporting cycles (12 years)
3 - Depending whether the future status will exceed the FRV or the threshold for
Unfavourable-Bad in two reporting cycles (12 years).
The tables presented below are designed to aid this evaluation.
Assessment table for future prospects of species
Parameter
Future Trend
Future Status
Prospects
Range
Population
Habitat
Future Prospects
Assessment table for future prospects of habitat types
Parameter
Future Trend
Future Status
Prospects
Range
Area
Structure & function
Future Prospects
Although the rate of decline of a parameter and its absolute deviation from FRV in the future
is important, a sensible approach is to use only the direction of the future trend and the
predicted future status (or equivalent) as more precise measurements will be difficult to
obtain.
Clearly, once a parameter has been identified as having bad prospects, the assessment of
future prospects will be ‘Unfavourable-Bad’ and there is no need to examine the other
parameters but completing the process may help inform future needs for management.
Once the future prospects of the 3 parameters have been compiled the overall Future
prospects can be assessed using the following rules:
Favourable
Unfavourable-
Inadequate
Unfavourable-Bad
Unknown
Future
prospects
All parameters have
good prospects
OR
prospects of one
parameter unknown,
the other prospects
good
Other
combination
One or more
parameters have
bad prospects
Two or more
x and no
parameter
with bad
prospects
35

ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Boxes 6 and 7 give examples of how this methodology can be used for a species and a
habitat, note that a value equivalent to a favourable reference value has been estimated for
‘habitat of the species’ (Austrian approach).
Box 6: Future prospects for the plant
Ligularia sibirica in the Alpine region of
Austria
Range:
Actual range: 35 km
2
FRR: 35 km
2
Actual status: on FRV
Future trend: stable
Future status: on FRV
Future prospects: good
Population:
Actual population: app. 1.000 Individuals
FRP: 800 Individuals
Actual status: above FRV
Future trend: stable
Future status: above FRV
Future prospects: good
Habitat for the species:
Actual habitat: 5 ha
Suitable habitat (favourable habitat, Austrian approach): 5 ha
Actual status: on FRV
Future trend: stable
Future status: on FRV
Future prospects: good
Conclusion: All parameters have good future prospects so conclude ‘Favourable’
Parameter
Future Trend
Future Status
Prospects
Range
Stable
On
Good
Population
Stable
Above
Good
Habitat
Stable
Above
Good
Future Prospects
FV
Box 7: Future Prospects of habitat type ‘8340 Permanent Glaciers’ in the Alpine
region of Austria
Range:
Actual range: 4755 km
2
FRR: more than 4755 km
2
Actual status: under FRV
Future trend: decreasing
Future status: under FRV
36

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Future prospects: Bad
Area
Actual habitat type area: 455 km
2
FRA: 565 km
2
Actual status: under FRV
Future trend: decreasing
Future status: under FRV
Future prospects: bad
Structure and function
Actual status: unknown
Future trend: decreasing
Future status: unknown
Future prospects: unknown
Conclusion: Three parameters have bad future prospects so conclude
‘Unfavourable-Bad’
Parameter
Future Trend
Future Status
Prospects
Range
Decreasing
Under
Bad
Area
Decreasing
Under
Bad
Structure &
function
Decreasing
Unknown
Unknown
Future Prospects
U2
IV.b
PARAMETERS ONLY USED FOR SPECIES ASSESSMENTS
IV.b.i
Sources of information for species assessments
Member States are obliged by Art 11 to undertake surveys and inventories and these should
be the basis of the Article 17 assessments.
For many species information is available from volunteer networks, often organised by NGOs
or scientific societies (Bell
et al, 2008)
35
and the EUMON project has compiled a list
(incomplete) of monitoring schemes across Europe which can be found on the project
website
36
.
Guidance has been published by the European Commission for large carnivores
37
and this
may be a source of information but that guidance was produced from a management
35
Bell, Sandra, Mariella Marzano, Joanna Cent, Hanna Kobierska, Dan Podjed, Deivida Vandzinskaite,
Hugo Reinert, Ausrine Armaitiene, Malgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak, and Rajko Muršič. 2008. What
counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity.
Biodiversity
and Conservation
17, no. 14 (December 1): 3443-3454.
36
http://eumon.ckff.si/monitoring/
(note that the database was updated in 2010 and is much more
complete than before).
37
See
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/index_en.htm
37

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
perspective. For reporting under Article 17, in cases of conflicting advice, the guidance given
in these guidelines takes priority.
In addition supporting information for the Article 17 assessments may be available in a
European Atlas such as those published for the following groups of species:
Amphibians & Reptiles (Gasc et al, 1997)
Butterflies & Moths (Gomez de Aizpurua, 2004; Kudrna, 2002)
Invertebrates (Helsdingen, Willemse & Speight, 1996 a,b,c)
Mammals (Mitchell-Jones et al, 1999)
Vascular Plants Atlas Flora Europaea
38
Some of these are now old and in some cases only indicative while the Atlas Flora Europaea
is incomplete; all should be used with caution.
Information may also be available from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)
39
while information on fish is given in Maitland (1994)
40
and on Fishbase
41
. For bryophytes
some distribution data are available from the European Committee for Conservation of
Bryophytes
42
while EMODnet Biology
43
has information for marine species.
IV.b.ii Transfrontier populations
In some
cases species may have a population which is shared between two or more Member
States, for example the Pyrenean population of brown bear (Ursus
arctos) in France and
Spain or the Tatra chamois (Rupicaria
rupicaria tatrica) in Poland and Slovakia. In such
instances Member States are encouraged to undertake a common assessment and to agree
on data and assessments, but each Member State would report the results. In such cases
this should be noted under new field 2.8.3 Transboundary assessment. This is particularly
relevant for the parameters range, population and possibly habitat for the species, as the
threats and pressures are likely to be different in each Member State. This means that
reports may not be identical for all the concerned MS.
Joint assessments between two or more Member States should be done primarily in cases
where there is a certain level of cooperation and common understanding of the management
needs and approaches for that species (e.g. large carnivore populations). There may also be
cases where it is biologically relevant to consider populations in a neighboring non-EU
country. This should be clearly described under field 2.8.3 Transboundary assessment.
For some marine species, population estimates have been made by sea area and not by
Member State, for example the SCANS surveys of small cetaceans in the European Atlantic
and North Sea
44
. In such cases it may be appropriate for all Member States involved to
produce a regional assessment for range and population. In addition, co-ordinated
assessment for threats and pressures and future prospects should be undertaken if
appropriate. As combined estimates may be based on diverse data sources it is important
38
Atlas
Flora
Europaea
39
http://www.gbif.org/
40
Maitland, P.S. (1994). Conservation of freshwater fish in Europe. Nature and Environment 66
Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg.
41
http://www.fishbase.org
42
http://www.bio.ntnu.no/users/soder/ECCB/RDBTaxon.php
43
European Marine Observation and Data Network
http://bio.emodnet.eu/
44
See
http://biology.st-andrews.ac.uk/scans2/index.html
38

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
that the field 2.8.3 Transboundary assessment includes information on how the assessment
(e.g. population estimation) was carried out.
An example of an assessment for a transboundary population is given in Appendix 6. Please
notice that this example is not fully complete as all data is not yet available, but it aims to
demonstrate how transboundary assessment can be done.
IV.b.iii Population units
It is difficult
to make comparisons between Member States if different units are used.
Population size is the preferred parameter for weighting national assessments of the non-
quantitative parameters to produce supra-national assessments. In order to be able to
aggregate data on population size of a species across the EU the same population unit
should be used in all Member States in which it occurs.
However, at present, there is no agreement between the Member States on which
population units should be used for each species. The reporting format offers therefore two
alternatives: to report population size either using individuals and agreed exceptions (see
below and the list of exceptions at the reference portal) at field 2.4.1; or to use another unit
(see standard list in reference portal) and report at field 2.4.2. Where a Member State
chooses to report using another unit (2.4.2), it is requested to convert this value to
individuals or agreed exceptions if this is reasonable. In this case, both fields 2.4.1 and 2.4.2
should be completed.
Based on the results of the 2007-2012 reporting cycle the issue of harmonising population
units will be re-assessed and further developed. The long term aim, which may take several
reporting cycles to achieve, is to agree population units for each species.
The estimates of population size are complementary to distribution maps - the two figures
together give a good overview of the status of the species in the different Member States,
biogeographical regions or in the European Union.
IV.b.iv
Recommended population units
For species
occurring in only one Member State, there is no need to change the unit used for
the 2001-2006 report as their report(s) cover 100% of the EU-population. The
recommendation is to use mature individuals as a main population unit wherever meaningful.
This does not mean that the Member States are being asked to put in place monitoring
schemes to provide data on number of individuals. Monitoring units can be different to the
population units reported under Article 17.
It is proposed to use a unit other than mature individuals for 68 species (see list on the
reference portal). The recommended exceptions are mainly substrate units (trees, logs,
stones) or surface area (square metres). The latter will then normally be the same as the
occupied habitat for the species. If grids are used as a population unit they should, if
possible, be at a finer scale than used for distribution.
The groups concerned are bryophytes, some arthropods, mainly coleoptera, and some small
molluscs (e.g.
Vertigo spp). For bryophytes they include species living on trees, logs and
trunks and some ground-living species mainly in wetlands. The arthropods are species living
inside trees while the molluscs are small species mostly living in wetlands.
39

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
IV.b.v
Estimating population size
As many Member States will not have monitoring systems that collect data on individuals, for
more common species it is important that it should be possible to report the population size
estimate - as a number, a range (minimum & maximum) or as a class (see proposed classes
below), with a free text commentary field to describe how the population number was
calculated (field 2.4.3).
Although no strict definition of ‘mature individual’ is available, in general, adult individuals
are included, i.e. those known or thought to be capable of reproducing; but for example frog
larvae and seedlings are not. For most animal species individuals are quite easy to delineate
and understand. For some invertebrates it is perhaps not practical but it is still easy to
understand what an individual is. However, for some plants it is more problematic, for
several species (e.g. clonal populations with vegetative reproduction) it is not possible to
distinguish individuals from each other above ground while ferns (e.g.
Trichomanes
speciosum)
may have both gametophyte and sporophyte generations. As a pragmatic
solution it is recommended to treat shoots or tufts as individuals.
If the exact number of individuals is known, report the same value for minimum and for
maximum. If only approximate population estimates are available it is possible to use
classes, see Table 3.
Table 3: Classes for reporting population
Class Population
1
0-50
2
50-100
3
100-500
4
500-1 000
5
1 000-5 000
6
5 000-10 000
7
10 000-50 000
8
50 000-100 000
9
100 000-500 000
10
500 000-1 000 000
11
1 000 000-5 000 000
12
5 000 000-10 000 000
13
10 000 000-50 000 000
14
50 000 000-100 000 000
The reporting format gives a possibility to report on problems encountered to provide
population size estimation. This information will serve the future development of the use of
population units.
IV.b.vi
Using other population units and converting to individuals
If grids
are used as a population unit they should be at a finer scale than used for
distribution. Localities need to be defined. If Member States use a unit other than individuals
it should be one of the units which have been agreed for use in the revised Standard Data
Form. The standard list of units is available on the Reference Portal.
If localities or grids are reported in 2013, the Member States have the option to convert that
data into individuals (with the possibility to use of classes). Box 8 shows a worked example
for a plant species in the Boreal region of Sweden. Appendix 4 gives some further examples
of how to carry out this conversion.
40

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Box 8: Converting localities to individuals
Pulsatilla patens (a perennial vascular plant) is known from at least 35 actual localities
(separated by at least 1 km). From most of them there is information from the last 10 years
A few sites have been monitored at irregular intervals. One site has the main population. It
has been surveyed once, ten years ago.
The largest locality has roughly 100 000–150 000 flowering individuals yearly. The other
localities have less than 200 individuals. At only two of those localities have more than 100
individuals have been counted during the last 50 years. Most of the localities have less than
10 individuals yearly.
Approximation: one locality 100 000–150 000, 2 with 50–200, 12 10–50, with 20 with 5–10
individuals. Gives: 100 320–151 200 individuals or class 9 (100 000–500 000 individuals).
IV.b.vii
Population structure and genetics
Although
Annex B does not ask for information on population structure (age, classes, etc.)
some knowledge of the population structure is needed for the assessment of population in
Annex C.
In general, an absence of or unnaturally low recruitment would indicate an unfavourable
population structure. Similarly, an unnaturally high mortality for all or certain age classes can
lead to an unfavourable population structure. The lack of young individuals in many
monitored local populations may also indicate an unfavourable population structure.
For example the population structure of the freshwater pearl mussel,
Margaritifera
margaritifera,
in the Czech Republic is poor (reproduction and age structure deviates strongly
from normal), so the population of the species has to be regarded as in unfavourable
conservation status, even if the population was larger than the favourable reference value of
pearl mussel population.
Similarly it may be relevant to consider the genetic structure of a species. In many cases
little information is available, although some studies have been focused on particularly rare
species such as the Annex II & IV plants
Borderea chouardii
45
and Dracocephalum
austriacum
46
.
The importance of genetics in the evaluation of conservation status is
discussed in more detail in Laikre et al (2009)
47
.
45
Segarra-Moragues, J. G., M. Palop-Esteban, F. González-Candelas, and P. Catalán. 2005. On the
verge of extinction: genetics of the critically endangered Iberian plant species,
Borderea chouardii
(Dioscoreaceae) and implications for conservation management.
Molecular Ecology 14, no. 4 (3): 969-
982
.
46
Dostálek, Tomáš, Zuzana Münzbergová, and Ivana Plačková. 2009. Genetic diversity and its effect
on fitness in an endangered plant species,
Dracocephalum austriacum L. Conservation Genetics 11,
no. 3 (3): 773-783.
47
Laikre, L, T Nilsson, C R. Primmer, N Ryman, and F W. Allendorf. 2009. Importance of Genetics in
the Interpretation of Favourable Conservation Status.
Conservation Biology 23, no. 6: 1378-1381.
41

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
IV.b.viii
Habitat for the species
The definition of favourable conservation status for a species given in Article 1 of the
Habitats Directive includes
“- there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to
maintain its populations on a long term basis” (Art1i)
Art 1f
defines habitat of a species as:
“an environment defined by specific abiotic or biotic factors, in which the
species lives at any stage of its biological cycle”
Accordingly, ‘habitat for the species’ is one of the four parameters used to assess
conservation status. The reporting format asks for the habitat area, habitat quality and trend
together with information on the data quality and reasons for any change (
Annex B, section
2.5
).
There is also an option to report the area of suitable habitat if appropriate – areas thought to
be suitable for the species but from which it may be absent (field 2.5.9). This allows species
where lack of suitable habitat is a major problem to be identified.
‘Habitat for the species’ uses habitat in its original meaning of the resources (biological and
physical) used by a species during its life. Although a variety of definitions have been used
(see for example Mitchell 2005
48
), this is sometimes referred to as the ecological niche of a
species. Many species use different biotopes at different times of the year or at different
parts of their life cycle, ‘Habitat for the species’ should include all of these, for example a
butterfly may have different partial habitats as a larvae, pupae and adult and a bat may have
different habitats in summer and winter.
This meaning should be contrasted with ‘habitats’ as used for Annex I and for habitat
classifications where ‘habitat’ is more correctly biotope (or in many cases biotope complex).
Turlure et al (2009)
49
show how 2 species of butterfly can use the same biotope but have
different niches.
Generalists
For some species which use a wide range of habitats, often termed ‘generalists’, it is difficult
to identify the area used with any precision. However, for these species it is less likely that
the habitat is a limiting factor controlling their population size or reproduction than for a
‘specialist’ species dependent on one or a few habitats. For generalist species factors such as
availability of prey is often more important than habitat area. In these cases it may be
sensible to give area of habitat as the range within the country or biogeographical area
within a country and to assume that if both ‘range’ and ‘population’ parameters are
favourable, then the habitat for the species is also likely to be favourable (see figure 7 and
point 3 of box 8), Field 2.5.4 b ‘Explain how the quality was assessed’ can be used for this
purpose.
48
Mitchell, Sean C. 2005. How useful is the concept of habitat? - a critique. Oikos 110, no. 3 (9): 634-
638.
49
Turlure, Camille, Hans Van Dyck, Nicolas Schtickzelle, and Michel Baguette. 2009. Resource-based
habitat definition, niche overlap and conservation of two sympatric glacial relict butterflies.
Oikos 118,
no. 6 (6): 950-960.
42

ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
In some cases a species may be associated with a broad class of habitats, for example in
Poland the range of
Cricetus cricetus has been estimated from Corine Land Cover as it is
restricted to agricultural land (although as the species cannot use all agricultural land this
method is likely to overestimate the available habitat).
Specialists
Some species are known to be restricted to particular habitats, for example the Annex II
beetle
Agathidium pulchellum is dependent on the slimemold Trichia decipiens living on
deadwood in Boreal forest (Laaksonen et al 2009
50
). Some species have well known
requirements, for example saproxylic insects are dependent on old trees. But these may be
features which can be found in many habitat types in the Annex I sense e.g. old trees can be
found in woods, hedgerows and parks. Some species are usually found in the transitions
between habitats, for example species inhabiting woodland margins.
Ideally both the area of habitat used by the species and its trend, plus the area of suitable
habitat would be available, and if they are, should be reported. In rare cases the habitat may
be an Annex I habitat type or group of Annex I habitat types and information collected for
the habitat assessment can provide an estimate of the habitat for the species. It may be
possible to model the habitat used by a species, for example Kuemmerle
et al (in press)
51
show how the habitat for
Bison bonasus can be modelled and is much larger than currently
used.
In some cases the trend may be known but not the area. For example, in the United
Kingdom the habitat used by the Annex II beetle
Limoniscus violaceus is described as
decaying cavities in old trees occurring in woods or wood-pasture but the actual area is
unknown. However, it is known that the number of such trees is in decline so the trend in
habitat area has been reported as ‘declining’ leading to an assessment as ‘Unfavourable -
Inadequate and deteriorating’ (U1-) for this parameter
52
.
Figure 7 shows a decision tree used by the United Kingdom to help assess this parameter in
a structured manner even when data are limited while Box 9 describes the Belgian approach.
50
Laaksonen, Mervi, Kaisa Murdoch, Juha Siitonen, and Gergely Várkonyi. 2009. Habitat associations
of
Agathidium pulchellum, an endangered old-growth forest beetle species living on slime moulds.
Journal of Insect Conservation 14, no. 1 (5): 89-98.
51
Kuemmerle, Tobias, Volker Radeloff, Kajetan Perzanowski, Piotr Kozlo, Taras Sipko, Pavlo
Khoyetskyy, Andriy-Taras Bashta, et al. 2011. Predicting potential European bison habitat across its
former range.
Ecological Applications 21 (3): 830-843.
52
Conservation status assessment for S1079: Limoniscus violaceus Violet click beetle
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Article17/FCS2007-S1079-audit-Final.pdf
43

image
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Figure 7: United Kingdom decision tree to aid assessment of the parameter ‘habitat for
the species’ (from the JNCC).
Habitat quality should be reported at field 2.5.4 using one of 3 classes – good, moderate or
bad. This should be based on the surveillance required by Article 11 of the Habitats
Directive, complemented by expert opinion if necessary. ‘Good’ habitat quality implies that
the species is not limited by its habitat, ‘bad’ implies that habitat quality is a major problem.
Box 9: The Belgian approach to ‘Habitat for the species’
In Belgium four different approaches were used for the 2001-2006 report depending on the
biology of the species and the data available;
1 - Where clear links exist between the habitat requirements of a species and the presence
of particular habitat types (especially Annex I habitat types), a species (potential) habitat
area was estimated by adding up the known areas of the habitat types. This approach was
used for some vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens.
For Vertigo moulinsiana a comparable approach was used, but in this case it concerns also
non annex I habitat types (large sedge vegetation = Magnocaricion + sedge rich subtype of
91E0) which also can be derived from the Belgian land cover map.
44

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
2 – There was only one species (Lucanus cervus) where the results of a research programme
with extensive surveys of habitat requirements could be adopted. The habitat area of
existing populations was calculated using GIS after modelling of the collected habitat data.
3 - For other species, especially those requiring very large habitat areas, (potential) habitat
area was estimated using expert opinion. For most of these species (predominantly
carnivores), current distribution and area use was very hard to assess.
For example
- for marine mammals the total Belgian marine area was considered as range = area =
suitable habitat;
- carnivorous mammals require very large areas and are very mobile: it is very difficult to
distinguish between areas really occupied by the species so suitable habitat and area were
therefore considered the same.
4 - Habitat area of species with only a limited number of populations that are fully covered
by existing monitoring programmes was estimated based on the results of the intensive
monitoring.
As monitoring schemes are developed and implemented, it will be possible to make a clear
distinction between the habitat that is effectively occupied by the species and the potential
(i.e. suitable) habitat. For methodological reasons and because distribution data were
lacking, it was not possible to make this distinction for some species during the conservation
status assessment in the 2001-2006 report.
IV.c PARAMETERS ONLY USED FOR ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT TYPES
IV.c.i Sources of information for assessing habitat types
Like for species, Member states are obliged under Art.11 of the directive to monitor the
status of habitats.
In many countries there are also existing inventories of certain habitat types (e.g. forests or
grasslands) which have been produced for a variety of purposes. These may not use the
same classification of habitats as the Directive but in many cases they can be reinterpreted,
possibly with the aid of further information such as soil or geological maps. Many countries
have published ‘translations’ between various habitat classifications and the typology used in
Annex I (which is mostly based on CORINE (European Communities, 1991) & the Palaearctic
classifications (Devillers & Devillers-Terschuren, 1996). The ETC/BD developed the EUNIS
Habitat Classification that provides a tool for making correspondence between different land
use, habitat and vegetation classification systems.
For example, the Czech biotope manual (Chytrý et al, 2010)
53
gives the equivalent unit(s) in
the national classification for each Annex I habitat types present in the Czech Republic as
well as the equivalent phytosociological syntaxa and the French Cahiers d’habitats
54
series
lists the syntaxa for all Annex I habitat types present in France. The German Interpretation
53
Chytrý, M. et al, M. (eds) (2010) Katalog biotopů České republiky (Druhé vydání), AOPK, Prague
54
http://natura2000.environnement.gouv.fr/habitats/cahiers.html
45

 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Manual gives references to the German national biotope classification, Red Data book of
Biotopes and to phytosociological syntaxa (Ssymank et al. 1998)
55
.
Where no map of habitat range exists it may be possible to model the range from other
sources of data, such as maps of potential natural vegetation (e.g. Bohn et al, 2004)
56
,
distribution of key species, soil and geological maps, climate data or topographical maps.
Several countries have monitoring schemes based on stratified random sampling such as the
Countryside Survey
57
in the United Kingdom or the Nationell Inventering av Landskapet i
Sverige (NILS)
58
project in Sweden. Although these methods cannot give detailed
information on distribution of detailed Annex I habitat types they can give good estimates of
habitat type area and trends in area. There have been several seabed mapping projects such
as Balance
59
and Mesh
60
and these are now being brought together and extended in the
EUSeaMap project
61
.
Remote sensing techniques continue to evolve and many projects have used them to both
map and assess quality of habitat types, however such techniques are mostly still
experimental and are not yet suitable for operational use for most Annex I habitats
62
.
IV.c.ii
Area covered by habitat
Habitat
area should be given in km
2
. See step-by-step guidance under section VI.d, 2.4.
IV.c.iii
Structures and functions (including typical species)
“the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term
maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future,
and the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i)”
(from Article I(e)).
Structures are considered to be the physical components of a habitat type, these will often
be formed by species (both living and dead), e.g. trees & shrubs in a woodland, corals in
some forms of reef but can also include structures such as gravel used for spawning.
Functions are the ecological processes occurring at a number of temporal and spatial scales
and vary greatly between habitat types. For example tree regeneration and nutrient cycling
55
Ssymank, A., Hauke, U., Rückriem, C. & Schröder, E. unter Mitarbeit von Messer, D. (1998): Das
europäische Schutzgebietssystem NATURA 2000 - BfN-Handbuch zur Umsetzung der Fauna-Flora-
Habitat-Richtlinie (92/43/EWG) und der Vogelschutz-Richtlinie (79/409/EWG). - SchrR. f.
Landschaftspfl. u. Natursch. 53, 560 S.
56
Bohn, U.; Gollub, G.; Hettwer, C.; Neuhäuslová, Z.; Raus, Th.; Schlüter, H. & Weber, H. (Eds) 2004.
Interaktive/Interactive CD-ROM zur Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/to the Map of the
Natural Vegetation of Europe. Maßstab/Scale 1:2.500.000. - Erläuterungstext, Legende,
Karten/Explanatory Text, Legend, Maps.
– Münster (Landwirtschaftsverlag).
57
http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/
58
http://nils.slu.se/
59
http://www.balance-eu.org/
60
http://www.searchmesh.net/
61
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-5020
62
For a recent review see
Vanden Borre, Jeroen, Desiré Paelinckx, Caspar A. Mücher, Lammert Kooistra, Birgen Haest, Geert De
Blust, and Anne M. Schmidt. (2011). Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat monitoring:
Prospects on the way forward.
Journal for Nature Conservation 19 (2): 116-125.
46

ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
are important functions in woodland habitats. Functions are often linked to ecosystem
services. Although fragmentation is not mentioned in the directive it is clear that
fragmentation can disrupt habitat function and is a factor that should be taken into account
when assessing structure & function.
For a habitat type to be considered to have a Favourable Conservation Status the directive
requires its structure and functions to be favourable and its ‘typical species’ to be at
Favourable Conservation Status. Given the wide range of habitat types listed on Annex I and
their inherent variability it is not possible to give detailed guidance for each individual habitat
type but clearly the various ecological processes essential for a habitat type have to be
present and functioning for the habitat type to be considered to be at FCS.
Although the Directive uses the term ‘typical species’ it does not give a definition, either for
use in reporting or for use in impact assessments. As it would be a considerable increase in
the necessary work to undertake an assessment of the conservation status of each typical
species using the methodology used for species of Annexes II, IV & V, the assessment of
typical species is included as part of the assessment of the structure & function parameter.
The species considered as ‘typical’ should be reported at section 2.7.1 of Annex D.
The assessment of structure & function is carried out for a biogeographical or marine region
and it is not necessary for all components of structure or functions to be present on all sites
where a habitat occurs. For example, although all age classes of a woodland type need to be
present at a regional scale, together with sufficient regeneration, the stages need not be
present on the same site at the same time.
The assessment for a region will be based, at least in part, on measurements made on
individual sites and some Member States have developed methods to aggregate site based
assessments to give the regional assessment. For example, Box 10 describes a method
developed in Austria. Box 11 outlines a possible method to link site evaluations to
assessments for a biogeographical or marine region developed by Belgium. This method is to
guide assessments and the detail should not be reported.
Box 10: Assessing Structure & function for forest habitats in Austria
The Austrian assessment of structures and functions for woodland habitat types in the
2001-2006 Article 17 report was based on the Austrian Forest Inventory which provides a
vast set of parameters on more than 11 000 permanent plots. Data for the tree-layer
composition, age structure of the stand, dead wood and utilisation were used to assess
the local (site) conservation status (‘degree of conservation’ in the revised SDF) for
structure and functions
using the system of the Standard Data Forms for conservation
status (A, B, C). Thresholds for the assessment of the parameter were set as follows:
FV U1 U2
Structure &
function
>30 %
A
Other
combination
>70 %
C
Habitat type 9130
Asperulo Fagetum Beech forests in the alpine region of Austria is
represented by 944 permanent plots of the Forest Inventory. The proportion of the local
conservation status is 33 % C, 59 % B and 8 % A. The parameter therefore was
evaluated as Unfavourable-Inadequate (U1).
47

ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
Box 11: Relating site evaluations to biogeographical and marine regional
assessments – the Belgium approach
1 Structures and functions of the the majority of the habitat area (e.g.
90 %) has a
favourable status at the site level
AND
no pressures are ranked in the category ‘high
importance’ (or those reported as such do not affect the specific structures and
functions). (Result: FV);
2 Structures and functions of the the largest part of the area (e.g.
90 %) has a
favourable status at the site level
BUT
pressures are reported in the category ‘high
importance’ which affect the specific structures and functions. (Result: U1);
3
75 %, but not the largest part (e.g. < 90 %) of the area has a favourable status at
the site level concerning their specific structures and functions (Result: U1);
4 Around 25 % of the area has an unfavourable status for structures and functions, but
it is not sure (i.e. not statistically significant) whether or not it is more or less than
the threshold value of 25 % as stated in the evaluation matrix. Expert opinion can be
used to take the decision between U1 and U2;
5 It is sure that more than 25 % of the area has an unfavourable local status
concerning their specific structures and functions. (Result: U2)
Note – ‘site’ may include sites other than SCI/SAC
Typical species for Article 17 reporting should be selected to reflect favourable structure and
functions of the habitat type, although it will not be possible to associate species with all
aspects of structure and function. Given the variability of the Annex I habitats it is not
realistic to have recommended lists of typical species, even for a biogeographical or marine
region, indeed even within one country different species may be needed in different parts of
the range of a habitat or for different subtypes as shown in Table 4.
Given the variability of habitat types across their range it is very unlikely that all typical
species will be present on all examples of a given habitat type. The sum of sites and
occurrences of each habitat type should however support viable populations of the typical
species on a long term basis to be in Favourable Conservation Status. It is only natural that
there will be a turn-over in the species pool, so that local loss and recolonization of distinct
species out of the selected group of typical species will occur. As long as these processes
balance over the long term for each typical species the structure and function of the habitat
type should be regarded as favourable. Appendix 5 gives examples of structures and
functions per habitat group and links them to suggestions for typical species.
When choosing “typical species” for reporting under Article 17 the following considerations
should be taken into account:
• “Typical species” should be good indicators for favourable habitat quality,
e.g. by indicating presence of a wider group of species with specific habitat
requirements. They should be species only found in the habitat or which are
present over a large part of the habitat’s range. They should be sensitive to
changes in the condition of the habitat (“early warning indicator species”).
48

ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
• It should be possible to detect “typical species” by non-destructive and
inexpensive means.
• The list of “typical species” chosen for the purpose of assessing conservation
status should ideally remain stable over the middle-to long-term.
• Characteristic species of the Interpretation Manual may be used as typical
species if they meet the criteria in the above points.
Table 4: Typical species proposed for 4 subtypes (associations) of habitat type ‘9130
Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests’ in France. All these subtypes occur in north-east France.
(from Maciejewski, 2010)
63
.
Poa chaixii-Fagetum
sylvaticae
Galio odorati-
Fagetum sylvaticae
Tilio platyphylli-
Fagetum sylvaticae
Cardamino
heptaphyllae-Abietetum
albae
Quercus petraea
Fagus sylvatica
Tilia platyphyllos
Fagus sylvatica
Fagus sylvatica
Quercus petraea
Fagus sylvatica
Picea abies
Hedera helix
Crataegus laevigata
Sambucus nigra
Abies alba
Anemone nemorosa
Hedera helix
Corylus avellana
Galium odoratum
Lamiastrum
galeobdolon
Anemone nemorosa
Lonicera xylosteum
Hedera helix
Milium effusum
Galium odoratum
Hedera helix
Vaccinium myrtillus
Galium odoratum
Melica uniflora
Allium ursinum
Lamiastrum galeobdolon
Convallaria majalis
Ornithogalum
pyrenaicum
Mercurialis perennis
Fragaria vesca
Lonicera
periclymenum
Ligustrum vulgare
Lamiastrum
galeobdolon
Ribes alpinum
Luzula luzuloides
Mercurialis perennis
Deschampsia
cespitosa
Rosa pendulina
Typical species may be drawn from any species group and although most species noted in
2001-2006 were vascular plants, consideration should be given to lichens, mosses, fungi and
animal groups (including birds). The choice of species should not be restricted to the species
listed on Annexes II, IV & V.
A full assessment of the conservation status of each typical species is not required and the
reporting format only asks for a list of species which have been considered and a brief
description of the method used to assess their conservation status as part of the overall
assessment of structure and functions which may be based on expert judgement, Red Data
books or general surveys. It is not expected that typical species will be monitored closely.
Invasive species, either alien or not normally occurring in the habitat, are often very good
indicators of poor conservation status, for example the invasive plants
Paspalum distichum,
Ludwigia peploides and L. grandiflora are considered as negative indicators for ‘3170
63
Maciejewski L., (2010) Méthodologie d’élaboration des listes d’« espèces typiques » pour des
habitats forestiers d’intérêt communautaire en vue de l’évaluation de leur état de conservation.
Rapport SPN 2010-12 / MNHN-SPN, Paris, 48 p. + annexes.
http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/Especes_typiques_Maciejewski2010.pdf
49

image
 
ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS
50
Mediterranean temporary ponds’ in France. However, these species cannot be considered as
‘typical species’. Where appropriate they should be reported under ‘threats & pressures’.
IV.c.iv Overlapping habitats
Annex I contains both biotopes and biotope complexes and sometimes an Annex I biotope is
a component of an Annex I biotope complex or landscape with the result that in some cases
Annex I habitats can overlap with areas of one habitat occurring within another.
For example;
‘1160 Large shallow inlets and bays’ could include areas of
- ‘1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time’
- ‘1170 Reefs’
‘7110 Active raised bogs’ often have small areas of
- ‘3160 Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds’
- ‘7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the
Rhynchosporion’.
Where this happens each habitat should be reported in its entirety although some areas may
have contributed to 2 or more assessments as shown by Figure 8. This will allow an estimate
of the total area of the habitat types for each Member State and region.
Figure 8: How to treat overlapping habitats. The area to be reported for ‘1130
Estuaries’ (blue) will also include areas of ‘1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered
by sea water all the time’ (yellow) and ‘1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by
seawater at low tide’.

image
image
image
image
 
MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
V
MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
V.a MARINE REGIONS
The map of biogeographical regions was prepared from terrestrial data and it is not
appropriate for reporting on non-coastal marine habitat types and species.
For marine habitat types and species (see V.b below) Member States should report
conservation status using the following marine regions (see Figure 9):
-
Atlantic: Northern and Western Atlantic, from the Punta de Tarifa to the Kattegat,
including the North Sea;
-
Baltic: east of the Kattegat, including the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia;
-
Black Sea: north of Capes Kelagra and Dalyan
-
Mediterranean: east of Punta de Tarifa
-
Macaronesian: Economic Exclusive Zones of the Azores, Madeira and Canary
Archipelagos.
Please notice that the exact boundaries are being discussed under the MSFD and once a
solution is agreed ETC/BD will modify the maps accordingly and consult with those Member
States who are affected (Spain, Sweden and Denmark).
Figure 9: The Marine regions for Article 17 reporting
These marine regions largely coincide with the boundaries of the marine conventions except
for Macaronesia which is partly covered by OSPAR (Azores) and partly outwith any marine

 
MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
convention. Note that both the OSPAR and HELCOM conventions cover the Kattegat while
OSPAR and the Barcelona Convention both cover an area west of the Strait of Gibraltar. The
boundary used here between the Atlantic and Mediterranean is that from the OSPAR
Convention while the boundary between the Atlantic and the Baltic is from HELCOM. These
regions have also been used for the Natura 2000 marine seminars held in 2009 and 2010.
A digital version of the map of the marine regions can be downloaded from the Article 17
Reference Portal
64
.
V.b MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
The following habitat types and species should only be reported for the appropriate marine
region even though some of them also occur, at times, on land. For example,
Halichoerus
grypus
(Grey seal) should only be reported for marine regions even though it occurs on
beaches and rocks.
Species which are predominately terrestrial, but which can occur in the sea, such as
Lutra
lutra
(Otter) should only be reported under the appropriate terrestrial region. All anadromous
fish except for
Acipenser sturio should be reported for terrestrial regions.
In both cases the assessment should take into account the use of the other region, i.e. an
assessment of
Halichoerus grypus will include the beaches, rocks, etc as well as the seal’s
use of marine habitats.
The following list of marine habitat types and species has been prepared for Art 17
reporting. Please notice also that listing of the habitat types as “marine” does not have any
effect on the definition of these habitat types.
Some habitat types could be considered as either marine or terrestrial (e.g. Estuaries), here
we have classified habitat types always open to the sea as marine, so coastal lagoons which
have no permanent opening to the sea are considered to be terrestrial.
Habitat types
1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time
1120 *Posidonia beds (Posidonion
oceanicae)
1130 Estuaries
1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays
1170 Reefs
1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases
1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets
8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves
Species
Mammals
all species of Phocidae except 1913
Phoca hispida saimensis (Boreal)
all species of Cetacea
Reptiles
all species of Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae
64
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
52

 
MARINE HABITAT TYPES & SPECIES
53
Molluscs
2578
Gibbula nivosa
1012 Patella ferruginea
1027
Lithophaga lithophaga
1028
Pinna nobilis
Echinoderms
1008
Centrostephanus longispinus
Algae
1376
Lithothamnium coralloides
1377
Phymatholithon calcareum
Cnidarians
1001
Corallium rubrum
Crustaceans
1090
Scyllarides latus
Fish
All of the fish species listed on the annexes which occur in the sea are anadromous and
should only be reported under their terrestrial region except for
Acipenser sturio. In most
cases very little information is available for these species from the marine part of their life-
cycle.
Please note that this list includes several Annex I habitat types and Annex II species which
were not discussed at the Marine Natura 2000 seminars held in 2009 and 2010; this is
because the marine seminars were held to discuss those species and habitats subject to a
‘marine reserve’ from earlier seminars rather than discussing all the species and habitats
which can be considered as ‘marine’.
V.c SUBTYPES FOR MARINE HABITAT TYPES
The marine habitat types ‘1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the
time’ and ‘1170 Reefs’ both include many subtypes, many of which are similar in inherent
variability to a typical terrestrial habitat. These broadly defined habitats are treated as a
series of related biotopes by the marine conventions.
The Marine Framework Strategy Directive uses a series of ‘predominant habitat types’ (see a
draft list on the Art 17 Reference Portal) for assessments of the biodiversity element of
environmental status while the criteria for assessments, although different to those of Article
17, will clearly require similar data (e.g. distribution, area, structure).
If Member States wish to report on the conservation status of subtypes as well as the
conservation of the Annex I habitat type they can use the field ‘Other relevant information’
(2.7.5). It is also possible to submit a full assessment of a marine subtype but this must be
in addition to an assessment of the Annex I habitat type.

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
VI THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
The third Article 17 report under the Habitats Directive continues to focus on the assessment
of conservation status of all habitat types and species of Community interest using a similar
approach to that used for the first assessment of conservation status (CS) in 2001-2006.
The reporting format has been revised with the view to improve the quality of data received
based upon the experiences from the reporting period of 2001-2006. In addition, the
requirement to assess the impact of the Natura 2000 network on the conservation status and
efficiency of the network has revealed a need to obtain more targeted information regarding
the network.
The Article 17 reporting format consists of an introduction followed by five annexes A – E:
Annex A
– Is the format for the general report for the period 2007-2012. The General
Report gives information mainly for the interested public but also the Commission on
measures taken under the Habitats Directive and should be completed for each Member
State.
Annex B
– Is the reporting format for the main results of the surveillance under Article 11
for Annex II, IV and V species.
Annex D
– Is the reporting format for the main results of the surveillance under Article 11
for Annex I habitat types.
The information reported in Annexes B & D includes data used to undertake the assessment
of conservation status and will be essential for the later assessment of conservation status
across each biogeographical region and/or across the EU. Therefore, the species and habitat
reporting formats both have a short ‘national’ section to be completed for each habitat type
or species of community interest present in the Member State followed by a biogeographical
region section. This should be completed for each biogeographical region in the Member
States where the species or habitats is present.
Annex C
– Is an evaluation matrix which is used to assess conservation status of a species
using the information in Annex B.
Annex E
– Is an evaluation matrix which is used to assess conservation status of a habitat
type using the information in Annex D.

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
VI.a ANNEX A: GENERAL REPORTING FORMAT
Field-by-field guidance to completing Annex A
The first part of the reporting format,
the general report
, is mainly targeted at the
interested public, but also at informing the Commission. Its content is restructured from the
previous format to better serve this purpose.
The general report includes obligatory information about several provisions of the Habitats
Directive. In addition, the main achievements under the implementation of the Habitats
Directive and main measures taken to ensure coherence of the network are briefly described
in this report. Some fields have been removed (compared to the previous general report)
simply because the information is available through other sources for example concerning
financing (Art 8). The report should give information of relevance for the period 2007-2012.
Each Member State is expected to prepare one general report. Please notice that information
given (e.g. number of management plans etc) should be the figures on 31
st
December 2012
i.e. at the end of the reporting cycle unless otherwise stated.
Language – any EU official language can be used. The reporting format tries to minimize the
difficulties of using different languages by requesting numerical information wherever
possible. The use of English is recommended if possible as this gives the widest readership.
If you include internet addresses in the reporting fields, please give in full including the initial
if applicable.
0 Member State
Use the two-digit codes from ISO 3166, except that UK should be used instead of GB for the
United Kingdom. A table giving the codes can be found on the Reference Portal
65
.
1 Main achievements under the Habitats Directive
This section aims to inform interested public on the main achievements under the Habitats
Directive and the Natura 2000 network in the respective Member State during the reporting
period. It is requested to provide a translation of this information into English as this
information is likely to be of interest to readers in other Member States (field 1.2 of Annex
A).
Describe briefly the main achievements under the Habitats Directive during the reporting
period with a special emphasis on the Natura 2000 network. This can include for example
demonstrated benefits for different species and habitat types, experiences of new or
improved management techniques, positive changes in public acceptance towards
biodiversity protection, improved co-operation between authorities, nature conservationists
and other interest groups and initiatives to combine establishment of Natura 2000 sites and
the local economy.
65
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
55

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
The text should be a maximum of 2 pages (Reportnet limits the length of the text
automatically). If a Member State wishes to add further documentation to that requested in
this format, please note these Annexes and their file-names at the end of this free text
section and upload the relevant files to Reportnet together with the rest of the report.
2 General information sources on the implementation of the Habitats
Directive – links to information sources of the Member States
This section aims to inform interested public on where to find information relating to the
Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 network in the respective Member State. In general,
only links to internet addresses are required. However, free text can also be used where
there is a need to explain how to access the information source (e.g. multiple sources of
information).
3 Natura 2000 – site designation
Provide information on SCIs and SACs at national level.
Which sites are included under the term ‘Sites of Community Importance’ ?
For the purpose of this section of the report the term ‘Sites of Community Importance’
should include sites officially proposed by the Member State, but not yet included in a
biogeographical Community list (pSCIs). The number and area of sites classified as ‘Special
Areas of Conservation (SAC) should also be given. As SAC are also SCI they will be included
under both headings.
The following information should be provided:
Under the field 3.1. ‘
All sites’
give first the number of pSCI, SCIs and SACs and total
surface area of pSCIs, SCIs and SACs and then number of sites designated as SAC
and total surface area of SACs. Surface areas should be given in km
2
,
Terrestrial surface area (km
2
) of all sites (field 3.1.1),
Number and total marine surface area (km
2
) of all marine sites (field 3.1.2).
Marine sites
are any of those which include an area of sea.
Marine area of sites
(field 3.1.2) is the area being below the coastline. The definition of
the coastline used to define the marine boundary should follow international
66
or national
67
legislation. This approach is the same as adopted for the revised Standard Data Forms
(SDFs) for individual Natura 2000 sites. Thus, a site located at the coastline and stretching
out into the sea should be counted as a ‘marine site’, although it might include a terrestrial
component.
Terrestrial area of sites
(field 3.1.1) is any area of a site which is not marine (as defined
above). In the reporting format the terrestrial area of sites in km
2
(3.1.1) and the area of
marine sites in km
2
(3.1.2) together should give the total area of all sites in km
2
(3.1).
See figure 10 for clarification between terrestrial and marine sites.
Date of data (3.2) should be the date of the latest update of the Natura 2000 database
submitted to the Commission.
66
UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS).
67
See Natura 2000 reference portal,
http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Natura_2000/reference_portal.
56

image
image
image
image
image
 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
Figure 10: Site A is completely terrestrial, site B includes both terrestrial and marine
areas, but is a marine site and site C is completely marine. The marine area of the site
B should be reported under field 3.1.2 and its terrestrial area under field 3.1.1.
4 Comprehensive Management plans for the Natura 2000 sites (Art. 6(1))
While it is acknowledged that management plans are not a requirement under the Directive,
this information is of special interest in order to understand the instruments the Member
States use to manage their network and also to find more specific information if required.
This section asks for both the overall number of comprehensive management plans (4.1) and
the percentage of the network area covered by the comprehensive management plans (4.2),
plus the number of comprehensive management plans in preparation (4.3). Although the
SDF will include information on management plans (with “yes/no/in preparation”
information), it is important to inform the general public on the overall number of
comprehensive management plans. In order to put this number into context, a new field “%
of the network area covered by plans” is included.
In this context management plans are considered as operational instruments that set
practical measures to achieve the conservation objectives for the sites in the network. For
reporting purposes, only comprehensive management plans covering an entire Natura 2000
site (or sites) and fulfilling the following minimum requirements should be reported:
A comprehensive management plan should:
indicate the habitat types and/or species and their localities for which
conservation measures are planned;
identify the actual status of the habitat types and species and the desired
status which should be reached through the conservation measures;
define clear and achievable conservation objectives and
identify the necessary measures together with the means and a time
schedule which can contribute to meeting those objectives.
57

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
5
Measures taken in relation to approval of plans & projects (Art. 6.4)
This section reports on the number of projects/plans for which compensation measures were
necessary. The form requests a list of the sites affected by projects/plans for which
compensation measures were necessary. For each such site the following information is
requested:
site code (field 5.1.1), site name (5.1.2), title (5.1.3) and year of the project/plan
(5.1.4), and whether a Commission opinion was requested (yes/no in the field 5.1.5).
In addition an optional field (5.1.6) is available for information on impact of projects in need
of compensation measures on conservation status. The free text field is limited to 250
characters.
Further guidance on Article 6 may be found at DG Environment’s website (e.g. the document
‘Managing NATURA 2000 sites - The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive
92/43/EEC’ published by DG Environment in 12 EU languages)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6
6 Measures taken to ensure coherence of the Network (Art. 10)
This section is for a general description of the main measures taken to ensure the coherence
of the Natura 2000 network according to Article 10. Give an overview at national level,
activities taken (including legal measures), or systematic studies (detailed site by site
descriptions are not required). If relevant, give references to published reports, scientific
papers or websites.
7 Reintroduction of Annex IV species (Art 22.a)
Provide information on the following:
a) species name (Latin name) and b) a code (as in the Checklist) (field 7.1.0),
reintroduction period (period when the species was reintroduced or year with a
qualifier “=” in the year or “<” before the given year)(field 7.1.1),
reintroduction place and number of individuals introduced (7.1.2) and
whether the reintroduction has been successful (coded as “yes”/ “no”/” too early to
say”). A successful reintroduction implies natural reproduction has already taken
place and the population is growing (7.1.3).
If the species is considered “sensitive” (see 1.1.1 in section VI.b), the information on the
location can be adjusted accordingly. Additional information on the reintroduction can be
given in the optional free text field (7.1.4).
58

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
VI.b ANNEX B: REPORTING FORMAT FOR SPECIES
To be completed for each Annex II, IV & V species present
68
.
Field-by-field guidance to completing Annex B
It is recommended that the free text information in different fields is written in English to
facilitate the further use of information in the EU analysis and to allow a wider readership.
How to report ‘occasional’ and ‘newly arriving species’
Several Member States have indicated that it is important to report species that are not
established in their territory, but that occur either occasionally or have started to appear
recently – due to climate, land use or other changes. Member States should report such
species even if it is not appropriate or possible to assess their conservation status at this
stage. Therefore, where possible, it is recommended to provide information on the:
-
maps of their actual distribution, if this information is available
-
actual range – surface area (2.3.1),
-
population – size estimation (2.4.1 or 2.4.2), date (2.4.4), method used (2.4.5).
If none of the above information exists, please indicate the species name and the
biogeographical region(s) in which it occur(s).
If an occasional or newly arriving species is not listed in the Checklist for Art 17 reporting for
the Member State, due to an oversight when preparing the list, the Member State should still
report it.
See also section II.f Species & habitat types to be reported and II.f.i Reporting for species
groups.
0.1 Member State
Use the two-digit codes from ISO 3166, except that UK should be used instead of GB for the
United Kingdom. A table giving the codes can be found on the Reference Portal.
0.2 Species
Species code (0.2.1) and species scientific name (0.2.2)
Use codes (four character sequential code) and names given in the Checklist for Art 17
reporting. This applies also for species from groups (e.g.
Alosa spp, all species of
Microchiroptera).
Other species names (0.2.3 and 0.2.4)
If a MS wishes, it is possible to report an alternative scientific name used at national level if
it differs from the name under field 0.2.2. There is also an optional field for a vernacular
name (name in national language).
68
A check list of species thought to be present in each Member State for which a report is expected is
available at
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
59

image
image
image
image
image
 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
1. NATIONAL LEVEL
1.1 Maps – distribution and range
1.1.1 Distribution map
The standard for submitting a distribution map is:
10 x 10 km ETRS grid, projection ETRS LAEA 5210
Please submit together with relevant metadata (projection, datum, scale).
Figure 11: A distribution map for
Coregonus lavaretus using the ETRS LAEA 5210 10
km grid.
Sensitive species
Some species are particularly subject to for example, illegal collecting and making
information on its distribution widely available may be detrimental to its conservation. Where
information on distribution is considered ‘sensitive’, this can be indicated by entering "yes" in
the given field.
If a species is marked as sensitive, the distribution of the species will not be disclosed to the
public by the Commission (for instance, by means of posting this information on a publicly
available database or internet-based site).
60

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
1.1.1. Method used – map
Provide information on the method used of the map. Use one of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
1.1.2. Year or period
Provide year or period when the actual distribution data was collected.
1.1.4. Additional distribution map - optional
Please note that this field is an optional field and does not replace the need to provide a map
under 1.1.1.
This is for those cases only where a Member State wishes to submit an
additional map different from the standard submission map under field 1.1.1.
Maps at a resolution other than 10 x 10 km² may be reported here.
Where grid based distribution data cannot be transformed into distribution maps on a
10 x 10 km² ETRS grid without introducing significant errors Member States should use a
grid close to the 10 x 10 km² grid. In this case all relevant data fields in the national report
should be consistent, that means data field 2.3.1 (surface area for range) will be based on
the real distribution/area of the additional distribution map. The range map should be
calculated on this basis as well.
1.1.5. Range map
As a commonly agreed methodology (gap distances, fitting, no manual intervention) was not
fully accepted among Member States, range maps should be submitted as in the previous
reporting round, using the same standard as for the distribution map under the field 1.1.1 or
1.1.4 and following the methodology described in section IV. These maps are
complementary information for the assessment.
Please submit together with relevant metadata (projection, datum, scale). The map should
be prepared using a standardized method.
2 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL OR MARINE REGIONAL LEVEL
This section should be completed for each biogeographical or marine region in which the
species occurs. So, for example, if a species occurs in three biogeographical regions within a
Member State, three separate reports are required.
2.1 Biogeographical region or marine region
Biogeographical region or marine region concerned within the MS
Use the following abbreviations for Biogeographical Regions:
Biogeographical Regions
Alpine
ALP
Atlantic
ATL
Black Sea
BLS
Boreal
BOR
Continental CON
61

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
Mediterranean
MED
Macaronesian MAC
Pannonian
PAN
Steppic STE
Use the following abbreviations for Marine Regions
Marine regions
Atlantic MATL
Macaronesian/Atlantic MMAC
Black Sea
MBLS
Baltic MBAL
Mediterranean
MMED
The indication of the marine regions is due to practical/technical reasons; it has no other
implications.
2.2 Published sources
If the information given in section 2 is from published sources please give bibliographic
references or link to internet site(s). Please use the order: author, year, title of publication,
volume, number of pages, web address. If you include internet addresses in the reporting
fields, please give in full including the initial
‘http://’.
2.3 Range
Range within the biogeographical region or marine region concerned. See the background
for the approach in section IV.a.i. Favourable Reference Range. Date and quality of data for
range are no longer needed as the map is linked to the distribution map.
2.3.1 Surface area - range
Total surface
area of the current range within the biogeographical region concerned in km
2
,
decimals are allowed as the range of some species can be very small.
For the estimation of surface area the method described in section IV.a.i is recommended.
2.3.2 Method used - surface area of range
Use one
of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
If range has been calculated using the method described in section IV.a.i the reply to this
question will be the same as for 1.1.2.
2.3.3 Short-term trend period
The period for short-term
trend is 12 years (2 reporting cycles). For the 2013 reports this
means a period of 2001-2012 or a period as close as possible to this.
Please indicate the period in this field. Give dates of beginning and end of the period for
which the trend has been reported.
62

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
The short term trend should be used for the assessment. Any large scale deviation from this
should be explained under field 2.8.2 ‘Other relevant information’.
Further guidance is given in section III.b Trends.
2.3.4 Short term trend direction
Indicate if range is (use one of the
following categories):
0 = stable
+ = increasing
- = decreasing
x = unknown
2.3.5 Short-term trend magnitude - optional
If possible,
quantify the change by providing its magnitude in % (with range at the
beginning of the reporting period as 100 %) over a period indicated in the field 2.3.3. It can
be given as a precise figure (e.g. 27 %) or a banded range (e.g. 20-30 %). If it is a precise
figure give same value under ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’.
2.3.6 Long-term trend – optional
The long-term
trend is recommened to be evaluated over a period of 24 years (4 reporting
cycles). Indicate the period in this field. For the 2013 reports this information is optional.
Thus the fields 2.3.6 - 2.3.8 are optional as well.
For further guidance see section III.b.i
Short & long term trends.
See guidance for filling in the fields ‘long term trend direction’
(2.3.7) and ‘long term trend
magnitude’ (2.3.8) under short-term trend.
2.3.9 Favourable reference range
This information
is needed to evaluate conservation status according to Annex C.
The favourable reference range is the range required for the species to be at favourable
conservation status. The following information is requested under field 2.3.9:
a) Area in km² and attach a GIS map if available;
b) If operators (≈, >, >>) were used for the assessment, please indicate here with
the relevant symbol (≈ “approximately equal to”, > “more than”, >> “much more
than”);
c) Where there is no data on range, use “x”;
d) Indicate also the method used to set reference value (free text field).
Favourable Reference Values are discussed in more detail in section III.a.
2.3.10 Reason for change
The following
questions are asked in order to avoid misinterpretation when processing EU
analysis and to clarify potential differences on the range surfaces between reporting rounds.
Please answer all three questions, if relevant.
Is the difference between the reported value in 2.3.1 and the previous reporting round
mainly due to
a) genuine change? YES/NO or
b) improved knowledge/more accurate data? YES/NO or
c) use of different method (e.g.”Range tool”) YES/NO
63

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
If a Member State wishes to explain further (e.g. cases when range surface does not
change, but its borders are moving, fragmentation of range etc ), this can be done under the
field 2.8.2 ‘Other relevant information’.
2.4 Population
For 2007-2012 reporting there are two alternatives for reporting the population estimate -
depending on the population units used. Member States can report the population size in
individuals, or, in other units. However, there is a recommendation that where units other
than individuals are used, the data should be converted to individuals (except those species
listed in the list of exceptions - see Reference portal). Population units are discussed in more
detail in section IV.b.iii Population.
2.4.1 Population size estimation – using individuals/agreed
exceptions
Total population in biogeographical region or marine region of the country concerned (data
or best estimate). Please provide as number of individuals or in the units in the list of agreed
exceptions given (see Reference portal).
If data at field 2.4.2 is converted to individuals, the converted data should be reported here.
The size estimation should be given using minimum and maximum numbers (preferred
option). Where a precise value is known report the same figure for both minimum and
maximum. If it is not possible to provide minimum and maximum, but only an approximate
population estimate, classes can be used (See Table 2 in section IV.b.v. Estimating
population size). Where classes are used please report the lower limit of the class as the
‘minimum and the upper limit as the ‘maximum’. Please indicate the unit used (list of units
and their abbreviations are given in the Reference Portal).
2.4.2 Population size estimation
– using other units
This field is for those cases where a Member State wishes to report population size using
other units than individuals or the agreed exceptions. Thus, the field 2.4.2 is optional if field
2.4.1 is used. The guidance on reporting the numbers is the same as for 2.4.1.
It is recommended that the data given at 2.4.2 is converted by Member State to individuals
wherever this is possible and the converted data are reported at 2.4.1. See section IV.b.vi
‘Using other population units and converting to individuals’ and further examples in
Appendix
5.
2.4.3 Additional information on population
estimates/conversion
Where the population size is reported at 2.4.2, further details are requested to be given here
a) Definition of “locality”:
if locality is used as a population unit, this term should
be defined.
b) Method used to convert data:
provide information on how units were
converted.
c) Problems encountered to provide population size estimation:
all Member
States are encouraged to report on problems encountered in the population
estimation. The information on the definition of "locality" and problems encountered
can be used after 2013 to consider how to further harmonize the use of population
units. It is requested that the information given in this field is in English to help future
use of this information.
64

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
2.4.4 Year or period of estimation
Year or period when actual population size was recorded. Use the following formats for date
MM/YYYY (month/year) and for period YYYY-YYYY (year-year).
2.4.5 Method used – population size
Use one of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
Where data has been compiled from a variety of sources indicate the category for the most
important source of data.
2.4.6 Short-term trend period
The period
for short-term trend is recommended to be 12 years (2 reporting cycles). For the
2013 reports this means a period of 2001-2012 or a period as close as possible to this.
Please indicate the period actually used in this field. Give dates of beginning and end of the
period for which the trend has been reported. Further guidance is given in section III.b
trends’ of chapter 1.
The short term trend should be used for the assessment. Any large scale deviation from this
should be explained under field 2.8.2 Other relevant information.
2.4.7 Short-term trend direction
Indicate if
the population trend is (use one of the following categories):
0 = stable
+ = increasing
- = decreasing
x = unknown
2.4.8 Short-term trend magnitude - optional
If possible
quantify the percentage change over the period reported in the field 2.4.6. It can
be given as a precise figure (e.g. 27 %) or a banded range (e.g. 20-30 %). If it is a precise
figure give same value under ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ (2.4.8 a and b).
Confidence interval
(2.4.8.c): If data for trend comes from a statistically reliable sampling
scheme (this means statistically reliable sampling scheme under category 3 ‘Method used’),
the confidence interval used should be reported (e.g. 95 %).
2.4.9 Method used – short-term
trend for population
Use one of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
2.4.10 Long-term trend period -
optional
65

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
The long-term trend is recommended to be evaluated over a period of 24 years (4 reporting
cycles). For the 2013 reports this information is optional. Thus, the fields 2.4.11 - 2.4.13 are
optional as well if data in field 2.4.10 is not reported. For further guidance see section III.b.i.
Period, ‘long term trend direction’ and ‘long term trend magnitude’ should be reported as for
short term trend.
2.4.14 Favourable reference population (FRP)
This information
is needed to undertake the evaluation of conservation status according to
Annex C.
The favourable reference population is the population required for the species to be at
favourable conservation status. The following information is requested under field 2.4.14:
a) Give the population in number of individuals or agreed exceptions or other units.
Please use the same unit for the whole conservation status assessment;
b) If operators (≈, >, >>, <) were used for the assessment, please indicate here
with the relevant symbol (≈ “approximately equal to”, > “more than”, >> “much
more than”, < “less than”). When using an operator, it should be compared with the
minimum
population estimate;
c) If the favourable reference population is unknown use “x” for the reference
population;
d) Indicate also the method used to set the reference value (free text field).
Please see the further guidance on section III.a.ii Favourable Reference Population and
III.a.iv Using operators.
2.4.15 Reason for change
To avoid
potential misinterpretation and to clarify potential differences in population between
reporting rounds please answer all three questions (if relevant):
Is the difference between the reported value in 2.4.1 or 2.4.2 and the previous reporting
round mainly due to
a) genuine change? YES/NO or
b) improved knowledge/more accurate data? YES/NO or
c) use of different method (e.g.”Range tool”) YES/NO
If a Member State wishes to give further information, this can be done under the field 2.8.2
Other relevant information.
2.5 Habitat for the species
2.5.1 Area estimation
Provide an estimate of the area of the habitat the species currently occupies in km
2
. See
guidance on the generalist species under section IV.b.vii Habitat for the species.
2.5.2 Year or period of
estimation
Year or period when data for habitat area was recorded. Use the following formats for date
MM/YYYY (month/year) and for period YYYY-YYYY (year-year).
2.5.3 Method used – habitat for the species
Use one
of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
66

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
2.5.4 Quality of the habitat
The evaluation matrix also asks about the quality of the habitat which is an important part of
the overall assessment of the “Habitat for the Species”.
a) Please provide information on whether the quality is considered
good/moderate/bad/unknown for the long term survival of the species including its
full genetic variability.
b) Please also explain how the quality was assessed (free text field).
2.5.5 Short-term trend period
The period
for short-term trend is recommended to be 12 years (2 reporting cycles). For the
2013 reports this means a period of 2001-2012 or a period as close as possible to this.
Please indicate the period actually used in this field. Give dates of beginning and end of the
period for which the trend has been reported. Further guidance is given in the section III.b
‘Trends’ of chapter 1.
The short term trend should be used for the assessment. Any large scale deviation from this
should be explained under field 2.8.2 Other relevant information.
2.5.6 Short-term trend direction
The
assessment of habitat for the species considers both quality and area. It is
recommended that assessment is done using the combinations below (area/quality)
Trend to be reported in field
2.5.6
Area/quality combinations
0 = stable
0/0
+ = increasing
+/0 or +/+ or 0/+
- = decreasing
-/0 or -/- or 0/-
x = unknown
Any ? or +/- and -/+ if no better data available
2.5.7 Long-term trend period - optional
The long-term trend is recommened to be evaluated over a period of 24 years (4 reporting
cycles). For the 2013 reports this information is optional. Thus the field 2.5.8 is optional as
well if data in field 2.5.7 are not reported. For further guidance see section III.b.i. Short and
long term trends.
For guidance on ‘period’, ‘long term trend direction’ and ‘long term trend magnitude’ please
see the
‘short term trend’ above.
2.5.9 Area of suitable habitat for the species
Provide area of suitable habitat in km
2
(field 2.5.9 a). This is the area thought to be suitable
for the species – including both the area currently occupied, and that from which it may at
present be absent. See section IV.b.viii. Habitat for the species, for further guidance.
67

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
The evaluation matrix requires a judgement as to whether this area is sufficiently large and
of suitable quality for the long term survival of the species but no favourable reference value
is requested. Absence of data can be indicated as “0” under field 2.5.9 b.
2.5.10 Reason for change – short-term trend
The following
questions are asked in order to avoid misinterpretation and to avoid
misinterpretation of any changes between reporting rounds. Please answer all three
questions (if relevant).
Is the difference between the reported value in 2.5.1 and the previous reporting round
mainly due to
a) genuine change? YES/NO or
b) improved knowledge/more accurate data? YES/NO or
c) use of different method (e.g.”Range tool”) YES/NO
If a Member State wishes to explain further, this can be done under the field 2.8.2 Other
relevant information.
2.6 Main pressures
Pressure = acting
now or during the reporting period.
List the main pressures according to the guidance given in section III.c – past and present
impacts – threatening the long term viability of the species or its habitat(s). Please use the
codes in the list of threats and pressures to at least the 2
nd
level. The list of threats and
pressures is available at the Reference Portal
(
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
)
Where a Member State wishes to give more precise information on the nature of a certain
pressure this can be written under the field 2.8.2 Other relevant information.
a) Pressure
b) Ranking
c) Pollution qualifier
List max 20 pressures.
Use codes from the list to at
least 2
nd
level.
H = high importance (max 5
entries)
M = medium importance
L = low importance
This field is optional
2.6.1 Method used – pressures
Indicate if the method used is (use one of the following categories):
3 = based exclusively or to a larger extent on real data from sites/occurrences or
other data sources
2 = mainly based on expert judgement and other data
1 = based only on expert judgements
2.7 Main threats
Threat =
acting in the near future (recommended time period is 2 future reporting periods,
i.e. 12 years into the future).
List the threats according to the guidance given in section III.c Main pressures and threats –
future/foreseeable impacts – affecting the long term viability of the species and/or its
68

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
habitat(s). Please use the codes in the list of threats and pressures to at least the 2
nd
level.
The list of threats and pressures is available on the Reference Portal.
Where a Member State wishes to give more precise information on the nature of a certain
threat this can be written under the field 2.8.2 Other relevant information.
The threats should not cover theoretical threats, but rather those issues judged to be
reasonably likely. This may include continuation of pressures reported under section 2.6.
a) Threat
b) Ranking
c) Pollution qualifier
List max 20 threats.
Use codes from the list to at
least 2
nd
level.
H = high importance (max 5
entries)
M = medium importance
L = low importance
This field is optional
2.7.1 Method used – threats
Indicate if the method used is (use one of the following categories):
2 = based on modelling and other data
1 = based on expert judgements
2.8 Complementary information
This section includes information required to correctly understand the reported data.
2.8.1 Justification of % thresholds for trends
The indicative
suggested threshold for a large decline in Annex C is 1% per year, if another
threshold has been used for the assessment please give details, including an explanation of
why. This approach follows that developed by Birdlife International for assessing the
conservation status of birds (Birdlife International, 2004).
2.8.2 Other relevant information
Include any other information thought relevant to the species report and to assessing
favourable conservation status.
2.8.3 Transboundary assessment
Where two or more Member States have made a joint conservation status assessment for a
transboundary population of a (usually wide-ranging) species, this should be noted here.
Note clearly the Member States involved,
how the assessment was carried out and any joint
initiatives taken to ensure a common management of the species (e.g. population
management plan). Please see also guidance in section IV.b.ii and an example given in
Appendice 6.
The following data should be reported at field 2.8.3:
Member States involved (use Code list of the Reference Portal)
Parameters assessed on transboundary area (usually range and population/ area
for habitats)
List joint management measures
Give references/links if available
If any non-EU countries were involved in the assessment
69

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
2.9 Conclusions
This section includes the assessment of conservation status at end of reporting period in the
concerned biogeographical region or marine region. It is derived from the Annex C matrix.
See Chapter VI.c Annex C, Evaluation matrix for assessing conservation status for aspecies,
for further information.
Give the result of the assessment for each parameter of conservation status using the four
categories available: 'Favourable', 'Unfavourable-Inadequate', 'Unfavourable-Bad' and
'Unknown'
.
The following must be evaluated and reported:
2.9.1 Range
2.9.2 Population
2.9.3 Habitat for the species
2.9.4 Future prospects
2.9.5 Overall assessment of conservation status
Use of qualifiers
The use of qualifiers (U1+, U2- etc) when CS is either ‘Unfavourable - Inadequate’ or
‘Unfavourable – bad’ is obligatory for the overall assessment of conservation status (to be
reported at field 2.9.6) and recommended for all parameters (fields 2.9.1b – 2.9.4.b).
Please note that the indication of a change of direction is potentially a very useful way to
detect positive developments and will be exploited in future policy analysis and for a sub-
target for the 2020 biodiversity target.
If conservation status is ‘Unfavourable-Inadequate’ or ‘Unfavourable-Bad’, Member States
should indicate if trends are likely to be improving, declining, stable or trend not known
using + - = and x respectively for each parameter. See section II.d above on qualifying
conservation status.
2.9.4 Future prospects
The reporting format does not request details on the assessment of future prospects.
However, in order to harmonise the assessment of this parameter, the Member States are
encouraged to follow the assessment steps for future prospects described in section IV.a.ii
Future prospects. The conclusion should be reported here under field 2.9.4.
3 NATURA 2000 COVERAGE & CONSERVATION MEASURES - ANNEX II SPECIES
See background information in the section II.g Reporting on Annex I habitat types and
Annex II species within the Natura 2000 network. The guidance in the section below
concerns only Annex II species. The requested information should cover the contribution of
the Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
components of the Natura 2000 network.
The following information is required for Annex II species:
70

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
3.1 Population
3.1.1 Population size of the Annex II species in the Natura 2000 network
-
Estimation of population size covered by the network in the biogeographical region
concerned
-
Use the same definitions as for 2.4 Population
-
Give minimum-maximum of the total population; in case of an exact figure repeat it
in minimum and maximum fields
-
For marine wide ranging species (e.g. whales, dolphins, turtles): use population
estimations from regional marine agreements such as ASCOBANS or any other
estimations made in co-operation between countries sharing the same population.
3.1.2 Method used:
use one of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
3.1.3 Trend within the Natura 2000 network (optional)
Indicate whether the trend of population size is increasing, stable, decreasing or
unknown. Use same definitions as for 2.4, short-term trend.
3.2 Conservation measures taken by the Member State
3.2.1 Measure
List up to 20 measures
taken during the the reporting period (i.e.
already being implemented). Use codes from the list of conservation measures on the
Reference Portal, field 3.2.2-3.2.5 to be filled in for each reported measure.
3.2.2 Type
Tick the relevant type or types of the conservation measure:
a) Legal/statutory
b) Administrative
c) Contractual
d) Recurrent
e) One-off
3.2.3 Ranking
Select and highlight (use an 'H') up to five measures that are considered
the most important. The importance of the measure should be assessed in terms of the
proportion of the population target by the measure - the larger the population benefiting
from the measure the higher the importance.
3.2.4 Location
If a given measure primarily concerns or is primarily being implemented in Natura 2000
sites, tick the case labelled 'inside the network'. On the contrary, if the measure is
primarily applicable outside Natura 2000 sites, tick the case labelled 'outside the
network'. If the measure is taken on approximately equal level, with reference to
proportion of species population, both inside and outside Natura 2000 sites, tick the case
labelled ‘both inside and outside’.
3.2.5 Broad evaluation of the measure
This field is used to indicate in an approximate way the effectiveness of each measure in
maintaining, enhancing or reaching favourable conservation status (FCS). This is a proxy
to address Article 17(1) information on the 'impact of measures on conservation status'.
The following categories should be used (tick the most relevant case(s)):
71

THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
a) Maintain – when the conservation measure is required to maintain FCS; use this
code when the species or the habitat has a FCS and the favourable status would not
be maintained if the measure would not be implemented
b) Enhance
– when the conservation measure is required to enhance conservation
status or reach FCS; use this code when species has an unfavourable conservation
status and the measure – alone or in conjunction with others – is needed to improve
it:
- from Unfavourable-Bad to Unfavourable-Inadequate
- from Unfavourable to Favourable
- within the same conservation status even if not enough to trigger a change
on the conservation status
c) Long-term – measure without short term effect – one reporting cycle or less – but
long term positive effect expected
d) No effect – measure without effect, or that needs adaptation and that is not
delivering any conservation benefit; measure failed in achieving its objectives or had
adverse effects
e) Unknown effect
f) Not evaluated - if the effect of the measure not evaluated.
72

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
VI.c ANNEX C: EVALUATION MATRIX FOR ASSESSING CONSERVATION
STATUS OF A SPECIES
The matrix is an aid to assessing the conservation status of a species. It shall be used for
each biogeographical region (and marine region) in which the species is present. The results
of using the matrix have to be provided in section 2.9 Conclusions of Annex B.
Each of the four headings is assessed (using information reported in Annex B) and classed as
either ‘Green’, ‘Amber’, ‘Red’ or ‘Unknown’. The later category is for when no or insufficient
information is available to allow an ‘expert judgement’.
The use of qualifiers (U1+, U2- etc; see II.d) is obligatory for the overall assessment of
conservation status and recommended for all individual parameters.
73

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
VI.d ANNEX D: REPORTING FORMAT FOR HABITAT TYPES
To be completed for each Annex I habitat type present
69
.
Field-by-field guidance to completing Annex D
It is recommened that the free text information in different fields is written in English to
facilitate the further use of information in the EU analysis and to allow a wider readership.
0.1 Member State
Use the two-digit codes from ISO 3166, except that UK should be used instead of GB for the
United Kingdom. A table giving the codes can be found on the Reference Portal
70
.
0.2 Habitat Code
Use the code given in the checklist for reporting (see the Reference Portal, these are the
same codes as given in the 2007 edition of the Interpretation Manual
71
). Do not use any
other coding systems.
Reports are expected for each biogeographic region for which the habitat type is listed in the
check list for reporting under the Nature directives (see section II.f ‘Species & habitat types
to be reported’ for marginal occurence).
1 NATIONAL LEVEL
1.1 Maps – distribution and range
The difference between distribution and range is discussed in section IV.a.i ‘Range’.
1.1.1 Distribution map
The standard for submitting a distribution map is:
10 x 10 km ETRS grid, projection ETRS89 LAEA 5210
Please submit together with relevant metadata (projection, datum, scale).
69
A checklist of habitat types thought to be present in each Member State for which a report is
expected is available on the Article 17 Reporting Reference Portal.
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
70
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
71
Interpretation manual of European Union habitats - EUR 27. DG Environment - Nature and
Biodiversity.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/2007_07_im.pdf
74

image
image
image
image
image
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
Figure 12: A distribution map for habitat type 7160 Fennoscandian mineral-rich springs
and springfens using the ETRS LAEA 5210 10 km grid.
1.1.2 Method used – distribution map
Provide information on the method used for the map (use one of the following categories):
3 = Complete survey
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
1.1.3 Year or period
Provide year or period when the actual distribution data was collected in the field. Use the
following formats for year MM/YYYY (month/year) and for period YYYY-YYYY (year-year).
1.1.4 Additional distribution map - optional
Please note that this field is an optional field and does not replace the need to provide a map
under 1.1.1.
This is for those cases only where a Member State wishes to submit an
additional map deviating from the standard submission map under field 1.1.1. Please notice
that this is an optional field and does not remove the need to provide a map under 1.1.1.
Maps at a resolution other than 10 x 10 km² or with grids other than the ETRS89+
LAEA5210 grid, close to the 10 x 10 km² may be reported here.
Where grid based distribution data cannot be transformed into distribution maps on a
10 x 10 km² ETRS grid without introducing significant errors, Member States should use a
grid close to the 10 x 10 km² grid. In this case, all relevant data fields in the national report
should be consistent, that means data field 2.3.1 will be based on the real distribution/ area
of the additional distribution map. Also, the range map will then be calculated on this basis.
1.1.5 Range map
As a commonly agreed methodology (gap distances, fitting, no manual intervention) was not
fully accepted among Member States. Range maps should be submitted as in the previous
75

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
reporting round, using the same standard as for the distribution maps under the field 1.1.1
or 1.1.4. and following the methodology described in section IV.a.i Range. These maps are
complementary information for the assessment.
Please submit together with relevant metadata (projection, datum, scale). The map should
be prepared using a standardised method.
2 BIOGEOGRAPHICAL OR MARINE LEVEL
This section should be completed for each biogeographical or marine region in which the
habitat type occurs.
2.1 Biogeographical region or marine region concerned within the MS
Use the following abbreviations for biogeographical regions
Biogeographical Regions
Alpine
ALP
Atlantic
ATL
Black Sea
BLS
Boreal
BOR
Continental CON
Mediterranean
MED
Macaronesian MAC
Pannonian
PAN
Steppic STE
Use the following abbreviations for marine regions
Marine Regions
Atlantic MATL
Macaronesian/Atlantic MMAC
Black Sea
MBLS
Baltic MBAL
Mediterranean
MMED
The indication of the marine regions is due to practical/technical reasons; it has no other
implications.
2.2 Published sources
If the information given in the rest of this section is from published sources please give
bibliographic references or link to Internet site(s). Please use the order: author, year, title of
publication, volume, number of pages, web address. If you include internet addresses in the
reporting fields, please give the full address starting with
http://.
2.3 Range
Range of the habitat within the biogeographical or marine region.
See section IV.a.i ‘Range’.
Date and quality of data for range are no longer needed as the map is linked to the
distribution map.
76

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
2.3.1 Surface area - range
This section is for the total surface area of the current range within the biogeographical or
marine region concerned in km
2
. Decimals are allowed as some habitat types can have a
very small surface area.
The method described in section IV.a.i is recommended for the estimation of surface area.
2.3.2 Method used - Surface area of range
Use one
of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
If the range has been calculated using the method described in section IV.a.i, the reply to
this question will be the same as for 1.1.2.
2.3.3 Short-term trend period
The recommended
period for short-term trend is 12 years (2 reporting cycles). For the 2013
reports this means the period 2001-2012 or a period as close as possible to this.
Please indicate the actual period in this field. Give dates of beginning and end of the period
for which the trend has been reported.Further guidance is given in section III.b ‘Trends’.
The short term trend should be used for the assessment. Any large scale deviation from this
should be explained under field 2.7.5 Other relevant information.
2.3.4 Short-term trend direction
Indicate if
the range is (use one of the following categories):
0 = stable
+ = increasing
- = decreasing
x = unknown
2.3.5 Short-term trend magnitude - optional
If possible
quantify the percentage change over period indicated in the field 2.3.3.
2.3.6 Long-term trend - optional
The long-term
trend should be evaluated over a period of 24 years (4 reporting cycles). For
the 2013 reports this information is optional. Thus the fields 2.3.6 - 2.3.8 are optional as well
if no data reported in the field 2.3.6.
For further guidance see section III.b.i.
Short and long-
term trends.
In reporting period, ‘long term trend direction’ (2.3.7) and ‘long term trend magnitude’
(2.3.8)
please use the guidance given for short term trend.
2.3.9 Favourable reference range
This information
is needed to undertake the evaluation of conservation status according to
Annex E. The following information is requested:
a) Range required for the habitat type to be at Favourable Conservation Status: give
area in km² and attach a GIS map if available;
77

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
b) If operators (≈, >, >>) were used for the assessment, please indicate it here with
the relevant symbol (≈ “approximately equal to”, > “more than”, >> “much more
than”);
c) If there is no data on range, use an “X” for the favourable reference range;
d) Please also indicate the method used to set the reference value (free text field).
See section III.a. Favourable Reference Values for more detail.
2.3.10 Reason for change
The following questions
aim to clarify potential differences and to avoid misinterpretation of
changes in the range between reporting rounds. Please answer all three questions (if
relevant):
Is the difference between the reported value in 2.3.1 and the previous reporting round
mainly due to
a) genuine change? YES/NO or
b) improved knowledge/more accurate data? YES/NO or
c) use of different method (e.g.”Range tool”) YES/NO
If a Member State wishes to explain in more detail (e.g. cases when range surface does not
change, but its borders are moving, fragmentation of range etc), this can be provided using
the field 2.7.4 Other relevant information.
2.4 Area covered by habitat
Area covered by the habitat type within the range in the biogeographical or marine region
concerned.
2.4.1 Surface area - distribution
Area (in km
2
) currently occupied by the habitat within the biogeographical area or marine
region. For overlapping habitats see section IV.c.iv. Overlapping habitats.
2.4.2 Year or period of
estimation
Year or period when for which the surface area of habitat is valid, which should be as close
as possible to the end of the reporting period. Use the following formats for year MM/YYYY
(month/year) and for period YYYY-YYYY (year-year).
2.4.3 Method used
Indicate the
method used to estimate the habitat surface area (use one of the following
categories):
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
If more than one method used, indicate that used for the largest proportion.
2.4.4 Short-term trend period
The recommended
period for short-term trend is 12 years (2 reporting cycles). For the 2013
reports this means the period 2001-2012 or a period as close as possible to this.
78

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
Please indicate the period in this field. Give dates of beginning and end of the period for
which the trend has been reported. Further guidance is given in the section III.b ‘Trends’ of
chapter 1.
The short term trend should be used for the assessment. Any large scale deviation from this
should be explained under field 2.7.5 Other relevant information.
2.4.5 Short-term trend direction
Indicate
if population trend is (use one of the following categories):
0 = stable
+ = increasing
- = decreasing
x = unknown
2.4.6 Short-term trend magnitude - optional
If possible
quantify the percentage change over the period indicated in the field 2.4.4. It can
be given as a precise figure (e.g. 27 %) or a banded range (e.g. 20-30 %). If it is a precise
figure give the same value under ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ (field 2.4.6 a and b).
Confidence interval:
If data for the trend comes from statistically reliable sampling
scheme, the confidence interval is requested (field 2.4.6.c).
2.4.7 Method used – short-term trend
Use one
of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
2.4.8 Long-term trend - optional
The recommended
long-term trend is 24 years (4 reporting cycles). For the 2013 reports this
information is optional. Thus the fields 2.4.9 - 2.4.11 are also optional if no data is given in
field 2.4.8. For further guidance see section III.b.i Short and long-term trends.
Please use the same guidance for period, ‘long term trend direction’ and ‘long term trend
magnitude’
as for short term trend
.
2.4.12 Favourable reference area
This information
is needed to undertake the evaluation of favourable conservation status
according to Annex E.
Favourable reference area is the area required for the area of habitat to be at favourable
conservation status. The following information is requested.
a) Provide area in km² and attach a vector or grid map if available;
b) If operators (≈, >, >>) were used for the assessment, please indicate it here with
the relevant symbol (≈ “approximately equal to”, > “more than”, >> “much more
than”);
c) If there are no data on the area covered by the habitat, use “x” for the reference
area;
d) Indicate method used to set the reference value (free text field).
Favourable Reference Area is discussed in more detail in section III.a.iii Favourable
Reference Area.
79

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
2.4.13 Reason for change
The following questions are asked to clarify potential differences and to avoid
misinterpretation of changes in areas between reporting rounds. Please answer all three
questions (if relevant):
Is the difference between the reported value in 2.4.1 and the previous reporting round
mainly due to
a) genuine change? YES/NO or
b) improved knowledge/more accurate data? YES/NO or
c) use of different method (e.g.”Range tool”) YES/NO
If a Member State wishes to explain further, this can be done under the field 2.7.4 Other
relevant information’
2.5 Main pressures
Pressure = acting now or during the reporting period.
This means main pressures – past and present impacts – threatening the long term viability
of the habitat types. Please use the codes in the list of threats and pressures to at least the
2
nd
level (threats and pressures are listed in the same list). The list is available on the Art 17
Reference Portal
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
.
Where a Member State wishes to give more detail on the nature of a certain pressure this
can be given using field 2.7.4 Other relevant information.
a) Pressure
b) Ranking
c) Pollution qualifier
List max 20 pressures.
Use codes from the list to at
least 2
nd
level.
H = high importance (max 5
entries)
M = medium importance
L = low importance
This field is optional
2.5.1 Method used - pressures
Indicate if the method used is (use one of the following categories):
3 = based exclusively or to a larger extent on real data from sites/occurrences or
other method used
2 = mainly based on expert judgement and other data
1 = based only on expert judgements
2.6 Threats
Threat = acting in the near future (recommended time period to be considered is 2 future
reporting periods, i.e. 12 years into the future).
List the threats according to the guidance given in section III.c Main pressures and threats –
future/foreseeable impacts – affecting the long term viability of the habitat. Please use the
codes in the list of threats and pressures to at least the 2
nd
level. The list of threats and
pressures is available on the Reference Portal.
Where a Member State wishes to give more detail on the nature of a certain threat this can
be given using field 2.7.4 Other relevant information.
80

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
For threat, the recommended time span is two reporting periods (12 years). The threats
should not cover theoretical threats, but rather those issues judged to be reasonably likely.
This may include continuation of pressures reported under section 2.5.
a) Threat
b) Ranking
c) Pollution qualifier
List max 20 threats.
Use codes from the list to at
least 2
nd
level.
H = high importance (max 5
entries)
M = medium importance
L = low importance
This field is optional
2.6.1 Method used – threats
Indicate if the method used is (use one of the following categories);
2 = based on modelling and other data
1 = based on expert judgement
2.7 Complementary information
This section includes information needed for background information to correctly understand
the reported data.
2.7.1 & 2.7.2 Typical species
List the
typical species considered during the assessment and describe the method used to
assess their status (e.g. by using expert judgement, general surveys). Typical species are
discussed in more detail in section
IV.c.iii Structures and functions (including
typical species)
.
Please use Latin names and it is recommended to use names from the Pan-European Species
directories Infrastructure (PESI)
72
where appropriate.
2.7.3 Justification of % thresholds for trends
The indicative suggested threshold for a large decline in Annex E is 1% per year. If another
threshold has been used for the assessment please give details, including an explanation of
why. For most (if not all) Annex I habitat types it is not possible to measure a change of 1%
over the six years between reports, but this rate of change is suggested to allow Member
States to calculate trends when the available data do not coincide with the ‘reporting period’.
This approach follows that developed by Birdlife International for assessing the conservation
status of birds (Birdlife International, 2004).
2.7.4 Structure and functions – method used
This field asks for the method used for the assessment. This information is needed to help
interpret the conclusion for the structures and functions. Use one of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling.
2.7.5 Other relevant information
Include any other information thought relevant to the habitat report and to assessing
conservation status.
72
http://www.eu-nomen.eu/
81

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
2.8 Conclusions
This section includes the assessment of conservation status at the end of the reporting
period in the concerned biogeographical region or marine region. It is derived from the
Annex E matrix.
Give the result of the assessment for each parameter of conservation status using one of the
four categories: 'Favourable', 'Inadequate', 'Bad' and 'Unknown'.
The following items must be evaluated:
2.8.1 Range
2.8.2 Area
2.8.3 Specific structures and functions (incl. typical species)
2.8.4 Future prospects
2.8.5 Overall assessment of conservation status
Use of qualifiers
The use of qualifiers (U1+, U2- etc) when CS is either ‘Unfavourable - Inadequate’ or
‘Unfavourable - Bad’ is obligatory for the overall assessment of conservation status (to be
reported at field 2.8.6) and strongly recommended for all parameters (fields 2.8.1.b –
2.8.4.b).
Please note that the indication of a change of direction is potentially a very useful way to
detect positive developments and will be exploited in future policy analysis and for a sub-
target for the 2020 biodiversity target.
If conservation status is ‘Unfavourable - Inadequate’ or ‘Unfavourable - Bad’, Member States
should indicate if the trend is improving, declining, stable or trend not known, using + - =
and x respectively for each parameter.
See section II.d
on qualifying conservation status.
2.8.4 Future prospects
The reporting format does not request details on the assessment of future prospects.
However in order to harmonise the assessment of this parameter, Member States are
encouraged to follow the assessment steps for future prospects described in section IV.a.ii.
Future prospects. The conclusion should be reported here under field 2.9.4.
3 NATURA 2000 COVERAGE & CONSERVAT
ION MEASURES - ANNEX I HABITAT TYPES
See background information in the section II.g. Reporting on Annex I habitat types and
Annex II species witin the Natura 2000 network. The requested information should cover the
contribution of the Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation
(SAC) components of the Natura 2000 network.
The following information is required for Annex I habitat types:
3.1 Area covered by the habitat type
3.1.1 Surface area of the Annex I habitat type in the Natura 2000 network
82

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
-
Estimation of the habitat type surface area covered by the network in the concerned
biogeographical region.
-
Give minimum-maximum of the total surface area; in case of an exact figure, repeat
it in minimum and maximum fields.
3.1.2 Method used
: use one of the following categories:
3 = Complete survey or a statistically robust estimate
2 = Estimate based on partial data with some extrapolation and/or modelling
1 = Estimate based on expert opinion with no or minimal sampling
0 = Absent data
3.1.3 Trend within the Natura 2000 network - optional
Indicate whether the trend of habitat surface area is increasing, stable, decreasing or
unknown. Use same definitions as for 2.4.
3.2 Conservation measures taken by the Member State
3.2.1 Measure.
List up to 20 measures taken during the reporting period (i.e. already
being implemented). Use codes from the list of conservation measures on the Reference
Portal. Field 3.2.2 to 3.2.5 to be filled in for each reported measure.
3.2.2 Type
Tick the relevant type or types of the conservation measure:
a) Legal/statutory
b) Administrative
c) Contractual
d) Recurrent
e) One-off
3.2.3 Ranking
Select and highlight (use an 'H') up to five measures that are considered
the most important; the importance of the measure should be assessed in terms of the
proportion of the habitat surface area target by the measure; the larger the surface area
benefiting from the measure the higher the importance.
3.2.4 Location
If a given measure primarily concerns or is primarily being implemented in Natura 2000
sites, tick the case labelled 'inside the network'. On the contrary, if the measure is
primarily applied outside Natura 2000 sites, tick the case labelled 'outside the network'. If
the measure is taken on approximately equal level, with reference to proportion of
habitat surface area, both inside and outside Natura 2000 sites, tick the case labelled
‘both inside and outside’.
3.2.5 Broad evaluation of the measure
This field is used to indicate in an approximate way the effectiveness of each measure in
maintaining, enhancing or reaching favourable conservation status (FCS). This is a proxy
to address Article 17(1) information on the 'impact of measures on conservation status'.
The following categories should be used (tick the most relevant case(s)):
a) Maintain – when the conservation measure is required to maintain FCS; use this
code when the habitat type has a FCS and the Favourable status could not be
maintained if the measure would not be implemented
b) Enhance
– when the conservation measure is required to enhance conservation
status or reach FCS; use this code when the habitat type has an unfavourable
83

THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
conservation status and the measure – alone or in conjunction with others – is
needed to improve it:
- from Unfavourable-Bad to Unfavourable-Inadequate
- from Unfavourable to Favourable
- within the same conservation status even if not enough to trigger a change
on the conservation status
c) Long-term – measure without short term effect – one reporting cycle or less – but
long term positive effect expected
d) No effect – measure without effect or that needs adaptation and that is not
delivering any conservation benefit; measure failed in achieving its objectives or had
adverse effects.
e) Unknown effect
f) Not evaluated - if the effect of the measure has not been evaluated.
84

 
THE REPORTING FORMAT FOR 2007-2012
85
VI.e ANNEX E: EVALUATION MATRIX FOR ASSESSING CONSERVATION
STATUS OF A HABITAT TYPE
The matrix is an aid to assessing the conservation status of the habitat. It shall be used for
each biogeographical region (and marine region) in which the habitat type is present. The
results of using the matrix have to be provided in section 2.8 Conclusions of Annex D.
Each of the four headings is assessed (using information reported in Annex D) and classed
as either ‘Green’, ‘Amber’, ‘Red’ or ‘Unknown’. The later category is for when no or
insufficient information is available.
The use of qualifiers (U1+, U2- etc; see II.d) is obligatory for the overall assessment of
conservation status and recommended for individual parameters.

 
The discussion papers used in the compilation of these guidelines can be found on CIRCA,
see
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/expert_reporting/work-
package_revision&vm=detailed&sb=Title
QUICK REMINDERS
Absence of data
Fields not completed will be treated as meaning no data available (the QA/QC will indicate
this).
Format for numbers
the decimal sign is either a point or a comma on the line
Numbers consisting of long sequences of digits can be made more readable by
separating them into groups, preferably groups of three, separated by a small space
(e.g. 10 000). For this reason, ISO 31-0 specifies that such groups of digits should
never be separated by a comma or point, as these are reserved for use as the
decimal sign. No figure should contain both a point and a comma.
For numbers whose magnitude is less than 1, the decimal sign should be preceded by
a zero. e.g. 0.25
If a value is zero, please enter ‘0’.
Based on ISO 31 on quantities and units
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_31-0).
Codings
The checklist of species & habitats per region/Member State, the codings to be used for
threats & pressures and other codings can be found at the Reference Portal.
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal
Which species to report
There should be a separate report for each species (or subspecies where noted in annexes II
or IV) except for
Sphagnum (except S pylasii), Cladonia and Lycopodium. See species
checklist in the reference portal and
section II.f.i ‘Reporting for Species groups’
for further
information.
URL addresses
All URL should start with
if appropriate.
File names
Do not include spaces, hyphens, punctuation marks (e.g. full stops, commas) in file names.

 
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
As well as the references cited in these guidelines, several Member States have published
reports based on their 2001-2006 reports. A list has been compiled by the ETC/BD and is
available on the Article 17 website
73
.
Cited in the text
Ahti, T. (1961)
Taxonomic studies on reindeer lichens (Cladonia subgenus Cladina).
Annales Botanici
Societatis Zoologicae Botanicae Fennicae ‘Vanamo’
. 32, No 1.
Bell, Sandra, Mariella Marzano, Joanna Cent, Hanna Kobierska, Dan Podjed, Deivida Vandzinskaite,
Hugo Reinert, Ausrine Armaitiene, Malgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak, and Rajko Muršič. (2008).
What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity.
Biodiversity and Conservation 17, no. 14 (December 1): 3443-3454.
Bensettiti, F. (ed) (2001-2005).
Cahiers d’habitats Natura 2000 – connaissance et gestion des habitats
et des espèces d’intérêt communautaire.
La documentation française, Paris.
See
http://inpn.mnhn.fr/isb/download/fr/docNatura2000Cahhab.jsp
BirdLife International (ed) (2004).
Birds in Europe
-
Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation
Status.
BirdLife Conservation Series 12, BirdLife International, Cambridge
Bohn, U.; Gollub, G.; Hettwer, C.; Neuhäuslová, Z.; Raus, Th.; Schlüter, H. & Weber, H. (eds) (2004).
Interaktive/Interactive CD-ROM zur Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/to the Map of the
Natural Vegetation of Europe. Maßstab/Scale 1:2.500.000. - Erläuterungstext, Legende,
Karten/Explanatory Text, Legend, Maps.
– Münster (Landwirtschaftsverlag).
Chytrý, M., Chytrý, M. et al, M. (eds) (2010).
Katalog biotopů České republiky (Druhé vydání), AOPK,
Prague
Cochrane, S.K.J., Connor, D.W., Nilsson, P., Mitchell, I., Reker, J., Franco, J., Valavanis, V., Moncheva,
S., Ekebom, J., Nygaard, K., Serrão Santos, R., Naberhaus, I., Packeiser, T., van de Bund, W.
and Cardoso, A.C. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Task Group 1 report: Biological
diversity. Joint report of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy and the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark. 120pp.
Commission of the European Communities (2007).
Interpretation manual of European Union habitats -
EUR 27.
DG Environment - Nature and Biodiversity.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/2007_07_im.pdf
Daleszczyk, Katarzyna, and Aleksiei N. Bunevich. (2009). Population viability analysis of European
bison populations in Polish and Belarusian parts of Bialowieza Forest with and without gene
exchange.
Biological Conservation 142, no. 12 (December): 3068-3075.
Devillers, P. & J. Devillers-Terschuren (1996).
A classification of Palaearctic habitats. Nature and
environment, No 78, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Dostálek, Tomáš, Zuzana Münzbergová, and Ivana Plačková. (2009). Genetic diversity and its effect
on fitness in an endangered plant species,
Dracocephalum austriacum L. Conservation Genetics
11, no. 3 (3): 773-783.
European Communities (1991)
Habitats of the European Community. CORINE biotopes manual.
Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg
http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/document/F1088156525/F1125582140
Gasc J.P., Cabela A., Crnobrnja-Isailovic J., Dolmen D., Grossenbacher K., Haffner P., Lescure J.,
Martens H., Martínez Rica J.P., Maurin H., Oliveira M.E., Sofianidou T.S., Veith M. & Zuiderwijk
73
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/chapter7

REFERENCES
A. (eds), (1997). Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 29,
Paris, SPN / IEGB / MNHN
Gomez de Aizpurua, C. (2004).
Orugas y Mariposas de Europa (5 vols) ICONA, Madrid
Grillas P., P. Gauthier, N. Yavercovski et C. Perennou 2004. Les mares temporaries méditerranéennes.
Enjeux de conservation, fonctionnement et gestion. Volume 1. Tour du Valat. pp 119
Helsdingen, P.J. van, Willemse, L. & Speight, M.C.D. (eds) (1996a).
Background information on
invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention - Part I - Crustacea, Coleoptera
and Lepidoptera.
Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Helsdingen, P.J. van, Willemse, L. & Speight, M.C.D. (eds) (1996b).
Background information on
invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention - Part II – Mantodea, Odonata,
Orthoptera & Arachnida.
Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Helsdingen, P.J. van, Willemse, L. & Speight, M.C.D. (eds) (1996c).
Background information on
invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention - Part III - Mollusca &
Echinodermata.
Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Hettelingh JP, Posch M, Slootweg J (eds.) (2009) Progress in the modelling of critical thresholds,
impacts to plant species diversity and ecosystem services in Europe: CCE Status Report 2009,
Coordination Centre for Effects.
http://www.pbl.nl/en/themasites/cce/publications/040/index.html
Jalas, J. & Suominen, J. (eds.) (1972, 1973, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994).
Atlas
Florae Europaeae. Distribution of Vascular Plants in Europe. Vols. 1-10.
- The Committee for
Mapping the Flora of Europe & Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki
Jalas, J., Suominen, J. & Lampinen, R. (eds.) (1996)
Atlas Florae Europaeae. Distribution of Vascular
Plants in Europe. Vol. 11.
- The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe & Societas Biologica
Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki
Jalas, J., Suominen, J., Lampinen, R. & Kurtto, A. (eds.) (1999)
Atlas Florae Europaeae. Distribution of
Vascular Plants in Europe. Vol. 12.
- The Committee for Mapping the Flora of Europe & Societas
Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2007a).
Assessing Conservation Status: The UK Approach.
JNCC, Peterborough.
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/FCS2007_ukapproach.pdf
JRC-IES-LMU-ESDI (2004)
Short Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Reference Grids.
http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/alpsis/Docs/ref_grid_sh_proc_draft.pdf
Jędrzejewski, W., B. Jędrzejewska, B. Zawadzka, T. Borowik, S. Nowak, and R. W. Mysłajek. 2008.
Habitat suitability model for Polish wolves based on long-term national census.
Animal
Conservation
11, no. 5 (10): 377-390
Kudrna, O. (2002).
The Distribution Atlas of European Butterflies. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark
Kuemmerle, Tobias, Volker C. Radeloff, Kajetan Perzanowski, Piotr Kozlo, Taras Sipko, Pavlo
Khoyetskyy, Andriy-Taras Bashta et al. 2011. Predicting potential European bison habitat across
its former range.
Ecological Applications 21 (3): 830-843.
Kurtto, A., Fröhner, S. E. & Lampinen, R. (eds.) (2007):
Atlas Florae Europaeae. Distribution of
Vascular Plants in Europe. 14. Rosaceae (Alchemilla and Aphanes).
— The Committee for
Mapping the Flora of Europe & Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki. 200 pp.
Kurtto, A., Lampinen, R. & Junikka, L. (eds.) (2004)
Atlas Florae Europaeae. Distribution of Vascular
Plants in Europe. 13. Rosaceae (Spiraea to Fragaria, excl. Rubus).
- The Committee for Mapping
the Flora of Europe & Societas Biologica Fennica Vanamo, Helsinki
Laaksonen, Mervi, Kaisa Murdoch, Juha Siitonen, and Gergely Várkonyi. (2009). Habitat associations
of
Agathidium pulchellum, an endangered old-growth forest beetle species living on slime
moulds.
Journal of Insect Conservation 14, no. 1 (5): 89-98.
88

REFERENCES
Laikre, Linda, Torbjörn Nilsson, Craig R. Primmer, Nils Ryman, & Fred W. Allendorf. (2009).
Importance of Genetics in the Interpretation of Favourable Conservation Status.
Conservation
Biology
23, no. 6: 1378-1381.
Maciejewski L., (2010) Méthodologie d’élaboration des listes d’« espèces typiques » pour des habitats
forestiers d’intérêt communautaire en vue de l’évaluation de leur état de conservation. Rapport
SPN 2010-12 / MNHN-SPN, Paris, 48 p. + annexes
http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/Especes_typiques_Maciejewski2010.pdf
Maitland, P.S. (1994).
Conservation of freshwater fish in Europe. Nature and Environment 66 Council
of Europe Press, Strasbourg.
Mitchell, Sean C. (2005). How useful is the concept of habitat? - a critique.
Oikos 110, no. 3 (9): 634-
638.
Mitchell-Jones, A.J, Giovanni Amori, Wieslaw Bogdanowicz et al. (1999).
The Atlas of European
Mammals.
A & C Black; Poyser Natural History
Mücher, C.A., S.M. Hennekens, R.G.H. Bunce and J.H.J. Schaminée, (2004).
Mapping European
Habitats to support the design and implementation of a Pan-European Ecological Network. The
PEENHAB project.
Alterra report 952, Wageningen.
(
http://content.alterra.wur.nl/Webdocs/PDFFiles/Alterrarapporten/AlterraRapport954.pdf
)
Mücher, Caspar A., Stephan M. Hennekens, Robert G.H. Bunce, Joop H.J. Schaminée, and Michael E.
Schaepman. (2009). Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe.
Landscape and Urban Planning 92, no. 2 (September 15): 148-159.
Primack, Richard B. 2008.
A Primer of Conservation Biology, Fourth Edition. Sinauer Associates.
Salafsky, N., et al. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of
threats and actions.
Conservation Biology 22:897–911.
Segarra-Moragues, J. G., M. Palop-Esteban, F. González-Candelas, and P. Catalán. (2005). On the
verge of extinction: genetics of the critically endangered Iberian plant species,
Borderea
chouardii
(Dioscoreaceae) and implications for conservation management. Molecular Ecology 14,
no. 4 (3): 969-982.
Séneca, A & Söderström, L. (2009) Sphagnophyta of Europe and Macaronesia: a checklist with
distribution data.
Journal of Bryology 31(4) pp. 243-254
Soulé, M.E. & Orians, G. H. (eds) (2001).
Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for The Next
Decade.
Island Press. Washington, D. C.
Ssymank, A., Hauke, U., Rückriem, C. & Schröder, E. unter Mitarbeit von Messer, D. (1998): Das
europäische Schutzgebietssystem NATURA 2000 - BfN-Handbuch zur Umsetzung der Fauna-
Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie (92/43/EWG) und der Vogelschutz-Richtlinie (79/409/EWG). - SchrR. f.
Landschaftspfl. u. Natursch. 53, 560 S.
Traill, Lochran W., Barry W. Brook, Richard R. Frankham, & Corey J.A. Bradshaw: (2010) Pragmatic
population viability targets in a rapidly changing world,
Biological Conservation 143 28–34.
Turlure, Camille, Hans Van Dyck, Nicolas Schtickzelle, and Michel Baguette. (2009). Resource-based
habitat definition, niche overlap and conservation of two sympatric glacial relict butterflies.
Oikos 118, no. 6 (6): 950-960.
Warren, M.S. (1994) The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened European
butterfly, the Marsh Fritillary,
Eurodryas aurinia. Biological Conservation 67: 239-249)
Vanden Borre, Jeroen, Desiré Paelinckx, Caspar A. Mücher, Lammert Kooistra, Birgen Haest, Geert De
Blust, and Anne M. Schmidt. (2011). Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat
monitoring: Prospects on the way forward.
Journal for Nature Conservation 19 (2): 116-125.
89

 
REFERENCES
Other relevent references
Abenius,
J., Aronsson, M., Haglund, A., Lindahl, H., & Vik, P. (2004)
Natura 2000 Monitoring in
Sweden - Monitoring of habitats and species listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives.
Swedish
Environmental Protection
Battersby, J. (comp.) (2010): Guidelines for Surveillance and Monitoring of European Bats. EUROBATS
Publication Series No. 5. UNEP / EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 95 pp.
http://www.eurobats.org/publications/publication%20series/pubseries_no5_english.pdf
Bekkby, Trine, and Martin Isaeus. (2008). Mapping large, shallow inlets and bays: modelling a Natura
2000 habitat with digital terrain and wave-exposure models.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65, no. 2 (March
1): 238-241
Bensettiti F. & Trouvilliez J., (2009) Rapport synthétique des résultats de la France sur l’état de
conservation des habitats et des espèces conformément à l’article 17 de la directive habitats .
Rapport SPN 2009/12, MNHN-DEGB-SPN, Paris, 48 p.
http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/rapport_eval_2009.pdf
Bensettiti, F., Combroux, I. & Daszkiewicz, P. (2006) Evaluation de l’Etat de conservation des Habitats
et Espèces d’intérêt communautaire
2006-2007. Document 2, version 4. Guide Méthodologique.
MNHN, Paris.
http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/GUIDE070254.pdf
Bunce, R., M. Metzger, R. Jongman, J. Brandt, G. de Blust, R. Elena-Rossello, G. Groom, et al. (2008).
A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of
spatial data.
Landscape Ecology 23, no. 1 (January 25): 11-25.
Carnino N. (2009).
Etat de conservation des habitats d’interet communautaire a l’echelle du site –
Methode d’evaluation des habitats forestiers.
Museum national d’histoire naturelle / Office
National des Forets, 49 p. + annexes.
http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/N2000_EC/Carnino_2009_hab_foret.zip
Dahl, K., Larsen, M.M., Andersen, J.H., Rasmussen, M.B., Petersen, J.K., Josefson, A.B., Lundsteen,
S., Dahllöf, I., Christiansen, T., Krause-Jensen, D., Hansen, J.L.S., Ærtebjerg, G., Henriksen, P.,
Helmig, S.A. & Reker, J. (2004).
Tools to assess the conservation status of marine Annex 1
habitats in Special Areas ofConservation. Phase 1: Identifi cation of potential indicators and
available data.
National EnvironmentalResearch Institute, Denmark. 96 pp. – NERI Technical
Report No. 488.
www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/rapporter/FR488_p1-
61.PDF
Diaz, Robert J., Martin Solan, and Raymond M. Valente. (2004). A review of approaches for classifying
benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality.
Journal of Environmental Management 73, no. 3
(November): 165-181.
Diaz-Varela, Ramon A., Pablo Ramil-Rego, and M. Silvia Calvo-Iglesias. (2007). Strategies of remote
sensing monitoring of changes in NATURA 2000 sites: a practical assessment in coastal
mountains of NW Iberian Peninsula. In
Remote Sensing for Environmental Monitoring, GIS
Applications, and Geology VII,
6749:674932-12. Florence, Italy: SPIE, October 5.
http://link.aip.org/link/?PSI/6749/674932/1
.
Ellmauer, T (ed) (2005)
Entwicklung von Kriterien, Indikatoren und Schwellenwerten zur Beurteilung
des Erhaltungszustandes der Natura 2000-Schutzgüter. Band 3: Lebensraumtypen des Anhangs
I der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie.
Im Auftrag der neun österreichischen Bundesländer, des
Bundesministerium f. Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft und der
Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna.
http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/umweltschutz/naturschutz/natura_2000/gez/
European Habitats Forum (2006).
Towards European Biodiversity Monitoring. Assessment, monitoring
and reporting of conservation status of European Habitats and species.
Vienna, Cambridge,
Bruxelles. 80 pp.
90

REFERENCES
Evans, D. (2010) Interpreting the habitats of Annex I – Past, present and future. Acta Botanica
Gallica.
157(4) 677-686
Förster, M., A. Frick, H. Walentowski, and B. Kleinschmit. (2008). Approaches to utilising QuickBird
data for the monitoring of NATURA 2000 habitats.
Community Ecology 9, no. 2 (12): 155-168.
Gaston, Kevin J., and Richard A. Fuller. (2009). The sizes of species' geographic ranges.
Journal of
Applied Ecology
46, no. 1: 1-9.
Groom, Geoff, C. Mücher, Margareta Ihse, and Thomas Wrbka. (2006). Remote Sensing in Landscape
Ecology: Experiences and Perspectives in a European Context.
Landscape Ecology 21, no. 3
(April 20): 391-408.
Hernando, Ana, Rosario Tejera, Javier Velázquez, and María Victoria Núñez. (2010). Quantitatively
defining the conservation status of Natura 2000 forest habitats and improving management
options for enhancing biodiversity.
Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 19(8) :2221-2233.
Hurford, Clive; Schneider, Michael; & Cowx, Ian (Eds.) (2010)
Conservation Monitoring in Freshwater
Habitats A Practical Guide and Case Studies.
Springer.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2007b). Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the
implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. JNCC,
Peterborough:.
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/article17/
Joint Nature Conservation Committee.(2006)
United Kingdom Common Monitoring standards
http://www.jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2217
Kontula, Tytti, and Anne Raunio. (2009) New method and criteria for national assessments of
threatened habitat types.
Biodiversity and Conservation. 18(14): 3861-3876
Lengyel, Szabolcs, Andrej Kobler, Lado Kutnar, Erik Framstad, Pierre-Yves Henry, Valerija Babij, Bernd
Gruber, Dirk Schmeller, and Klaus Henle. (2008). A review and a framework for the integration
of biodiversity monitoring at the habitat level.
Biodiversity and Conservation 17, no. 14
(December 1): 3341-3356.
Liukko, U-M & Raunio, A (eds.) (2008)
Luontotyyppien ja lajien seuranta luonto- ja lintudirektiiveissä
Suomen ympäristö 14/2008, Syke, Helsinki
(in Finnish with English summary: Summary of the
monitoring preparations in Finland on the habitat types and species that belong to the Habitats
Directive and the Birds Directive).
http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=293342&lan=fi
.
Lustyk P. & Guth J. (2010): Metodika aktualizace vrstvy mapování biotopů. – AOPK ČR, Praha.
Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare (2008) Attuazione della Directiva Habitat
e stato di conservazione di habitat e specie in Italia.
http://www.minambiente.it/export/sites/default/archivio/biblioteca/protezione_natura/dpn_attua
zione_direttiva_habitat.pdf
Möller, Tiia, Jonne Kotta, and Georg Martin. (2010). Mapping of Structural and Functional
Characteristics of Reef Habitats. In
Biosciences, International Conference on, 0:150-154. Los
Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
Pihl, S., Ejrnæs, R., Søgaard, B., Aude, E., Nielsen, K.E., Dahl, K. & Laursen, J.S.(2001)
Habitat and
Species Covered by the EEC Habitats Directive. A Preliminary Assessment of Distribution and
Conversation Status in Denmark.
NERI Technical report no. 365
http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/abstrakter/abs_365_uk.asp
Raunio, A, Schulman, A & Kontula, T (eds.) (2008).
Suomen luontotyyppien uhanalaisuus - Osa 1:
Tulokset ja arvioinnin perusteet. Osa 2: Luontotyyppien kuvaukset
Suomen ympäristö 8/2008,
Helsinki
http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=287730&lan=fi
.
Schmeller, Dirk. (2008). European species and habitat monitoring: where are we now?
Biodiversity
and Conservation
17, no. 14 (December 1): 3321-3326.
91

REFERENCES
92
Šeffer, J. et al (2005). Definition and assessment of the favourable conservation status for non-forest
habitat types of the Community interest, in: Polák, P. Saxa, A., (eds.), 2005: Favourable
conservation status for habitat types and species of the Community interest. State Nature
Conservancy of the Slovak republic, Banská Bystrica.
Shaw, P & Wind, P (1997)
Monitoring the condition and biodiversity status of European conservation
sites - a discussion paper.
Report to the European Environment Agency on behalf of the
European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation, Paris.
Sohlman, Annika. (2008). Arter & naturtyper i habitatdirektivet - tillståndet i Sverige 2007.
http://www.artdata.slu.se/publikationer/arterochnaturtyper.asp
.
van Swaay, Chris, Martin Warren, and Grégoire Loïs. (2006). Biotope Use and Trends of European
Butterflies.
Journal of Insect Conservation 10, no. 2 (June 19): 189-209.

 
APPENDICES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE ARTICLE 17 REFERENCE PORTAL
Documentation
1) Reporting Format 2007-2012
2) Explanatory Notes & Guidelines
3) Guidelines for submitting Article 17 data
Reference material
1) Country ISO-codes
2) Checklists of species and habitat types for Art
17 reporting
3) Biogeographic Regions and their Borders
4) Marine regions and their Borders
5) List of Exceptions and list of Population units
and codes (in accordance with SDF)
6) Draft list of pre-dominant marine habitat types (MSFD)
7) List of Threats and Pressures
8) List of Conservation measures
9) The ETRS grids
Further
documents may be added if required
APPENDIX 2: LYCOPODIUM SPECIES IN EUROPE
Taken from Flora Europeae, some national floras maintain Diphasiastrum zeilleri (Rouy)
Holub (included in
Diphasiastrum complanatum by Flora Europeae ) as a valid species.
Flora Europaea
name
comments
Diphasiastrum alpinum (L.) Holub
Syn
Diphasium alpinum (L.) Rothm.)
Lycopodium alpinum L.
Diphasiastrum complanatum (L.)
Holub
Syn
Diphasium complanatum (L.) Rothm.)
Lycopodium complanatum L.
Lycopodium anceps Wallr.
Incl
Diphasiastrum complanatum (L.) Holub subsp.
complanatum
Diphasiastrum complanatum
(L.) Holub subsp.
issleri (Rouy) Jermy [syn Diphasiastrum x issleri

(Rouy) Holub)]
Diphasiastrum complanatum (L.)
Holub subsp.
montellii (Kukkonen) Kukkonen
Diphasiastrum complanatum
(L.) Holub subsp.
zeilleri (Rouy) Kukkonen [syn Diphasiastrum
complanatum
(L.) Holub subsp. x zeilleri (Rouy)
Holub].
Diphasiastrum madeirense
(J.H.Wilce) Holub
Syn
Lycopodium madeirense J.H.Wilce
Diphasium madeirense (J.H.Wilce) Rothm.
Diphasiastrum tristachyum (Pursh)
Holub
Syn
Diphasium tristachyum (Pursh) Rothm.)
Lycopodium chamaecyparissus A.Braun ex Mutel
Diphasium complanatum (L.) Rothm. subsp.
chamaecyparissus (A.Braun ex Mutel) C$Kelak.
Diphasium issleri (Rouy) Holub
Syn
Lycopodium issleri (Rouy) Lawalrée.
Huperzia dentata (Herter) Holub
Huperzia selago (L.) Bernh. ex
Schrank & Mart.
Syn
Lycopodium selago L.
Lycopodiella cernua (L.) Pic.Serm.
Syn
Lepidotis cernua (L.) P.Beauv.
Lycopodium cernuum L.
Lycopodiella inundata (L.) Holub
Syn
Lepidotis inundata (L.) Opiz
Lycopodium inundatum L.
Lycopodium annotinum L.
Inc
Lycopodium dubium Zoega
Lycopodium pungens (La Pylaie) Iljin.
Lycopodium clavatum L.
Syn
Lycopodium clavatum L. subsp. monostachyum
(Grev. & Hook.) Selin.
94

 
APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLES OF REPORTING THREATS & PRESSURES
A
Hyla arborea (European tree frog) in the Atlantic Biogeographic region of
the Netherlands
2.6 Main pressures
code
Pressure
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
A10
Restructuring agricultural land holding
H
A10.01
Removal of hedges, copses or scrubs
H
F03.02.01
Collection of animals
H
J02.05
Modification of hydrographic functioning
H
K02.01
Species composition change (succession)
H
N, P
A02.03
Grassland removal for arable land
M
A03.01
Intensive mowing or intensification
M
D01.02 Roads, motorways
M
E01.02 Discontinuous urbanisation M
E01.03 Dispersed habitation
M
E04
Agricultural structures, buildings in the landscape
M
G01
Outdoor sports and leisure activities, recreational
activities
M
G05.05
Missing or wrongly directed conservation measures
M
H04.02
Nitrogen input
M
N, A
I03.01
Genetic pollution (animals)
M
J02.01.03
Infilling of ditches, ponds, pools, …
M
K02 Biocenotic evolution, succession M
K03.05
Antagonism arising from introduction of species
M
A07
Use of biocides, hormones and chemicals
L
2.6.1 Data source – pressures
3 = based exclusively or to a
larger extent on real data
from sites/occurrences or
other data sources
2.7 Threats
Code
Threat
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier

A10.01
Removal of hedges, copses or scrubs
H
F03.02.01
Collection of animals
H
J02.05
Modification of hydrographic functioning
H
K02.01
Species composition change (succession)
H
N, P
D01.02 Roads, motorways
M
E01.02 Discontinuous urbanisation M
E01.03 Dispersed habitation
M
H04.02
Nitrogen input
M
N, A
K03.05
Antagonism arising from introduction of species
M
2.7.1 Data source –threats
1 = expert opinion
Rationale behind filling in the data in the example:
Description of problem
Code
Reason for ranking
T or P?
Land allocation: large scale
intensive agricultural land (loss of
habitat, habitat fragmentation).
A10
High:
This is the reason why
grassland, shrubs, ponds are
removed, why water levels are
changed, why there are new
(agricultural) buildings and
why the amount of roads is
increased.
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Grassland removal for arable land
(loss of habitat, habitat
fragmentation).
A02.03
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Intensive mowing or
intensification (loss of habitat,
habitat fragmentation).
A03.01
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Breeding habitat: removal of
scrub (habitat fragmentation).
A10.01
T+P: on small scale this
still keeps happening.
Summer habitat: land allocation:
removal of structure rich fringes
and wooded banks (habitat loss).
A10.01
High:
Direct habitat loss in
both breeding and summer
habitat and causing
great risks
of isolation, leading to
extinction.
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Removal of pools (in land
allocation) (loss of habitat).
J02.01.03
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Drying out of pools early in
season as a result of infilling of
ditches (breeding success).
J02.01.03
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Drying out of pools early in
season as a result of
management of water levels
(breeding success).
J02.05
High:
This also influences the
ponds outside agricultural
areas.
T+P: it will take more
time before all water
levels are OK.
96

Improper management (pools
too deep --> fish, allowing
succession to land).
G05.05
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Habitat fragmentation and
isolation: roads.
D01.02
T+P: no reason to
suspect this will change.
Habitat fragmentation and
isolation: expanding of villages.
E01.02
T+P: no reason to
suspect this will change.
Habitat fragmentation and
isolation: building of houses in
the country.
E01.03
T+P: no reason to
suspect this will change.
Habitat fragmentation and
isolation: building of agricultural
buildings in the country.
E04
Included in E01.03.
Habitat fragmentation and
isolation: building of recreational
buildings and infrastructure.
G01
Included in E01.03.
Acidification of the water as a
result of N and S deposition
(quality of habitat).
H04.02
T+P: it will take more
time before all
deposition levels are OK.
Succession: growing trees
increasing shade (quality of
habitat).
K02
Only P: trend in places
were species occurs is
turned.
Succession: water vegetation to
land (loss of habitat, quality of
habitat).
K02.01
High:
Is a result of
eutrophication, which is a
widespread problem.
T+P: it will take more
time before all
deposition levels are OK.
Use of pool by ducks: (quality of
habitat).
K03.05
T+P: no reason to
suspect this will change.
Introducing of fish (breeding
success).
K03.05
T+P: no reason to
suspect this will change.
Genetic pollution as a result of
release of non-native related
(sub)species.
I03.01
Hopefully more
legislation and
surveillance will stop
this.
Removal of frogs for collections. F03.02.01
High:
The populations are
small, so removal has a high
impact on the population.
T+P: no reason to
suspect this will stop.
Use of biocides (food availability). A07
Low:
direct impacts are not
yet known.
B
6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the
montane to alpine levels in the Atlantic Biogeographic region of the
Netherlands
2.6 Main pressures
Code
Pressure
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
A10.01
Removal of hedges, copses or scrub
H
97

H04.02 Nitrogen input
H N
J02.05
Modification of hydrographic functioning
H
J02.11.01
Sea defence or coast protection works
H
A02.01 Agricultural intensification M
G05.05
Missing or wrongly directed conservation measures
M
H01.05
Diffuse pollution to surface waters due to agricultural
and forestry
M N, P
J02.03.02 Canalisation
M
J02.05.02
Modifying structures of inland water courses
M
K01
Abiotic (slow) natural processes
L
2.6.1 Data source – pressures
3 = based exclusively or to a larger extent on
real data from sites/occurrences or other data
sources
2.7 Threats
Code
Threat
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
A10.01
Removal of hedges, copses or scrub
H
H04.02 Nitrogen input
H N
J02.05
Modification of hydrographic functioning
H
J02.11.01
Sea defence or coast protection works
H
H01.05
Diffuse pollution to surface waters due to agricultural
and forestry
M N, P
2.7.1 Data source –threats
1 = expert opinion
Rationale behind filling in the data in the example:
Description of problem
Code
Reason for ranking
T or P?
Lack of management
(neglecting)
encroachment
trees and scrubs.
G05.05
Only P: trend in places were
habitat type occurs is
turned.
Too intensive management
low vegetation
habitat loss.
A02.01
Only P: trend in places were
habitat type occurs is
turned.
Intensive agricultural use:
disappearance of unused
terrains, shrubs and fringes.
A10.01
High:
most important
reason for loss of habitat in
all regions.
T+P still ongoing for fringes
of forests.
Drying out as a result of
lowering of water tables for
agricultural purposes (mostly
in peat area).
J02.05
T+P: no reason to suspect
this will change.
98

Drying out as a result of
intensification of agriculture --
> modifying and filling of
ditches and channels (mostly
in peat area).
J02.05.02
Only P: trend in places were
habitat type occurs is
turned.
Eutrophication as a result of N
and P polluted water from
nearby agricultural land.
(fringe of woods vegetations).
H01.05
T+P: it will take more time
before all deposition levels
are OK.
Eutrophication as a result of
N-deposition is a great risk for
fringe habitats.
H04.02
High:
most important in the
sand areas (fringe habitats)
T+P: it will take more time
before all deposition levels
are OK.
Desalination of the large
brackish marshes in the peat
areas as a result of inpoldering
(historic: J02.01.02, but the
impact process is still ongoing:
K01).
K01
Low:
cause lies mainly in
the past (but: see J02.05).
Only P: from the past.
Also: increase of desalination
as a result of active input of
fresh water for agricultural
improvement.
J02.05
High:
brackish type in NL is
important within Europe
because of rare vegetation
types. The brackish type has
declined strongly
in the past,
mostly in this area, which
still may have high potential
if the salinity is preserved.
T+P: salinity will not change
on the short term.
Desalination as a result of the
closing of see arms in the
Delta areas, where now the
main distribution remain of the
brackish type.
J02.11.01
High:
brackish type in NL is
important within Europe
because of rare vegetation
types. The brackish type has
declined a lot in the past
and this is the most
important remaining refuge,
where it is also declining.
Only P: no change
in closing
of see arms, no increase in
threat, salinity problem in
J02.05.
Loss of tidal dynamics as a
result of closing see arms in
the Delta area. Inundation is
necessary for dispersion of
seeds and nutrient supplies
(brackish tall herb
vegetations).
J02.11.01
Only P: no change in tidal
dynamics, no increase in
threat.
Loss of natural habitat as a
result of canalisation of (small)
rivers and brooks.
J02.03.02
Only P: trend is turned.
C Sideritis serrata (Annex II & IV plant) in the Mediterranean Biogeographic
region of Spain
2.6 Main pressures
Code
Pressure
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
99

B01.01
Forest planting on open ground (native trees)
H
A06.01.02
Non-intensive annual crops for food production
H
A06.02.02
Non-intensive perennial non-timber crops
H
D01.01
Paths, tracks, cycling tracks
L
2.6.1 Data source – pressures
3 = based exclusively or to a larger extent on real data
from sites/occurrences or other data sources
2.7 Threats
Code
Threat
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
B01.01
Forest planting on open ground (native trees)
H
A06.01.02
Non-intensive annual crops for food production
H
A06.02.02
Non-intensive perennial non-timber crops
H
C01.04.01
Open cast mining
M
D01.01
Paths, tracks, cycling tracks
L
C03.03 Wind energy production
L
K05.02
reduced fecundity/ genetic depression in plants
(incl. endogamy)
L
2.7.1 Data source –threats
NEW
1 = expert opinion
Rationale behind filling in the data in the example:
Description of problem
Code
Reason for ranking
Decrease in individuals and/or habitat loss and/or
fragmentation due to forest planting with Pinus
halepensis.
B01.01
Decrease in individuals and/or habitat loss and/or
fragmentation due to enlargement of nearby annual
crops.
A06.01.02
Decrease in individuals and/or habitat loss and/or
fragmentation due to enlargement
of nearby almond
tree crops.
A06.02.02
Direct impact that has already
reduced the habitat and
population of the species.
Decrease in individuals and/or habitat loss and/or
fragmentation due to new open cast mining.
C01.04.01
Potential impact that could have
a great influence on the only
population of the species.
Decrease in individuals and/or habitat loss due to
tracks.
D01.01
Low direct influence.
Decrease in individuals and/or habitat loss and/or
fragmentation due to new stands of wind energy
production.
C03.03
Potential impact that would be
detrimental to the only
population of the species.
Genetic depression by endogamy, and genetic
erosion by hybridization with
S. leucantha subsp.
Bourgaeana.
K05.02
Foreseeable risks given the
reduced area of the population
and the documented
hybridization events.
100

D
6430 * Iberian gypsum vegetation (Gypsophiletalia)
in the Mediterranean
Biogeographic region of Spain
2.6 Main pressures
Code
Pressure
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
B01.01
Forest planting on open ground (native trees)
H
A06.01
Annual crops for food production
H
A06.02
Perennial non-timber crops
H
C01.04.01
Open cast mining
H
E01
Urbanised areas, human habitation
M
E02
Industrial or commercial areas
M
G01.03 Motorised vehicles
L
C03.03 Wind energy production
L
2.6.1 Data source – pressures
3 = based exclusively or to a larger extent on real data
from sites/occurrences or other data sources
2.7 Threats
Code
Threat
Ranking
Pollution
qualifier
B01.01
Forest planting on open ground (native trees)
H
A06.01
Annual crops for food production
H
A06.02
Perennial non-timber crops
H
C01.04.01
Open cast mining
H
E01
Urbanised areas, human habitation
M
E02
Industrial or commercial areas
M
G01.03 Motorised vehicles
L
C03.03 Wind energy production
L
M01.03
Flooding and rising precipitations
L
2.7.1 Data source –threats
1 = expert opinion
Rationale behind filling in the data in the example:
Description of problem
Code
Reason for ranking
Decrease in quality (species composition,
B01.01
Forest planting related to hydrologic
101

102
damage and loss of the biological crust of
lichens and mosses, soil degradation)
and/or extent due to forest planting mainly
with
Pinus halepensis and Quercus ilex
subsp.
rotundifolia.
management and to the recovery of
marginal agricultural lands are the most
important factors currently affecting the
habitat. The latter is done under the
protection of legislation and helped by a
subsidy policy. Affect all its distributional
area, reducing both quality and extension.
Decrease in extent and/or fragmentation
due to agricultural practices.
A06.01
A06.02
The enlargement of crops favoured by a
policy of land concentration and affecting
marginal lands for agriculture is being
detrimental for the extension of this habitat.
Decrease in extent and/or fragmentation
due to open cast mining. Regeneration
difficult for some stenocious species and for
the biological crust of lichens and mosses.
C01.04.01
Direct impact currently affecting important
areas with narrow endemics.
Decrease in extent and/or fragmentation
due to urban and/or industrial development.
E01
E02
Direct and regional impact currently
affecting the habitat (Madrid, Zaragoza,
Alicante, Toledo).
Decrease in quality and/or extent due to
recreational activities with motorised
vehicles.
G01.03
Direct and local impact currently affecting
the habitat.
Decrease in quality and/or extent due to
new stands of wind energy production.
C03.03
Direct and local impact currently affecting
the habitat.
Changes in quality (species composition)
and extent due to global change.
M01.03
The incidence of global change is expected
to be high, since this habitat functions as an
insular system and most of gypsophytes
have limited dispersal ability. However,
flooding and rising precipitations would
likely affect to a small portion of the area.

 
APPENDIX 4: CONVERTING POPULATION DATA TO INDIVIDUALS
The 3 examples described are all from the Boreal region of Sweden.
Rana temporaria (European common frog)
The species is distributed over most of the country; it is considered to be rather common
and has been classified as LC (Least Concern) in all editions of the Swedish Red List.
1) After exclusion of some small unsuitable areas the species was estimated to occur in 352
481 km
2
in the boreal region (nearly all of the terrestrial part of the region).
2) The Swedish experts on amphibians were consulted and they were asked to make as
good a guess as possible of how many frogs typically occur in one km
2
in different parts of
Sweden and some mean value for a normal square kilometre. The outcome from this
consultation gives an approximation of 100 to 200 mature frogs per km
2
.
3) Converted into population of the Boreal region gives 35 000 000 – 75 000 000 individuals
or class 12 (more than 5 000 000 individuals).
Vertigo geyeri (Geyer’s whorl snail)
This snail occurs in rich fens of a certain type and quality. It normally has a patchy
distribution within the fens where it occurs. The species is known from 300 fens, most of
them less than 1 ha. Thirty are larger than 1 km
2
, but the species is only known from the
"best" parts of the fens. For approximately half of the sites only records older than 30 years
are available for the species, but most of the fens have been surveyed in the last 25 years
and at least 250 are still suitable for the
Vertigo species.
About 20 sites have been surveyed in detail in the last 25 years for the species. In small fens
it was found in the suitable parts to occupy an area of 10 to 200 m
2
, depending on the
amount of suitable habitat and the conservation status of the fen. Only one larger fen (5
km
2
) was surveyed with a stratified sub-sampling method. Of 200 samples the species was
present in 45.
Approximation: According to the size and status of the fens, the small fens (some 90 % of
sites) will have a population between 15 and 50 m
2
. The population of the large fens was
calculated from an estimation of suitable habitat at each site and roughly 25 % of the
suitable habitat was estimated to be occupied by the species. Small fens will have between 3
300 and 11 000 m
2
and large fens between 10 000 and 30 000 m
2
). This gives an overall
figure between 13 000 and 41 000 m
2
and class 7 (10 000–50 000).
Osmoderma eremita (Hermit beetle)
This species is recorded from 350 localities (separated by at least 2 km) over the last 15
years. The number of suitable trees per locality varies between 5 to 500, most localities
(approximately 90%) are known to have between 10 to 50 suitable trees.
A rough estimation gives between 3 500 and 17 500 trees that could be inhabited by
Osmoderma eremita. This could be given as Min-Max or approximated to class 6 (5 000–10
000).

 
APPENDIX 5: STRUCTURE & FUNCTION AND SELECTING TYPICAL SPECIES
a General guidelines
The following table indicates factors of structure & function which should be considered
during the assessment of each habitat group and when selecting typical species.
Habitat group
Structures & functions to be considered when assessing
this parameter.
Coastal & halophytic habitats
(1***)
This group includes a wide variety of habitat types, some
of which cover an extremely wide range of inherent
variability (eg 1170 Reefs). As such it is not possible to
give meaningful guidance for the group as a whole. It
should be noted that many of these habitats are related
to their physical environment and that geomorphological
processes such as sediment transport and deposition are
important components of function. More detailed
guidance is given for a small number of habitats in part b.
Coastal dunes (21**, 22**)
Structure
Species composition (plant) (esp of dominant
species, eg
Ammophila arenaria in 2120,
Empetrum nigrum in 2140))
Age/height classes
(Proportion of old trees for forested dunes 2180,
2270)
patch size/distance between patches
completeness of dunal zonation, habitat
heterogeneity.
% open ground
Fragmentation
Dynamics of dune system (varies with dune type, esp
important for e.g. 2110, 2120)
Natural vegetation dynamics
Fire (esp. for Mediterranean dunes) (signs of fire,
frequency of fire) (linked to regeneration of many
species)
Hydrology (especially for 2190 Humid dune slacks
(natural, disturbed).
Species (animal)
small mammals, ground beetles, Hymenoptera and other
psammophytic invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, birds.
Notes
Effects of grazing and eutrophication can be seen via
other parameters (e.g. species composition, dune
dynamics)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species

(eg Rosa rugosa in FI), or species which are not natural
to the habitat (eg rabbits).
Inland dunes (23**)
Structure
Species composition (plant) (esp. of dominant
species)
Age/height classes
patch size/distance between patches
Dynamics (% open ground)
Fragmentation
Fire (signs of fire, frequency of fire) (link to other spp
regeneration).
Species (animal) –small mammals, ground beetles, ,
Hymenoptera and other psammophytic invertebrates
reptiles, amphibians, birds
Notes
Effects of grazing and eutrophication can be seen via
other parameters (e.g. species composition, dune
dynamics)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species not normally found in the habitat.
Lakes (31**)
Structure
species composition (plant) (esp of dominant
species)
% open ground/proportion of small vascular plants – reed
or woody plants (for 3110/3130)
Naturalness of zonation
Water quality (including eutrophication (link to critical
loads)
Hydrology (natural, disturbed) (note for temporary lakes
& associated vegetation).
Species (animal) –small mammals, dragonflies, fish,
reptiles, amphibians, birds , macroinvertebrates/
invertebrates groups with larvae living in the waterbody
and at its margins
(lakes naturally without fish have specific animal
communities).
Notes
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species not normally found in the habitat.
Rivers (32**)
Structure
105

species composition (plant) (esp of dominant
species)
Hydrology (natural, disturbed) (water flow, sediment
erosion/movement/deposition)
(eg can fish migrate, dams)
Hydromorphology (lining, canalisation)
Water quality (including eutrophication (link to critical
loads)
deadwood & other organic input
oxygen regime (especially for lowland, slow flowing
rivers).
Species (animal) – small mammals, dragonflies, fish,
reptiles, amphibians, birds.
Summer grazing in seasonal rivers
Notes
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species not normally found in the habitat.
Heaths & scrub (4***, 51**)
Structure
species composition (plant)
Age/height classes
Proportion of life forms (chamaephyts, shrubs, trees)
Cover of tree layer (maximum %)
soils (natural, worked, ploughed, etc)
patch size/distance between patches
Hydrology (natural, disturbed)
Fragmentation
Fire (signs of fire, frequency of fire) (link to other spp
regeneration)
mowing, turf cutting, etc)
Species (animal) –small mammals, ground beetles
(tenebrionids) ) pollinators (Hymenoptera, Syrphidae
u.a.), xer- and psammophytic insect groups,
Fungi (saprotrophic, mycorhizal)
Birds.
Notes
Effects of grazing and eutrophication can be seen via
other parameters (eg species composition, dune
dynamics)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species
(eg
Rosa rugosa in FI), or species which are not natural
to the habitat (eg rabbits).
106

Matorral, scrub, etc (52**,
53**, 54**)
Structure
species composition (plant) (esp of dominant
species)
Age/height classes
patch size/distance between patches
% open ground
Fragmentation
Hydrology (natural, disturbed)
Fire (signs of fire, frequency of fire) (link to other spp
regeneration).
Species (animal) –small mammals, ground beetles
(tenebrionids), pollinators and indicators of habitat
mosaic (e.g. Hymenoptera, Syrphidae, Lepidoptera),
spiders, reptiles, birds.
Notes
Effects of grazing and eutrophication can be seen via
other parameters (e.g. species composition, dune
dynamics)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species which are not natural to the habitat.
Grasslands (6***)
Structure (often structure is related to one or few spp for
a given habitat –eg
Brachypodium pinnatum for 6210,
Nardus sticta for 6230)
species composition (plant)
soils (natural, worked, ploughed, etc)
patch size/distance between patches
Fragmentation
Fire (signs of fire, frequency of fire) (esp Boreal & Med)
(link to other spp regeneration)
Hydrology (natural, disturbed).
Shrub (often present, at low cover may be considered as
a natural component of the habitat but at high cover is a
sign of habitat degradation)
spp composition
Proportion of grass/herb/clover/shrub.
Species (animal) –small mammals (eg sisliks), ground
beetles (e.g.teneobrionids), pollinators and indicators of
habitat mosaic (e.g. Hymenoptera, Syrphidae,
Lepidoptera),
Fungi (saprotrophic, mycorhizal)
Birds.
Notes
Effects of grazing and eutrophication can be seen via
107

other parameters (eg species composition, dune
dynamics)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species which are not natural to the habitat.
Bogs, mires, etc (7***)
Structure
species composition (plant) (esp of dominant
species)
morphology (hummock, ridge, pool, lawn) peat
body (disturbance) (ice for Palsa mires )
proportion of life forms (bryophyts, herbs, shrubs)
Hydrology (natural, disturbed)
Water quality
Species (animal) – small mammals, butterflies,
amphibians, birds
Notes
Effects of drainage, eutrophication and changes due to
lack of management (cutting, grazing)
can be seen via other parameters (e.g. species
composition,)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species which are not natural to the habitat.
Rocks, etc (8***)
Structure
species composition (plant) (esp of dominant
species) (linked to exposition & substrate)
Species (animal) – small mammals, reptiles, Birds, )
pollinators and indicators of habitat mosaic (e.g.
Hymenoptera, Syrphidae, Lepidoptera)
Dynamics (especially for screes)
pavements, etc (8230, 8240) need to be kept open
(butterflies)
% cover of vegetation
Glaciers & caves, etc need to be treated individually
Notes
Effects of drainage, eutrophication and changes due to
lack of management (cutting, grazing)
can be seen via other parameters (e.g. species
composition,)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species which are not natural to the habitat.
108

Forest (9***)
Structure
Species composition (naturalness of tree species:
presence and proportion)
Canopy (height –esp for Mediterranean)
Shrub
spp composition
Epiphytes & lianes/creepers
Age classes
Dead wood (standing & fallen)
quantity
quality (diversity, etc age, origin, size)
holes in living trees
soils (natural, worked, ploughed, etc)
Fragmentation (patch size/distance between patches)
Fire (signs of fire, frequency of fire) (esp for Boreal &
Mediterranean types) (link to other spp & tree
regeneration).
Other species
Saproxylic groups (e.g. beetles, ants, hoverflies)
pollinators and indicators of habitat mosaic (e.g.
Hymenoptera, Syrphidae, Lepidoptera)
Fungi (saprotrophic, mycorhizal)
Birds
Hydrology (natural, disturbed) (especially for riparian
forests such as 91E0 Alluvial forests with
Alnus glutinosa
and
Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae,
Salicion albae)
or mire woodlands (eg 91D0 Bog
woodland).
Notes
Effects of eutrophication can be seen via other
parameters (e.g. species composition,)
Extreme climatic events (drought, etc) considered as
threat /pressures
Negative indicators may be useful such as alien species or
species which are not natural to the habitat.
b
Structure, function and typical species for a selection of marine habitat
types
1110 Sandbanks which are
slightly covered
by seawater all the time
Structural aspects:
Elevation and topographic contour of the habitat
feature
Species composition animal and vegetal: density
of dominant species, general biodiversity index
Typical species:
Fish: Ammodytes sp., Callionymus spp., Pomatoschistus
109

spp, birds (e.g. seaducks, gannets, puffins) and marine
mammals, invertebrates: polychaetes, bivalves,
crustaceans, Macrophytes: free living Corallinacea,
Zostera spp
Functional aspects:
Spawning and nursery area for fish
Sediment movement
Notes:
Negative interaction resulting from the effects of trawling
on the habitat can be seen from habitat survey results
indicating physical alterations to the seabottom
communities and lower biodiversity index values
1120 Posidonia beds
(Posidonion
oceanicae)
Structural aspects:
Typology of meadow lower limit: progressive
(meadow lower limit distribution is influenced only
by decreasing light levels), sharp, erosive,
regressive.
Conservation index % live Posidonia: dead matter)
Conservation status (defined on the basis of leaf
density according to depth. Note: taking into
account variations known to occur in subregions)
Rhizome growth (orthotropic and plagiotropic)
Typical species: Posidonia oceanica
Functional aspects:
Protection from coastal erosion processes
Source of primary productivity to the benefit of
species living within the habitat as well as distal
from it. Spawning and nursery area for fish
Biodiversity hotspot
Maintenance of water quality and transparency to
the benefit of tourist activities
Source of water oxygenation
Notes:
Negative interaction resulting from the effects of human
activities on the habitat can be seen from habitat survey
results indicating the presence of sharp lower limits or of
meadow lower limit change from progressive to sharp.
Negative effects from illegal trawling can be detected
collecting data on the presence of traces of these gears
on the meadow (i.e. sidescan sonar).
Negative interaction resulting from the effects of
anchoring can be seen from habitat fragmentation and
patchiness, or in extreme cases the presence of sharp
lower limits.
Negative interaction resulting from the presence of
invasive species can be determined by the evaluation on
110

the presence of Caulerpa spp.
Negative interaction resulting from the effects of altered
sedimentary regimes can be determined by the presence
of erosive and regressive lower limits and conspicuous
quantity of dead matter.
1170 Reefs
Structural aspects:
Conservation evaluation based on vitality of the
platforms (percentage of dead organisms),
Erosion / abrasion /damage signs,
Ppatchiness (patch size/distance between
patches)
Density of specimens (stratified at selected
sampling stations).
Typical species:
Dendropoma, vermetid & Lythophyllum rims:
Dendropoma petraeum, Neogoniolithon brassica –
florida, Lithophyllum byssoides, Corallina elongata,
Lithophyllum papillosum, Rissoella verruculosa,
Nemalion helminthoides
Structuring algal infralittoral associations:
Cystoseira amentacea, C. tamariscifolia, C.
brachycarpa, C. crinita, C. crinitophylla, C.
sauvageauana, C. spinosa, C. compressa,
Sargassum vulgare
Coralligenous communities:
Lithophyllum
stictaeforme,
Peyssonnelia rosa – marina,
Mesophyllum lichenoides,
Gorgonians, Briozoans
and sponges
Corals:
Lophelia pertusa, Dendrophyllia spp.,
Madrepora oculata
Mussel beds:
Ostrea edulis, Modiolus modiolus,
Mytilus edulis
Encrusting communities: Sabellaria spinosula.
Functional aspects:
Biodiversity hotspot (often to the benefit of
landscape value and tourism activities).
Notes:
Negative interaction resulting from the effects of
trampling, abrasion from mechanical damage due to
recreative and non recreative activities can be measured
from habitat survey results indicating the presence of
broken thalli, split branches of arborescent forms, broken
shells etc.
Negative interaction resulting from the effects of
temperature variations due to climate change are noticed
by the presence of mucilage over the communities or of
dead vegetal/animal specimens.
111

c
Typical species proposed for habitat ‘3170 Mediterranean temporary