Current status of habitat monitoring in the European Union according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, with an emphasis on habitat structure and functions and on Germany

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 1990s, monitoring of habitats has been a widespread tool to record and assess changes in habitat quality, for example due to land use change. Thus, Article 11 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) requires, inter alia, monitoring of the conservation status of habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, carried out by the Member States of the European Union (EU). This monitoring provides the foundation for the National Reports on the measures implemented and their effectiveness (Art. 17 Habitats Directive), which Member States have to submit to the European Commission every six years. Based on these requirements, Member States have developed different monitoring programmes or have adapted previously existing monitoring schemes to include relevant aspects of the Habitats Directive. The parameter ‘structure and functions’ is a key parameter for the assessment of the conservation status of habitat types as it provides information on the quality of the habitats. A standardised questionnaire was developed and sent to the competent authorities of Member States to compare and analyse the assessment methods of the quality of habitat types. Responses were received from 13 of the 28 Member States, while it was possible to include another Member State in the analysis by evaluating appropriate literature. The analysis revealed very different approaches and progress amongst the Member States in the development and implementation of monitoring programmes tailored to the reporting obligations of Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Some Member States established a special standardised monitoring programme for Article 11 of the Habitats Directive, while others used data from already existing programmes (e.g. habitat mapping, large-scale forest inventories, landscape monitoring). Most Member States responding to the questionnaire use monitoring based on samples but the data collection, sample sizes and level of statistical certainty differ considerably. The same applies to the aggregation of data and the methods for the assessment of the parameter ‘structure and functions’. In contrast to the assessment of conservation status as part of the reporting obligations according to Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, no standardised EU guidelines exist for monitoring. The present study discusses differences in the monitoring programmes and evaluates them with regard to the objectives of comparable assessments of conservation status of habitat types in the National Reports of Member States or at a biogeographical level.

Enough Is Enough? Searching for the Optimal Sample Size to Monitor European Habitats: A Case Study from Coastal Sand Dunes

“…Nevertheless, no robust exhaustive method is available to detect the main characteristics of plant assemblages (presence and abundance) and to monitor habitat health along with habitat changes and conservation status. Probabilistic samplings and representativeness assessment have not yet been used in monitoring schemes of European habitats [3], although some attempts based on species accumulation curves have been made [4]. Monitoring schemes have been established for many different purposes, and three aspects, namely sampling design, sample size and type of statistical analysis, are regarded as generally relevant in determining the scientific quality of the information derived from biodiversity monitoring [5].…”

An analysis of the European Union’s conservation funding allocation by habitat and country

“…We then downloaded the dataset on the conservation status of EU habitats made available online by the European Environment Agency (2018) at https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/ article-17-database-habitats-directive-92-43-eec-1. The data are part of the mandatory monitoring and reporting required by Articles 11 and 17 of the Habitats Directive (Ellwanger et al 2018). The Directive requires member states to report every 6 years on the progress made in its implementation (Ellwanger et al 2018), mainly regarding the conservation status of the habitats and species of community interest, listed in the Annexes (Council of the European Commission 1992).…”

“…The data are part of the mandatory monitoring and reporting required by Articles 11 and 17 of the Habitats Directive (Ellwanger et al 2018). The Directive requires member states to report every 6 years on the progress made in its implementation (Ellwanger et al 2018), mainly regarding the conservation status of the habitats and species of community interest, listed in the Annexes (Council of the European Commission 1992). Among other information, the following details are reported and were downloaded for each habitat: biogeographical region; geographical range (km 2 ); and conservation status at the member state and EU levels.…”

“…A key element of the Directive is the mandate for designating a pan-European network of protected areas, called Natura 2000 sites (Council of the European Commission 1992). Within these sites, EU member states are expected to implement actions aimed at improving the conservation status of EU habitats and species (Ellwanger et al 2018). Particular attention is given to habitats and species of 'community interest' listed in the Annexes of the Directive (Council of the European Commission 1992, Ellwanger et al 2018).…”

Assessing the conservation status of coastal habitats under Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive

“…However, it is clear that the situation of habitats conserved by the Directives would be significantly worse in its absence and that the conservation status of habitats improves when targeted actions on a sufficient scale are taken (European Commission, 2016;Tucker et al 2019). Further research on monitoring and assessment of the conservation status of habitats is necessary to improve monitoring protocols and clarify the definitions of reference states and conservation status parameters (Angelini et al, 2018;Ellwanger et al, 2018). The Commission will present in 2021 a proposal to set legally binding nature conservation targets for the EU with a view to restoring degraded ecosystems, in particular, it will ask the 3 A literature review was conducted to classify these 225 references retrieved during the search, and to extract the relevant information for testing our hypotheses.…”