RIVM report: 717101001
Biodiversity Trends & Threats:
in Europe
development and
ave
riym
—
a
Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency
4
(~~,
(an.
(oo)
——_—"
UNEP WCMC
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
http:/www.archive.org/details/biodiversitytrenO5heer
riym CO
UNEP WCMC
RIVM Report 717101001
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
development and test of a species trend indicator
M. de Heer, V. Kapos and B.J.E. ten Brink
March 2005
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre - Cambridge, UK
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (RIVM-MNP) - Bilthoven, NL
_|
The body text of this report is also published as a peer-reviewed scientific paper in the
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (De Heer et al. 2005).
The Royal Society has granted permission to reprint the text in this report (some minor
modifications are made).
For more information, please contact:
Mireille de Heer, project coordinator (mireille.de.heer@rivm.nl), or
UNEP WCMC information desk (information@unep-wcmc.org)
This project was sponsored by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA; project nr. CRO296), the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and
Landscape (SAEFL) and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (RIVM MNP).
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC,
sponsors, contributory organizations, editor(s) or publisher(s).
Fay
a e
Swiss Agency for r ]
the Environment,
Se ra Forests and National Institute
Landscape SAEFL _ for Public Health and
Department for Environment the Environment
Food and Rural Affairs
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Preface
At the global level, Heads of State and Government have agreed to significantly reduce the
rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Within Europe, they have decided on an even more
ambitious target of halting biodiversity loss in the same period. These 2010 targets will
require strong will and focussed action across a wide range of human activities and resulting
pressures on biodiversity to ensure that they are reached successfully. They will also require
better quality data and information to help achieve and to monitor progress.
Indicators are increasingly recognised as one of the most important forms of information for
tracking progress and showing where action is required. They need to be scientifically sound
with a clear and simple message that can be readily appreciated by experts, lay-people,
politicians and decision-makers alike.
Significant progress has been made during 2004 in agreeing the first sets of indicators to
assess progress to the 2010 targets; firstly within the Convention on Biological Diversity for
the global target then, on the basis of the Convention set, at the pan-European and European
Union level. Each set recognises the need for an indicator on the trends in the abundance
and distribution of selected species.
This report provides a major contribution to the development of such an indicator by
reviewing available data within Europe and showing how these data can be aggregated to
produce an index (or composite indicator) for a range of species for which good data are
already available. The report clearly sets out requirements for the indicator, the methodology
for producing it and the data available. It then provides a step-by-step example of how data
can be aggregated to produce the composite indicator and hence how the indicator can be
decomposed into its constituent parts. Those interested in the overall picture can appreciate
and respond to the composite indicator whereas those concerned with action on specific
threats affecting individual species in different regions can make use of the relevant
constituent parts.
As summarised in the report, further work is required to improve monitoring, the
involvement of the many non-governmental organisations active in this field and data
handling procedures and hence improve the quality of this key indicator. The pilot study
presented in this report will provide a very useful contribution to the upcoming process on
the implementation of the 2010 indicators at the European, EU and national levels. It can
also provide the basis to start monitoring trends and for taking action to meet the targets.
There is not a moment to lose! We can improve the indicator as we proceed but if we lose
biodiversity we lose it for a long time, if not forever.
Gordon McInnes
Deputy Director
European Environment Agency
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Contents
Summary 7
1. Introduction 9
2. Methods 11
2.1 Geographical scope and classification of the study area 11
2.2 Locating, mobilising and compiling data 12
2.3 Calculation and aggregation 15
3. Results 17
3.1 Evaluation of the available data 17
3.2 A first trial of the indicator 18
4. Discussion and recommendations 23
4.1 Data mobilisation 23
4.2 Habitats and biogeographical regions 23
4.3 Composition and aggregation 24
4.4 Reliability and sensitivity 25
4.5 Relation between the indicator and biodiversity loss 25
4.6 Potential for use at the national scale 26
4.7 Thematic indicators 26
4.8 Towards a European biodiversity monitoring framework 27
Acknowledgements 29
References 31
Appendix 1 EUNIS habitat types 35
Appendix 2 Species-oriented NGOs 38
Appendix 3 Remap tables land cover - ecosystems 40
Appendix 4 Calculation and aggregation example 43
Appendix 5 Species sets 44
Appendix 6 Distribution of time series 52
Appendix 7 Evaluation of species sets 54
Appendix 8 Details on the UK index 65
Appendix 9 Causes of change 67
Appendix 10 Recommended actions 69
Appendix 11 Potential for European Biodiversity Monitoring 71
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Summary
This report presents a trial of a species population trend indicator for evaluating progress
towards the 2010 biodiversity target in Europe, using existing data. The indicator integrates
trends on different species (groups), and can be aggregated across habitats and countries.
Thus, the indicator can deliver both headline messages for high-level decision making and
detailed information for in-depth analysis, using data from different sources, collected with
different methods.
International NGOs mobilised data on over 2800 historical trends in national populations of
birds, butterflies and mammals, for a total of 273 species. These were combined by habitat
and biogeographical region to generate a pilot Pan-European scale indicator. The trial
indicator suggests a decline of species populations in nearly all habitats, the largest being in
farmland, where species populations declined by an average of 23% between 1970 and 2000.
The indicator is potentially useful for monitoring progress towards 2010 biodiversity targets,
but constraints include: the limited sensitivity of the historical data, which leads to
conservative estimates of species decline; a potential danger of ambiguity because increases
in opportunistic species can mask the loss of other species; and failure to account for pre-
1970 population declines. We recommend mobilising additional existing data, particularly
for plants and fish, and elaborating further the criteria for compiling representative sets of
species. For a frequent, reliable update of the indicator, sound, sensitive and harmonised
biodiversity monitoring programmes are needed in all countries across Pan-Europe.
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
I. Introduction
In response to global concern over the rapid loss of the world’s biodiversity, the 6"
Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a global
target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 (CBD 2002). This target, which was later
endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (United Nations 2002), has also
been adopted by a number of regional scale policies and processes. The European Union
Sustainable Development Strategy (2001a) and various other European Union policies (EC
1998, 2001b, c) set similar or even more ambitious biodiversity goals. The Pan-European
Ministerial ‘Environment for Europe’ process adopted a resolution on halting the loss of
biodiversity by 2010 (UN/ECE 2003).
This widespread adoption of targets for reducing the rate of biodiversity loss has highlighted
a need for indicators that will allow policy makers to track progress towards these ambitious
goals. Recognising this need, the CoP of the CBD identified a series of biodiversity indicators
for immediate testing (UNEP 2004). Such indicators are needed at national, regional and
global levels. In June 2004 the Environment Council of the EU adopted a set of 15 headline
indicators for biodiversity to evaluate progress towards the 2010 target (Council of the
European Union 2004). This set was recommended by the EU Biodiversity Expert Group and
its Ad Hoc Working Group on Indicators, Monitoring and Assessment, and the Malahide
stakeholder conference (Anonymous 2004).
Both the CBD decision and the European documents recommend, among other indicators for
immediate testing, indicators of trends in abundance and distribution of selected species.
Species trend indicators are considered a sensitive measure of biodiversity change (Balmford
et al. 2003; Ten Brink et al. 1991; Ten Brink 2000), and one such approach, composite species
trend indicators, has been increasingly widely applied. In addition to the global-scale Living
Planet Index (Loh 2002; Loh et al. 2005) there are several instances of the successful
implementation of such indicators, principally at national scales (Jenkins et al. 2004). The UK
Headline indicator of wild bird populations (Gregory 2003a) is one example. The European
Bird Census Council (EBCC) has used a similar approach to develop the Pan-European
Common Bird Index for farmland and woodland birds (Gregory 2003b; Gregory et al. 2005).
To address the need for regional scale biodiversity indicators in (Pan-) Europe, this study set
out to identify suitable data and build upon existing methods to develop an appropriate
indicator of trends in species abundance and distribution for use at the Pan-European scale
(the whole of Europe west of the Ural mountains and including the Anatolian part of Turkey;
i.e. the European Union plus 18 other European countries). The target audience for the
indicator is policy makers on the Pan-European and national levels, who will use the indicator
to support high-level decision-making on the environment and biodiversity-related sectoral
activities. The indicator should also be suitable for informing the general public on
biodiversity trends. It should match the set of requirements as listed in the CBD general
guidelines and principles for developing national-level biodiversity monitoring programmes
and indicators (UNEP 2003a). These principles require that an indicator be, among other
characteristics: policy and biodiversity relevant; scientifically sound; broadly accepted;
affordable to produce and update; sensitive; representative; flexible and amenable to
aggregation.
i ce
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe 9
In this paper, we present a proposed method for calculating such a composite indicator to
evaluate progress towards the 2010 target for terrestrial biodiversity in Europe, an evaluation
of the existing data available for the purpose and our experience of mobilising them, and the
results of a trial application of the proposed method to some of the available data. We also
offer recommendations as to how the data and the methodology can be improved based
upon this pilot experience.
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
2. Methods
The challenges in developing an indicator on the trends in abundance and distribution of
selected species lie in finding appropriate data, and in identifying how best to select the
component trends and how to combine them in a way that is representative of the system
and trends of interest. These require choices on the classification of the study area, selection
of the species, and the procedure for calculation and aggregation.
2.1 Geographical scope and classification
of the study area
This study focused on the whole of Europe west of the Urals, including the Anatolian part of
Turkey. The area was categorised (Table 1) by combining the 11 Pan-European
biogeographical regions (Figure 1; Roekaerts 2002) with the 10 top-level habitat types from
the EUNIS habitat classification adopted by the European Environment Agency (Appendix 1;
Davies and Moss 2002). The EUNIS classes ‘Grassland and tall forb habitats’ and ‘Regularly or
recently cultivated agricultural, horticultural and domestic habitats’ have been merged into a
single class, called ‘Farmland’. By combining the biogeographical regions and the major
habitat types we aimed to cover the main variation in Europe’s biodiversity. We have termed
the combination of a habitat type and a biogeographical region an ecoregion.
Table 1. The approximate areas (in thousands of km?) of the Pan-European ecoregions defined for this study by combining
biogeographical regions with EUNIS habitat types. Those ecoregions selected for the pilot study are in red. Note that the EUNIS
classes ‘grasslands’ and ‘cultivated habitats’ have been merged into a new category: ‘farmland’. The approximate area of each
ecoregion was calculated from GIS overlays of biogeographical regions (Roekarts 2002) with habitat maps derived from the CORINE
land cover map (ETC/TE 2000) and the Global Landcover 2000 map (Batholome 2002). Parts of Russia, Ukraine and Turkey were not
included in these statistics.
Biogeographical region Alpine Anato- Arctic Atlan- Black Boreal Conti- Macaro- Mediter- Panno- Steppic Total
lian tic Sea nental nesian ranean nian
EUNIS Habitat type
Marine habitats ? ? ? 2 ? iy ? q} 2 ? ? ?
Coastal habitats <1 ? <1 2 <1 <1 1 <1 2 <1 <1 6
Inland surface
water habitats 15 ? 3 8 <1 61 17 <1 6 2 3 116
Mire, bog and
fen habitats 26 ? 6 18 1 23 4 <1 2 1 2 83
Heathland, scrub and
tundra habitats 21 ? 13 53 50% increase). In these cases the index was assigned
respectively as the middle of the class (e.g. 40% decline) or the specified boundary value
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
(e.g. 50%). The value 1 was added to all indices to avoid calculation problems generated by
zero values when taking logarithms.
The NGOs also supplied an indication of the data quality for each of the time series according
to a standard set of categories developed for this project and provided autecological
information for each of the species.
Ideally the data on species trends would be collected at the level of ecoregions within
countries, but nearly all the data provided by the NGOs were available only at the level of
countries (Table 3). Therefore, for each ecoregional index we included the national trends of
those species using
the focal habitat within the biogeographical region (the ecoregion) as their primary habitat.
This approach is similar to that used for the European indicators of farmland and woodland
birds (Gregory et al. 2003b, 2005). For breeding birds the link between species and ecosystems
was made through the use of existing databases on the habitat preferences of the species, in
combination with expert judgement from the international NGO (Burfield et al. 2004). For
butterflies the link between species and habitats was made through the judgement of
national experts and the international NGO (Van Swaay, 2004). For those bird and butterfly
species considered to be specific for a certain habitat, but occurring in more than one
biogeographical region in a country, the same national trend was assigned to all
biogeographical regions. For mammals the link between the species and the habitats was
based on the information provided by the NGOs (LCIE 2004; Van de Vlasakker Eisenga 2004)
and additional expert judgement. The mammal species were assigned to the habitats and
biogeographical regions where the majority of the populations occur.
2.3 Calculation and aggregation
For each ecoregion, species population trend data are incorporated for each country. The
combination of an ecoregion and a country is termed a building block and is the lowest level
for the data of this indicator. For each of the building blocks the indicator is calculated as the
geometric mean of the trends (indices) of the selected species. Species from all species groups
are taken together; every species has equal weight. The results can then be aggregated on an
area-weighted basis. Thus, for a given ecoregion, the index is the average of each of the
building block indices in the ecoregion, weighted by the area of the building block. For
example:
Atlantic Forest (AF) Ecoregion Index =
¥ [(AF index Ireland)(area AF in Ireland)] + [(AF index UK)(area AF in UK)] +...
Total area of AF
The resulting ecoregional indices can then be similarly aggregated towards the habitats.
Thus, a European Forest species trend indicator would be obtained by averaging all of the
forest ecoregion indices on an area-weighted basis.
The data on area of the building blocks were obtained from GIS overlays of countries with
biogeographical regions (Roekaerts 2002; downloaded from EEA website) and habitats.
al oe
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe 15
Habitat maps were derived from the CORINE land cover map (ETC/TE 2000; coverage: EU25,
with the exception of Sweden, Cyprus, Malta and Bulgaria, Romania) or from the Global Land
Cover 2000 map (Bartholome 2002) for those countries not included in the CORINE
assessment (see Appendix 3 for remap tables).
Finally, the results can be aggregated towards an index for Europe as a whole, by
aggregating across the habitats. All habitats are given equal weight, by applying a non-
weighted averaging of the values per habitat. The results can also be aggregated by
individual countries or clusters of countries. Appendix 4 presents an example of the
calculation and aggregation procedure.
16
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
3. Results
3.1 Evaluation of the available data
In total the NGOs mobilised data on 2810 time series for 273 unique species, which are
mostly birds and butterflies, but also include some large mammals (Table 4). The number of
species per ecoregion ranged from 6 in Atlantic mires, bogs and fens to 38 for Mediterranean
farmlands (Table 5, see Appendix 5 for species lists), with an average of 22 species per eco-
region. The data come from 43 countries, with an average of around 5 ecoregions per
country (Appendix 6).
Table 4. The total number of unique species and the total number of time series obtained
Species group Number of species Number of time series
butterflies 119 1359
birds 142 1389
mammals 12 62
total 273 2810
Generally the data are well distributed across the habitats, biogeographical regions and
countries. Countries with a large area of a given ecoregion usually have a fairly large number
of time series for that ecoregion. There are more than 50 time series available for most
habitats, with the exception of the EUNIS class “Mires, bogs & fens’ for which only 8 time
series are available. Over 900 time series were available for farmland. Over 100 time series
were available for all but three biogeographical regions, the Steppic, Arctic and Pannonian.
Only very few data could be obtained for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) and some of the very small countries.
The autecological information provided by the NGOs showed that the species set, both as a
whole and for most ecoregions, includes representatives of most guilds (herbivores,
carnivores, piscivores, insectivores, omnivores), species with a wide range of dispersal
distances and area requirements, and migratory as well as sedentary species (Appendix 7).
Both rare and common species, and both threatened and non-threatened species were
included in the data for all countries, and some endemic species were included for all
ecoregions. The NGOs’ assessments of the causes of change indicate that the dataset includes
species with different sensitivities to all major human pressures as well as species that seem
not to be very sensitive to human activities.
The categorisation of data quality provided by the NGOs (Table 6) shows that the majority
were based on limited quantitative data with some corrections and interpretation by experts.
Especially for butterflies, these include measures of change in distribution, which are often
relatively conservative measures of overall change. A minority of the time series were based
on complete quantitative data.
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
17
Table 5. The number of (unique) species incorporated into the pilot indicator per ecoregion.
Only those habitat types and biogeographical regions addressed in the pilot indicator are included.
Biogeographical region Alpine Arctic Atlantic Black Boreal Conti- Macaro- Mediter- Panno- Steppic
Sea nental nesian ranean nian
Coastal habitats 27 16
Inland surface water habitats 20 21
Mire, bog and fen habitats 6
Heathland, scrub and tundra habitats 12 17 17
Woodland and forest habitat and
other wooded land 31 23 36 35 23
Inland unvegetated or sparsely
vegetated habitats 15 3
Farmland 27 36 14 37 38 20 5
or ———————————
Table 6. The quality of the data included in the pilot indicator, shown as the number of time series belonging to each data quality
category for each taxonomic group.
Frequency
Cate- Description Birds Butterflies Mammals: Mammals: Overall
gory carnivores herbivores
a Complete quantitative data 163 25 if 11
b Limited quantitative data, some corrections and interpretations applied 810 207 1 13 1018
c Limited quantitative data, no corrections and interpretations applied 11 504 9 513
d Extensive expert judgement 412 1 6 3} 422
e Limited expert judgement 36 9 45
f Red Data Book for Butterflies (no quality indication obtained) 586 586
g Unknown 4 9 By) 20
Total number of time series 1389 1359 34 28 2810
3.2 A first trial of the indicator
The data described above were the basis for the first trial of the indicator. From the total of
2810 time series, we excluded the 513 time series with class c quality (Limited quantitative
data, no corrections and interpretations applied). These were mainly butterfly data, derived
from repeated atlases but without corrections for changes in recording intensity, and
therefore potentially misleading. Most of the remaining 2297 time series showed either stable
or decreasing populations within a building block (Figure 2), while a minority (19%)
represented increasing populations. About 1% of the time series showed local extinction of
the species within a building block.
A further 60 time series were excluded because they related to building blocks of unknown
area (small and fragmented habitats not detected by the land cover maps). Last, European
Russia (72 time series) was excluded, to avoid the indicator being dominated by one single
country. Thus, 2165 time series were used for this first analysis.
When calculated for each major habitat type at Pan-European scale, the indicator shows that
populations declined in nearly all habitats between 1970 and 2000. Farmland showed the
largest decrease in population index, 23%; all of the natural habitats had much smaller
calculated changes (Figure 3). The population index for natural habitats collectively showed a
decline of only 2%, which contrasts strongly with the index for farmland (Figure 4).
18 Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Direction of change in time series
increase
extinct
1%
19% 15km: 41% unknown: 41%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 33% 100-500ha: 4% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000ha: 63% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 52% migratory: 22% variable: 26% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 0%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 33%
Ecoregion: mediterranean coastal habitats
total number of species included 16
European endemic species 44%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 50% butterflies: 50% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 50% carnivores: 6% omnivores: 0% piscivores: 38% insectivores: 13%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15 km: 0% >15km: 44% unknown: 56%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 6% 100-500ha: 13% 500-2000ha: 6% >2000ha: 63% unknown: 13%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 19% migratory: 31% variable: 50% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 6%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 31%
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Ecoregion: atlantic freshwater
total number of species included 20
European endemic species 0%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 100% butterflies: 0% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 10% carnivores: 0% omnivores: 25% piscivores: 30% insectivores: 35%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15 km: 10% >15km: 25% unknown: 65%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 0% 100-500ha: 0% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000ha: 100% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 5% migratory: 30% variable: 65% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 0%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 30%
Ecoregion: continental freshwater
total number of species included 21
European endemic species 0%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 100% butterflies: © 0% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 14% carnivores: 0% omnivores: 24% piscivores: 29% insectivores: 33%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15 km: 10% >15km: 24% unknown: 67%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 0% 100-500ha: 0% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000ha: 100% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 5% migratory: 38% variable: 57% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 0%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 33%
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
nT
Ecoregion: atlantic mires, bogs & fens
total number of species included 21
European endemic species 0%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 17% butterflies: 83% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 100% carnivores: 0% omnivores: 0% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 0%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15km: 17% >15km: 17% unknown: 67%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 67% 100-500ha: 17% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000 ha: 17% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 83% migratory: 17% variable: 0% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 17%
European Red Data Book butterflies 17%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 17%
Ecoregion: arctic heathland, scrub & tundra
total number of species included 12
European endemic species 8%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 100% butterflies: 0% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 33% carnivores: 17% omnivores: 0% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 50%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15 km: 0% >15km: 8% unknown: 92%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 0% 100-500ha: 0% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000ha: 100% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 8% migratory: 75% variable: 17% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% — salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 0%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 8%
nnn
56 Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Ecoregion:
total number of species included
European endemic species
ecological characteristics
species group
trophic level
guild
dispersal distance
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour
structure (plants)
abiotic preferences (plants)
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened)
European Red Data Book butterflies
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies
Ecoregion:
total number of species included
European endemic species
ecological characteristics
species group
trophic level
guild
dispersal distance
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour
structure (plants)
abiotic preferences (plants)
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened)
European Red Data Book butterflies
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies
atlantic heathland, scrub & tundra
17
12%
birds: 59%
producers: 0%
herbivores: 53%
0-3 km: 18%
0-100 ha: 41%
sedentary: 53%
woody: 0%
moist: 0%
acid: 0%
Nutrient rich: 0%
fresh: 0%
6%
6%
35%
butterflies: 41%
consumers: 100%
carnivores: 18%
3-15 km: 6%
100-500 ha: ~=0%
migratory: 12%
herbaceous: 0%
dry: 0%
basic: 0%
nutrient poor: 0%
salt: 0%
mediterranean heathland and scrub
7
35%
birds: 47%
producers: 0%
herbivores: 53%
0-3 km: 6%
0-100 ha: 47%
sedentary: 53%
woody: 0%
moist: 0%
acid: 0%
nutrient rich: 0%
fresh: 0%
6%
18%
41%
butterflies: 53%
consumers: 100%
carnivores: 6%
3-15 km: 0%
100-500 ha: 0%
migratory: 12%
herbaceous: 0%
dry: 0%
basic: 0%
nutrient poor: 0%
salt: 0%
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
mammals:
reducers:
omnivores:
>15km:
500-2000 ha:
variable:
aquatic:
intermediate:
intermediate:
brackish:
mammals:
reducers:
omnivores:
>15km:
500-2000 ha:
variable:
aquatic:
intermediate:
intermediate:
brackish:
0%
0%
6%
18%
0%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
plants:
piscivores:
>2000 ha:
intermediate:
plants:
piscivores:
>2000 ha:
intermediate:
0%
0%
59%
0%
0%
0%
471%
0%
insectivores: 29%
unknown: 59%
unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
insectivores: 35%
unknown: 94%
unknown: 6%
unknown: 0%
Enya
alpine woodland & forest
Ecoregion:
total number of species included 31
European endemic species 6%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 52% butterflies: 26% mammals: 23% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 42% carnivores: 13% omnivores: 13% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 35%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 6% 3-15km: 13% >15km: 26% unknown: 55%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 23% 100-500ha: 3% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000 ha: 74% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 55% migratory: 13% variable: 32% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 19%
European Red Data Book butterflies 13%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 13%
Ecoregion: atlantic woodland & forest
total number of species included 23
European endemic species 9%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 48% butterflies: 48% mammals: 4% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 57% carnivores: 0% omnivores: 9% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 35%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 26% 3-15 km: 17% >15km: 17% unknown: 39%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 35% 100-500ha: 4% 500-2000ha: 4% >2000 ha: 57% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 61% migratory: 13% variable: 26% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 0%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 4%
58 Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Ecoregion:
boreal woodland & forest
total number of species included 36
European endemic species 3%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 56% butterflies: 28% mammals: 17% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 42% carnivores: 8% omnivores: 17% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 36%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 6% 3-15 km: 11% >15km: 22% unknown: 61%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 19% 100-500ha: 3% 500-2000ha: 3% >2000 ha: 75% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 56% migratory: 17% variable: 28% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
Nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 11%
European Red Data Book butterflies 8%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 17%
Ecoregion: continental woodland & forest
total number of species included 35
European endemic species 14%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 51% butterflies: 37% mammals: 11% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 49% carnivores: 0% omnivores: 9% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 43%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 17% 3-15 km: 9% >15km: 17% unknown: 57%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 29% 100-500ha: 9% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000 ha: 63% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 60% migratory: 17% variable: 23% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
Nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 11%
European Red Data Book butterflies 11%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 14%
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
59
i
Ecoregion: mediterranean woodland & forest
total number of species included 23
European endemic species 30%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 52% butterflies: 39% mammals: 9% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 39% carnivores: 13% omnivores: 17% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 30%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15 km: 9% >15km: 22% unknown: 70%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 30% 100-500ha: 4% 500-2000ha: 4% >2000 ha: 61% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 61% migratory: 17% variable: 22% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 9%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 17%
eEeaeaeaeEeEeEeaeEeEeEeEeEeeanannnqunaeoaoaeaaeeaeeeeeeEeEeEEEeEeE Eee
Ecoregion: alpine unvegetated area
total number of species included 15
European endemic species 40%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 40% butterflies: 47% mammals: 13% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 67% carnivores: 7% omnivores: 7% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 20%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15 km: 20% >15km: 0% unknown: 80%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 40% 100-500ha: 0% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000 ha: 53% unknown: T%
migratory behaviour sedentary; 80% migratory: 0% variable: 20% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 20%
European Red Data Book butterflies 20%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 27%
60 Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
SEE
Ecoregion:
total number of species included
European endemic species
ecological characteristics
species group
trophic level
guild
dispersal distance
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour
structure (plants)
abiotic preferences (plants)
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened)
European Red Data Book butterflies
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies
Ecoregion:
total number of species included
European endemic species
ecological characteristics
species group
trophic level
guild
dispersal distance
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour
structure (plants)
abiotic preferences (plants)
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened)
European Red Data Book butterflies
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies
arctic unvegetated areas
3
0%
birds: 100%
producers: 0%
herbivores: 0%
0-3 km: 0%
0-100 ha: 0%
sedentary: 0%
woody: 0%
moist: 0%
acid: 0%
nutrient rich: 0%
fresh: 0%
0%
0%
67%
alpine farmland
27
15%
birds: 26%
producers: 0%
herbivores: 78%
0-3 km: 7%
0-100 ha: 44%
sedentary: 56%
woody: 0%
moist: 0%
acid: 0%
nutrient rich: 0%
fresh: 0%
11%
11%
19%
butterflies: 0%
100%
carnivores: 33%
consumers:
3-15 km: 0%
100-500 ha: ~=0%
migratory: 0%
herbaceous: 0%
dry: 0%
basic: 0%
nutrient poor: 0%
salt: 0%
butterflies: 74%
consumers: 100%
carnivores: 4%
3-15 km: 15%
100-500 ha: 911%
migratory: 11%
herbaceous: 0%
dry: 0%
basic: 0%
nutrient poor: 0%
salt: 0%
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
mammals:
reducers:
omnivores:
>15km:
500-2000 ha:
variable:
aquatic:
intermediate:
intermediate:
brackish:
mammals:
reducers:
omnivores:
>15km:
500-2000 ha:
variable:
aquatic:
intermediate:
intermediate:
brackish:
0%
0%
33%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
30%
7%
33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
plants: 0%
piscivores: 33%
insectivores: 33%
unknown: 100%
>2000 ha: 100% unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
intermediate: 0%
plants: 0%
piscivores: 0% insectivores: 11%
unknown: 48%
>2000 ha: 37% unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
intermediate: 0%
61
EEE
Ecoregion:
total number of species included
European endemic species
ecological characteristics
species group
trophic level
guild
dispersal distance
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour
structure (plants)
abiotic preferences (plants)
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened)
European Red Data Book butterflies
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies
Ecoregion:
atlantic farmland
35
3%
birds: 49%
producers: 0%
herbivores: 57%
0-3 km: 11%
0-100 ha: 29%
sedentary: 46%
woody: 0%
moist: 0%
acid: 0%
nutrient rich: 0%
fresh: 0%
3%
3%
26%
butterflies: 51%
100%
carnivores: 3%
consumers:
3-15 km: 31%
100-500 ha: = 9%
migratory: 20%
herbaceous: 0%
dry: 0%
basic: 0%
nutrient poor: 0%
salt: 0%
continental farmland
mammals: 0%
reducers: 0%
omnivores: 23%
>15km: 29%
500-2000 ha: 3%
variable: 34%
aquatic: 0%
intermediate: 0%
intermediate: 0%
brackish: 0%
plants:
piscivores:
>2000 ha:
intermediate:
total number of species included
European endemic species
ecological characteristics
species group
trophic level
guild
dispersal distance
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour
structure (plants)
abiotic preferences (plants)
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened)
European Red Data Book butterflies
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies
37
0%
birds: 43%
producers: 0%
herbivores: 59%
0-3 km: 22%
0-100 ha: 35%
sedentary: 43%
woody: 0%
moist: 0%
acid: 0%
nutrient rich: 0%
fresh: 0%
14%
11%
32%
butterflies: 57%
consumers: 100%
carnivores: 5%
3-15 km: 24%
100-500 ha: 911%
migratory: 22%
herbaceous: 0%
dry: 0%
basic: 0%
nutrient poor: 0%
salt: 0%
62 Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
mammals: 0%
reducers: 0%
omnivores: 19%
>15km: 22%
500-2000 ha: 5%
variable: 35%
aquatic: 0%
intermediate: 0%
intermediate: 0%
brackish: 0%
plants:
piscivores:
>2000 ha:
intermediate:
0%
0%
60%
0%
0%
0%
49%
0%
insectivores: 17%
unknown: 29%
unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
insectivores: 19%
unknown: 32%
unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
Ecoregion: pannonian farmland
total number of species included 20
European endemic species 0%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 60% butterflies: 40% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 45% carnivores: 10% omnivores: 30% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 15%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 5% 3-15 km: 25% >15km: 40% unknown: 30%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 0% 100-500ha: 20% 500-2000ha: 10% >2000 ha: 70% unknown: 0%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 15% migratory: 25% variable: 60% unknown: 0%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 5%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 30%
Ecoregion: steppic farmland
total number of species included 5
European endemic species 0%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 100% butterflies: 0% mammals: 0% plants: 0%
trophic level producers: 0% consumers: 100% reducers: 0%
guild herbivores: 0% carnivores: 0% omnivores: 60% piscivores: 0% insectivores: 40%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 0% 3-15km: 0% >15km: 0% unknown: 100%
0-100 ha: 0% 100-500ha: 0% 500-2000ha: 0% >2000ha: 100% unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
minimum viable population area
migratory behaviour sedentary: 0% migratory: 20% variable: 80%
structure (plants) woody: 0% herbaceous: 0%
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0% dry: 0% aquatic: 0% intermediate: 0%
acid: 0% basic: 0% intermediate: 0%
nutrient rich: 0% nutrient poor: 0% intermediate: 0%
fresh: 0% salt: 0% brackish: 0%
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 20%
European Red Data Book butterflies 0%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 80%
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
nnn eee eer nen nny yp
Ecoregion: mediterranean farmland
total number of species included 38
European endemic species 3%
ecological characteristics
species group birds: 47%
trophic level producers: 0%
guild herbivores: 61%
dispersal distance 0-3 km: 8%
minimum viable population area 0-100 ha: 34%
migratory behaviour sedentary: 47%
structure (plants) woody: 0
abiotic preferences (plants) moist: 0
acid: 0
nutrient rich: 0
fresh: 0
vulnerability
IUCN Red List (threatened) 13%
European Red Data Book butterflies 8%
SPEC status 1-3 birds, butterflies 39%
butterflies: 53%
consumers: 100%
carnivores: 8%
3-15 km: 13%
100-500 ha: = 8%
migratory: 21%
herbaceous: 0
dry: 0
basic: 0
Nutrient poor: 0
salt: 0
64 Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
mammals:
reducers:
omnivores:
>15km:
500-2000 ha:
variable:
aquatic:
intermediate:
intermediate:
brackish:
0%
0%
18%
18%
0%
32%
— a)
plants: 0%
piscivores: 0
>2000 ha: 58%
intermediate: 0
insectivores: 16%
unknown: 6%
unknown: 0%
unknown: 0%
Appendix 8 Details on the UK index
For all relevant UK habitats species are listed for which time series were obtained and which
were used in the indicator. Datasources are:
birds: BirdLife International/European Bird Census Council (2000) and BirdLife
International (2004); explanation and species habitat associations in Burfield et
al. (2004)
butterflies: Greatorex-Davies & Roy (2002), explanation and species habitat associations in
Van Swaay (2004)
Behind the species names data quality codes are given (see Table 6 for explanation of codes).
Coastal habitats
Atlantic region
Woodland and forest
habitats and other wooded
land
Inland surface water
habitats
Atlantic region
birds: Atlantic region
Alca torda a birds:
Cepphus grylle b birds: Anas crecca
Fratercula arctica a Certhia familiaris b Anas strepera
Fulmarus glacialis b Dendrocopos minor b- Fulica atra
Morus bassanus a Parus cristatus b_ Gallinula chloropus
Phalacrocorax aristotelis a Parus palustris b__Podiceps cristatus
Rissa tridactyla a Pernis apivorus b- _Botaurus stellaris
Somateria mollissima b- Phoenicurus phoenicurus b Acrocephalus scirpaceus
Sterna albifrons a Phylloscopus sibilatrix a Alcedo atthis
Sterna dougallii a Regulus ignicapillus a Aythya ferina
Sterna paradisaea a Sitta europaea b- Aythya fuligula
Sterna sandvicensis a _Tetrao urogallus b- Cinclus cinclus
Uria aalge a Mergus merganser
butterflies: Motacilla cinerea
butterflies: Argynnis paphia a Pandion haliaetus
Hipparchia semele a___ Boloria euphrosyne a Podiceps nigricollis
Gonepteryx rhamni a Tachybaptus ruficollis
Limenitis camilla a Tringa hypoleucos
Pararge aegeria a
Polygonia calbum a
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
ler ter J) {8p ter (er ter ten SY (er ter i) [) I ter ter fer
65
66
Heathland, scrub and
tundra habitats
Atlantic region
birds:
Caprimulgus europaeus
Carduelis flavirostris
Circus cyaneus
Eudromias morinellus
Falco columbarius
Lagopus lagopus
Sylvia undata
Tetrao tetrix
Turdus torquatus
butterflies:
Callophrys rubi
Coenonympha pamphilus
oa op OOP CO A Pp
Mire, bog and fen habitats
Atlantic region
birds:
Anas penelope b
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Farmland
Atlantic region
birds:
Alauda arvensis
Alectoris rufa
Athene noctua
Coturnix coturnix
Crex crex
Emberiza citrinella
Gallinago gallinago
Miliaria calandra
Motacilla flava
Passer montanus
Perdix perdix
Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax
Saxicola rubetra
Vanellus vanellus
butterflies:
Aglais urticae
Celastrina argiolus
Inachis io
Pieris brassicae
Pieris rapae
Polygonia calbum
Vanessa atalanta
Anthocharis cardamines
Boloria selene
Erynnis tages
Lasiommata megera
Maniola jurtina
Melanargia galathea
Polyommatus icarus
ey iq i ter ter ter ter ter fer [) le toy (er top
op pw PpPpepPpPAD HHP YM PH
Appendix 9 Causes of change
Method and data
The NGOs listed the major causes of decline for each of the species in the trend database. For
butterflies the causes of change were given per species per ecoregion. For birds and
mammals the causes of change were species-specific, but not ecoregion specific. For each
species a maximum of 5 causes was listed. The information was partly derived from already
published studies and partly based on expert judgement, generated in the context of this
project. The information was then aggregated by calculating the total number or percentage
of species for which a certain pressure is a major cause of decline.
Results
Table a and Figure a present the causes of species decline, respectively per habitat type and
for Europe as a whole. The causes of species decline vary per habitat, with habitat loss and
land use being the most frequent factors, followed by fragmentation and disturbance.
Table a. The most important causes of decline per habitat (species-based) as indicated by published
studies and expert judgement (Burfield et a/. 2004, Van Swaay 2004, LCIE 2004, LHF 2004).
Habitat Causes of decline
Coastal areas Toxification, disturbance, sedimentation, over fishing
Inland surface water habitats Habitat loss, lowering groundwater tables, disturbance
Mire, bog and fen habitats Habitat loss, fragmentation, lowering groundwater tables
Heathland, scrub and tundra habitats Habitat loss, land use, fragmentation
Woodland and forest habitats and other wooded land __ Habitat loss, land use, fragmentation
Inland unvegetated and sparsely vegetated habitats Land use, disturbance, unknown factors
Farmland Habitat loss, land use
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe 67
% of species for which factor Causes of change
is a major cause of decline
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
~ I ii Pieeen
0% il
By OY ES Sa SSS SB ee Se SD eS
GS © Sf £ €— S&F F FSS LF BF F&F L£
Sc See oS Se OS TS OS ee ees
aS ~ A
Ss a 8 SS SF Ss © eS eS S SS SF
YL Ss YF ©€ F&F Ss £ § OS a ss
Seal Wes edie ge € € §
§ BS s = s
@ o <
S <
2
Figure a. Relative importance of pressures on species (in the ecoregions as investigated in this test),
expressed as the percentage of species populations (i.e. a species in a building block) declining due to
each of the pressures. The category ‘other’ includes increased sedimentation, fire, over fishing, loss of old
buildings. These factors were found relevant for birds. Based on all species included in the indicator.
68
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Appendix 10 Recommended actions
Summary of the recommendations as described in Chapter 4.
1.
la.
1b.
le
1d.
le.
2a.
2b.
2c.
3a.
3b.
4a.
4b.
Mobilisation of historical data
to mobilise data for ecoregions not covered in this pilot study;
to mobilise data for additional species groups, specifically vascular plants, fish
(freshwater and marine), waterbirds and marine mammals;
to explore possibilities for additional data mobilisation for countries and biogeographical
regions which were not effectively targeted by the data mobilisation of this pilot study,
such as European Russia and the arctic region;
to explore possibilities to collect data for intermediate points in time, e.g. 1990;
with the help of national partners to mobilise data on species and species groups which
are not covered by international NGOs.
Habitats and biogeographical regions
to further explore merging of some EUNIS classes with other classes, especially class D:
‘Mires, bogs and fens’;
to further improve species-habitat associations for all species groups, with specific
attention for those species which use more than one habitat;
to investigate how data on area of the EUNIS habitats in Europe can be further improved.
Composition and aggregation
to further develop and quantify the species criteria, to make the species evaluation and
selection as objective as possible, given the purpose of the indicator;
to develop a guideline for the minimum number of species within a building block by
which the indicator generally can be considered robust.
Reliability and sensitivity
to explore the sensitivity and reliability of the indicator by using statistical techniques;
to further explore the implications of the use of expert judgement alongside quantitative
data.
a Sarr 9:
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe 69
70
5. Relation between the indicator and biodiversity loss
5a. to develop a reference scenario for the indicator to help resolve ambiguity in the
indicator and put recent changes into meaningful context.
6. Potential for use at the national scale
6a. to further harmonise indicator methodologies and exchange of data, to enhance the
synergy between national and European work on indicators.
7. Thematic indicators
7a. to develop thematic indicators, using the available (and new) data.
8. Towards a European biodiversity monitoring framework
8a. to (further) develop and implement long-term national monitoring programmes in all
countries across Pan-Europe, under a common European biodiversity monitoring
framework. See also Appendix 11.
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
Appendix 11 Potential for European Biodiversity
Monitoring
Summary of the most important recommendations to further develop species monitoring in
Europe as made by the NGOs.
Opportunities for European bird monitoring (Burfield et al. 2004)
— to continue the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (site-based monitoring)
and the updating of the European Bird Database (national level trend estimates) once per
decade. The coordination of and communication between existing bird monitoring
schemes needs further strenghtening;
- to specifically build and strengthen the bird monitoring capacity and participation in the
PECBMS in a number of southern and eastern European countries;
— to specifically strengthen the monitoring in some poorly covered habitats and
biogeographical regions, esp. in some Alpine, Arctic and Mediterranean habitats;
— to specifically strengthen the monitoring of a number of species with high indicator
potential;
— to look for synergies between monitoring for the EU Birds Directives and generic species
trends monitoring;
- to support and streamline the production of national bird atlasses across Europe.
Opportunities for European butterfly monitoring (Van Swaay 2004)
to collate and analyse the data from the existing five national monitoring schemes (The
Netherlands, UK, Belgium/Flanders, Finland and Spain/Catalonia);
- to (continue to) produce national butterfly atlasses and underlying databases. This is often
the first step in compiling the knowledge on butterflies on the national level;
— to perform trend analyses based on national atlas data from all European countries, with
application of techniques to correct for changes in recording intensity;
- to implement monitoring schemes in other countries. Especially single-species monitoring
sites, which are to be counted during the species’ flight period only, seem to be a highly
effective approach.
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
wl
72
Opportunities for European large carnivore monitoring (LCIE 2004)
In most of the European countries there is no continuous monitoring system of large
carnivores. However, there is usually a system of ‘official population estimates’, whereby local
forestry or hunting units report annually on the estimated numbers of individuals of a range
of species present in their unit. The following opportunities are identified:
To continue the present ‘official population estimates’, as they provide a foundation for
local management and are well established. Strong improvements can and should be
made with regard to (standardisation of) methodology and registration (using standardised
forms and GIS maps). Data should be entered into national level databases and can then be
used to monitor gross changes in population size;
To complement this total distribution area monitoring with more detailed data collection
from a network of sampling sites (fixed transects) that represent the diversity of habitats
within the ecoregions. Different observation methods are available for different species.
Some one-off small-scale more fundamental studies could aid the interpretation of the
data.
Opportunities for European large herbivore monitoring (Van de Vlasakker Eisenga 2004)
to set up pilot projects to test and compare the different monitoring methods currently in
use;
for each country to designate one national, independent organisation (e.g. a university or
the national forest and wildlife research institute) to gather the monitoring data from the
regions, hunting units, protected areas etc. Furthermore to mandate an organisation to
collect the data from the countries in a European database;
for each country to set up a national large herbivore database to store data on distribution
and abundance in space and time. Data should be collected using special (uniform
throughout the EU) data-sheets;
for each country to produce atlases on the distribution and population size and trends
every ten years. This would be a first step in combining the knowledge of large herbivores.
The atlases should be standardised on an European scale.
Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe
A publication of
the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
PO Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands
www.rivm.nt