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