March 2014

1

European Environment Agency

Measuring progress under Target 1 of the EU biodiversity strategy

This paper is the fifth draft that presents proposals on how to measure progress towards Target 1 of

the 2020 EU biodiversity strategy.

This version takes into account the comments made by:

- Member States and stakeholders of the Expert Group of Reporting under the Nature

Directives, namely those made during the meetings of November 2012 and March 2013

- Member State representatives of the Habitats and Ornis Committees, including at the

meetings of April and October 2013.

The methodology proposed for the Habitats Directive component of Target 1 was endorsed by the

Habitats Committee on 3 October 2013.

At its meeting of 4 October 2013, the ORNIS Committee requested further work on the Birds

Directive section. This has now been done, and a revised proposal was discussed in depth at an ad hoc

workshop with a few Member State representatives and stakeholders on 21 November 20131.; The

Birds Directive section of this paper was therefore revised in line with conclusions reached at the ad

hoc workshop.

Additionally, this paper includes contributions from the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its

European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD), DG Environment, and the consortium led

by BirdLife International under contract with the European Commission to prepare the European and

EU Red Lists of Birds.

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Habitats Directive ................................................................................................................................... 4

Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1 ................................................................... 5

A worked example with dummy data ............................................................................................. 6

Birds Directive ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Criteria to identify component A of Target 1(ii): ‘secure’ species ................................................. 9

Criteria to identify component B of Target 1(ii): ‘improving’ species ......................................... 11

Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1 for birds ................................................... 12

Presenting other data as ancillary information to aid interpretation ............................................. 12

Appendix 1 – Policy context of Target 1 .............................................................................................. 14

Appendix 2 – EU population status of birds in 2004 ............................................................................ 16

Minutes and paper with outcome from the workshop are available at

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/68325be7-3aa8-47ae-81e0-221bda6e0475

March 2014

2

European Environment Agency

Introduction

Member States were expected to submit their reports under Article (Art.) 17 of the Habitats Directive

by mid-2013, and by the end of 2013 the first report under Article (Art.) 12 of the Birds Directive

using the new format established in 2011. This new format puts the focus on data about the status and

trends of all wild birds in the EU, and thereby streamlines the reporting with that used under Art. 17

of the Habitats Directive. However, there remain significant differences between the reports. For

example, Art. 17 requires Member States to assess the status of relevant species and habitats in their

national-biogeographic region(s), according to a general matrix that refers strongly to definitions

given in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive. Under Art. 12 reporting, however, Member States do not

have such an obligation.

At EU level, the Art. 17 data are compiled and assessed to determine the EU-biogeographic status of

each species and habitat. Essentially, this is achieved by applying the general assessment matrix to the

compiled data from Member States. For Art. 12 data, the Commission also intends to make an EU-

level assessment. As with Art. 17, the national data will first be compiled, then assessed. The two

main differences with the Art. 17 process are: (1) the assessment will be done at the level of the

EU27, and not at biogeographic level; (2) a different assessment method will be used. After some

debate in the respective working groups that led to the new Art. 12 reporting process, the view was

taken by the Commission that an existing assessment method should preferably be used, allowing

trends since an earlier (baseline) assessment to be calculated in a comparable way.

The policy context of Target 1 is given in Appendix 1 at the end of this paper.

Target 1

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU

nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their

status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments:

(i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the

Habitats Directive show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status; and

(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or

improved status

The starting point to measure progress towards Target 1 is to identify the species/habitats from the

Habitats Directive with a ‘favourable’ or an ‘improved’ status, and the species with a ‘secure’ or an

improved status and compare those to the baseline situation.

Ideally, only genuine changes of conservation/population status should be taken into account when

assessing progress towards the 2020 target. However, there may be many changes in the assessment

of conservation status that do not reflect real improvement or deterioration of the

conservation/population status; rather, they reflect changes in knowledge (better or newer data, data

becoming old due to the lack of monitoring), changes in methodology, taxonomic changes

(aggregation or separation of taxa), etc. Where these factors cause ‘non-genuine’ changes in status,

they should ideally be excluded from calculations.

Member States have been asked to document in their Article 17 reports the ‘reason for change’ (for

Article 12, this will only be requested from 2019), namely to indicate if the change observed in

several conservation status parameters are ‘genuine’ or not. In addition, Member States have been

requested to provide information (‘audit trail’) on the nature of change in the overall conservation

March 2014

3

European Environment Agency

status between the previous and the current assessments2. The EEA-ETC/BD will further investigate

how to take the above information into account when measuring progress towards Target 1.

Assessments at the EU level of many habitats and species from the Habitats Directive for the Alpine,

Continental and Pannonian regions may change as the regions include Bulgaria and Romania who

will be reporting for the first time in 2013: this involves about 200 species and 75 habitat types.

Additionally, there will be a series of new assessments for the Steppic and the Black Sea

biogeographical regions, which may also influence the overall statistics of conservation status.

Therefore, a pragmatic approach is proposed: to consider the assessments from these countries as

‘Unknown’ in the previous reporting period (2001-2006) and use the approach summarised in Table 1

(see below); however, the results shall be complemented by a detailed audit trail about the changes

between the two periods; this should also be highlighted when presenting and publishing the results.

The same principle applies to birds. A preliminary unpublished study by BirdLife International

assessed the status of all bird species at EU27 scale, by combining the national data gathered from

Bulgaria and Romania in 2004 with those from the EU25, and reapplying the same criteria and

thresholds, but at the EU27 scale. At that time, only three bird species were considered to occur

regularly in these two Member States but nowhere else in the EU27. Overall, the EU status of only 14

species (out of 451, i.e. 3%) differed when assessed the EU25 and EU27 scales, and only three (i.e.

<1%) of these differences involved changes between ‘secure’ and ‘non-secure’ categories.

In this case, therefore, the accession of Bulgaria and Romania is considered to have had little impact

on the EU status of bird species, reflecting the widespread distribution of many European birds and

the lack of any endemics in these countries. For similar reasons, the accession of Croatia is also

unlikely to have many implications for the EU status of bird species when Art. 12 data from the EU28

are collated and assessed in 2019. However, this should not be taken as a general case, as the

implications of enlargement will depend greatly on the countries under consideration. The accession

of Turkey, for example, would have a much greater impact. Thus, it is imperative that all ‘non-

genuine’ changes are coded as such, presented clearly in resulting products, and excluded from

calculations for assessing progress towards Target 1.

The continued enlargement of the EU (from 25 to 27 Member States in 2007, to 28 in 2013, and

possibly even more before the next reporting round in 2019) poses its own challenges, as the

geographical baseline shifts over time. This strengthens the case for retaining the existing set of core

criteria (clarifying and adapting it only where necessary), to avoid generating results that cannot be

compared meaningfully. The 2014 assessment will be applied at the scale of the EU27, because

Croatia was not concerned by the reporting period 2007-2012.

Given the differences between the two nature directives and respective targets, the proposals are

organised directive by directive.

2 Letter of 11.06.2013 from DG ENV.B3 to the Habitats Committee

March 2014

4

European Environment Agency

Habitats Directive

(i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive

show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status

The baseline (2001-2006) is 17 % of favourable assessments for species and 17 % for habitat types3;

therefore, achieving the target means that at least 25 % of the assessments for species are favourable

or have an improved conservation status, and that at least 34 % of the assessments for habitat types

are favourable or have an improved conservation status in 2020.

The first step for measuring progress towards the target is to identify the changes between the two

periods and which changes contribute to the target. The ‘matrix of changes’ below (Table 1) maps the

(theoretically) possible type of changes in conservation status between period 2001-2006 (hereafter

‘p’) and period 2007-2012 (hereafter ‘p+1’).

Table 1 Matrix to classify changes between two reporting periods

Change in

conservation

status

CS in 2007-2012

FV U1+ U1= U1- U2+ U2= U2- XX

CS

in

2001

-

2006

FV Same Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Unknown

U1 Improve. Improve. Same Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Deterior. Unknown

U2 Improve. Improve. Improve. Improve. Improve. Same Deterior. Unknown

XX Same Improve. Same Deterior. Improve. Same Deterior. Same

Note: there is almost no information on 'qualifiers' (+ or -) in the 2007 reports (voluntary field), but this

information was more widely reported by Member States in 2013 (obligatory field)

The change matrix above is built on the following assumptions for ‘Unknown’ assessments:

- XX assessments in period ‘p’ that are FV in period ‘p+1’assumed to be FV also in period ‘p’

- XX assessments in period ‘p’ that are ‘U1+’ or ‘U2+’ in period ‘p+1’ considered as an

‘improvement’

- XX assessments in period ‘p’ that are ‘U1-’ or ‘U2-’ in period ‘p+1’ considered as a

‘deterioration’

- Conservation status assumed to be the ‘same’ for XX assessments in period ‘p’ that became

‘U1=’ or ‘U2=’ in period ‘p+1’

The Habitats Directive element of Target 1 was formulated using the statistics from the EU

biogeographical assessments4; these assessments were made by the EEA-ETC/BD using the data

reported by the Member States. Therefore, the references to conservation status in this chapter

concern the EU biogeographical assessments, not the national biogeographical assessments

made by the Member States.

3 Commission staff working paper: Impact assessment (SEC (2011) 540)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 4 http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/activities/Reporting/Article_17/Reports_2007/chapter4

March 2014

5

European Environment Agency

Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1

The change matrix above is represented below (Table 2) in a format that allows a more direct link to

the measurement of Target 1, i.e. identifying its two components: ‘favourable’ AND ‘improved’

assessments; in addition, it indicates the ‘deterioration’ of the conservation status, the ‘unknown’

assessments, and those assumed to be the ‘same’ between the two periods.

Table 2 Matrix for measuring progress under Target 1 and deriving other related statistics

Change in

conservation status

between reporting

periods

CS in 2007-2012

FV U1 + U1 U1 - U2 + U2 U2 - XX

CS

in

2001

-

2006

FV A (=) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) E (x)

U1 A (+) B (+) D (=) C (-) C (-) C (-) C (-) E (x)

U2 A (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) B (+) D (=) C (-) E (x)

XX A (=) B (+) D (=) C (-) B (+) D (=) C (-) D (=)

The signs between brackets indicate the type of change in the conservation status between periods ‘p’ and ‘p+1’: (=) no change, (+) improvement, (-) deterioration, (x) not known.

‘A’ indicates ‘favourable’ assessments, ‘B’ ‘improved’ assessments, ‘C’ ‘deteriorated’ assessments, ‘D’ unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change, and ‘E’ assessments that became ‘unknown’.

For the Habitats Directive component of Target 1, measuring progress between reporting period ‘p’

(baseline: 2001-2006) and reporting period ‘p+1’ (2007-2012) will include two components:

- Percentage of features with a Favourable conservation status (FV) in (p+1)

(sub-value A)

- Percentage of Unfavourable and Unknown assessments in (p) that show an improving trend

(+) in (p+1)

(sub-value B)

A + B will give us the number/percentage of assessments with a favourable or improved

conservation status in period p+1 when compared to period p.

Since we are comparing changes in the conservation status of individual species and habitats, each

cell of the table above is net of changes; therefore, there is no need to subtract the cells corresponding

to deteriorations: doing that would lead to double counting. For example, any assessment that was

‘favourable’ in the past and it is now ‘unfavourable’ represents ‘deterioration’; however, from an

arithmetical point of view, this ‘deterioration’ is already accounted for in the lower number of

‘favourable’ assessments.

It does not seem worthwhile using other data or information fields from the national reports or the EU

calculations to measure improvement of conservation status within any of the four parameters of the

overall conservation status (e.g. to account for the increase of population size or habitat area of a

feature whose status remains unfavourable). This would concern a very limited number of features,

associated with all the standardization and quality issues that these parameters suffer – and that are

not likely to be fully addressed in the coming reporting cycle. Accounting for improvement of any of

the conservation status parameters where the overall conservation status is unfavourable would also

imply complex calculations difficult to be understood by non-specialists. However, improvement or

March 2014

6

European Environment Agency

deterioration in individual conservation status parameters should be expressed (and accounted for)

through the qualifiers of the overall conservation status (U1+, U1-, U2+, U2-).

Data from Table 2 allow for additional statistics that provide a better context to the measurements of

Target 1. For example, comparing the number/percentage of improved and deteriorated conservation

status assessments would give us a ‘net change’ (sum of all ‘+’ minus the sum of all ‘-‘). See example

on next page.

A worked example with dummy data

In p (2001-2006): we had 17 assessments FV, 28 U1, 37 U2, and 18 XX at the EU-biogeographical

level

Calculations to be done row by row, comparing what happened in p+1 (2007-2012) to the

assessments in p

From the 17 FV in p we have in p+1: 15 that remained FV, 1 that became U1+, and 1 that became

U2=

From the 28 U1 in 2007 we have now: 2 that became FV, 3 became U1+, 17 remained U1=, 4 that

became U1-, and 2 became XX

From the 37 U2 in 2007 we have now: 1 that became U1+, 2 became U1=, 3 became U2+, 28

remained U2, and 3 became U2-

From the 18 XX in 2007 we have now: 3 that became FV, 2 became U1=, 1 became U1-, 1

became U2+, 1 became U2=, and 10 remained XX

P p+1

FV U1+ U1= U1- U2+ U2= U2- XX total

17 FV 15 1 1 17

28 U1 2 3 17 4 2 28

37 U2 1 2 3 28 3 37

18 XX 3 2 1 1 1 10 18

Totals 20 5 21 5 4 30 3

12 100 31 37

= Remained favourable in 2013 or Unknown becoming favourable (15+3) 18

+ Became favourable in 2013 (2+0) 2

+ B (improved in 2013 compared to 2007) (3+1+2+0+3+0+1) 10

- C (deteriorated in 2013 compared to 2007) 10

= No change 58

x Unknown in 2013 12

A + B = 20 + (3+1+2+3+1) = 20 + 10 = 30

Therefore, we would have 30 % of assessments that are favourable or improved compared to 17 %

2007; this means 76 % more compared to the 17 % baseline (30 x 100 / 17).

For habitats, the 2020 Target 1 is to achieve 34 % of favourable or improved assessments; therefore, a

value of 30 % would indicate that Target 1 is 88 % fulfilled in 2013 (30 x 100 / 34).

For species, the 2020 Target is to achieve 26 % of favourable or improved assessments; therefore, a

value of 30 % would indicate that Target is reached by more than 15 % (30 x 100 / 26).

March 2014

7

European Environment Agency

The net change between the two periods, i.e. total number of improvements minus the total number of

deteriorations, is

- [A (+) + B (+)] – C (-)

- [2 + (3+1+2+3+1)] – (1+1+4+3+1)

- + 2

The net change is +2, which represents a net improvement of 2 % when comparing the two

reporting periods.

The graphs below are given as possible examples of presenting the data used to measure progress

towards Target 1.

Conservation status in 2013 Progress towards Target 1

2010 State:

17 %

Favourable

Status in 2013:

Target 1 is 88 % fulfilled

2020 Target:

100 % more

Favourable or

improving

(e.g. 34 %)

Conservation status in 2013 showing trends for the unfavourable status

(two different representations of the same data)

20

31 37

12

FV U1 U2 XX

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FV U1 U2 XX

-

=

-

+ +

=

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

FV U1+ U1= U1- U2+ U2= U2- XX

March 2014

8

European Environment Agency

Status in 2013: - 30 % with a favourable or improved conservation status

- 10 % with a deteriorated status

- net change is slightly positive (+ 2 %)

- 58 % did not improved or deteriorated status

- 12 % with an unknown conservation status Note: these percentages add more than 100 % since the same feature may be accounted twice

e.g. ‘favourable A(=)’ and ‘no change (=), ‘unknown (x)’ and ‘no change (=)’, ‘favourable A(+)’ and ‘improved +)’

Statistics from the change matrix (comparing 2007 and 2013): - 20 % favourable

- 10 % unfavourable with an improved status

- 10 % unfavourable with a deteriorated status

- 58 % maintained their unfavourable status or remained unknown

- 2 % became unknown Note: these percentages add 100 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Favourable orImproved

Deteriorated Net change No change Unknown

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A B C D E

March 2014

9

European Environment Agency

Birds Directive

(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status

The baseline for birds is 52%, based on the number of species considered to be secure in the only EU-

level assessment conducted to date (in 2004, at EU25 level5). If the target was simply to increase this

figure by 50%, then it would mean that 78% of species (rounded up to 80% in some EC documents6)

would need to be in secure status by 2020. However, the target includes species whose status is either

secure or improving. It is therefore necessary to use the data reported under Art. 12 to: (a) determine

which species are secure; and (b) define the conditions under which non-secure species will be

classified as improving. This is very important, as many species are a long way from being secure, but

some are recovering, some remain depleted and others are still declining.

The method and parameters used to assess the conservation status of habitats and taxa under Article

17 of the Habitats Directive do not apply to birds. However, retaining the logic of the proposal above

for the Habitats Directive, and striving for consistency, the formula to be used for measuring progress

between the baseline assessment p (2004) and the next assessment p+1 (2014) is proposed as follows :

% of bird species in target condition = A (% secure) + B (% improving)

The result can be compared with the baseline figure (52 %) to assess progress towards the target.

Criteria to identify component A of Target 1(ii): ‘secure’ species

To ensure comparability with the baseline assessment, it is important to distinguish secure from non-

secure species in the same (or a very similar) way. The method used in 2004 involved applying a

series of criteria and thresholds (See Table in Appendix 2) to the data for all species at EU level,

which filtered out different species at different levels. Those passing through all the ‘filters’ were

classified as secure, as shown in Appendix 2.

Feedback from Member States has led to various changes to these criteria and thresholds being

proposed over the past year. More details can be found below (Table 3), but some of the more

significant changes have included replacing the categories Rare and Localised with the IUCN

category Near Threatened, and changing the proposed threshold for Declining and Depleted from

10% to 20%.

Following those changes, most Member States have now accepted the proposal for the European

Commission to use this method to calculate the number of secure species in 2014, using the data

submitted under Art. 12. Thus, Figure 1 shows the refined set of ‘filters’ proposed for application in

2014. The figure required under component A (secure) of Target 1(ii) is the number of species

classified as Secure (green box). For the figure needed under component B (improving), a second step

is applied only to those species that are Threatened or Not Secure.

For full details of proposed changes to the categories and criteria, this paper should be read in

conjunction with the outcome paper from the ad hoc workshop of 21 November 2013‘Using the data

reported by Member States under Article 12 of the Birds Directive to summarise and present species’

population status at EU level and measure progress towards Target 1(ii) of the EU Biodiversity

Strategy. March 2014’ 7.

5 BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife

International. http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/birds_in_europe/birds_in%20_the_eu.pdf 6 Commission staff working paper: Impact assessment (SEC (2011) 540)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 7 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/68325be7-3aa8-47ae-81e0-221bda6e0475

March 2014

10

European Environment Agency

Figure 1 Flowchart showing filters proposed to assess the EU population status of birds in 2014

Table 3 A comparison of the criteria and thresholds used to allocate species to population status categories in Birds in the European Union (BirdLife International 2004a) and those proposed for application to the data from Art. 12 reporting in 2014, highlighting major changes in red italics.

EU population

status category

Brief description of criteria and thresholds

2004 (applied) 2014 (proposed)

Regionally

Extinct n/a

As per IUCN (i.e. no reasonable doubt that last

individual in EU27 has died)

Critically

Endangered

Meets any of the IUCN Red List

criteria for CR at EU25 scale

Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for CR

at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥80%8)

Endangered Meets any of the IUCN Red List

criteria for EN at EU25 scale

Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for EN

at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥50%3)

Vulnerable Meets any of the IUCN Red List

criteria for VU at EU25 scale

Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for VU

at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥30%3)

Near

Threatened n/a

Close to meeting IUCN Red List criteria for VU

at EU27 scale (e.g. Criterion A: decline ≥20%3)

Declining EU25 population declined by >10%

in 10 years or three generations

EU27 population or range declined by ≥20%

since 1980, with continuing decline since 2001

Depleted Not yet recovered from earlier (1970-

1990) population declines in EU25

EU27 population or range declined by ≥20%

since 1980, but no longer declining since 2001

Rare EU25 population <5,000 pairs and

not marginal n/a (now covered partly by NT)

Localised ≥90% EU25 population concentrated

at ≤10 sites n/a (now covered partly by NT)

Secure Does not currently meet any of the

criteria above in EU25

Does not currently meet any of the criteria

above in EU27

Data Deficient Inadequate information available to

assess EU25 status

Inadequate information available to assess

EU27 status

Not Evaluated EU25 population not evaluated

against criteria

EU27 population not evaluated against criteria

(e.g. occurs only on passage)

8 Over ten years or three generations, whichever is longer.

Sufficient data to assess all

extant native bird species in

the EU27?

Is the species Critically

Endangered, Endangered

or Vulnerable in the EU27?

The species is considered to

be Secure in the EU27

Is the species Near

Threatened, Declining or

Depleted in the EU27?

No

No

Yes

Yes

Threatened

Not Secure

Secure

Unknown

No

Yes

March 2014

11

European Environment Agency

Criteria to identify component B of Target 1(ii): ‘improving’ species

Owing to the way in which Target 1 is formulated, improvements are only relevant to species

classified as non-secure (i.e. Threatened or Not Secure) using the set of ‘filters’ above (Figure 1).

Previous versions of this document included a ‘matrix’ that classified all possible changes between

status categories since 2004 as improvements or deteriorations, in an attempt to achieve consistency

with the Art. 17 approach. However, feedback from Member States indicated that this was too

complex and less relevant under Art. 12, and that a simpler system based on the EU-level trends of

species would be preferred, making more direct use of the short- and long-term trend data being

reported by Member States. Table 4 presents the simplest way of doing this, based solely on changes

in trend direction. The most important element is that species whose long-term trend is declining, but

whose short-term trend is stable or increasing, count as improvements. Figure 2 presents some

illustrative examples of applying this approach to species, using existing trend data from PECBMS.

Table 4 Classifying changes in trend direction of non-secure bird species at EU level as improvements.

Long-term trend

(1980-2012)

Short-term trend (2001-2012)

Increasing Stable/Fluctuating Declining Unknown

Increasing Yes No No No

Stable/Fluctuating Yes No No No

Declining Yes Yes No No

Unknown Yes No No No

Figure 3 Examples using data from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS)

For illustrative purposes, the vertical lines in 2001 indicate the point at which the change is being assessed.

Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Increasing

Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Declining Improvement since last assessment? No

Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Declining

Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Increasing Improvement since last assessment? Yes

Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Declining Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Stable

Improvement since last assessment? Yes

Long-term EU trend (1980-2012): Stable Short-term EU trend (2001-2012): Increasing

Improvement since last assessment? Yes

March 2014

12

European Environment Agency

This method makes good use of the national population data provided by Member States under Art.

12. It combines the direction and magnitude of species trends in each country, taking into account the

relative size of each national population, to produce overall short- and long-term trends at EU level. It

is also easy to communicate. If a species has stopped declining but remains depleted (and is thus non-

secure), it contributes towards the 2020 target, because the loss of this particular aspect of biodiversity

has been halted (i.e. improvement). Conversely, if a species is still declining, albeit it at a slower rate

than previously, it does not contribute towards the 2020 target, because it represents ongoing

biodiversity loss (i.e. deterioration).

Calculating and presenting progress towards Target 1 for birds

Table 5 presents two examples (dummy data) of how the elements described above could be

combined to assess progress towards Target 1(ii). Under Scenario 1, progress is achieved because of

an increase in the numbers of both secure and improving (non-secure) species. Under Scenario 2,

progress has been achieved only because of an increase in the number of improving (non-secure)

species, which ‘offsets’ the (smaller) reduction in the number of secure species. In practice, Scenario

2 is unlikely to arise. However, in discussion with Member States, it was agreed that it was important

to present the two elements of the calculation separately, to show their relative contributions towards

the target. This reflects the significant difference between species that are secure and species that are

improving, which should not be concealed when reporting the results.

Table 5 Worked examples of measuring progress towards Target 1(ii) under two example

scenarios.

Component of

calculation Definition

2004

Baseline

2014

Scenario 1

2014

Scenario 2

Number of Threatened species 54 50 60

Number of Not Secure species 159 150 170

A Number of Secure species (Figure 1; Table 3) 232 245 215

Total number of species assessed 445 445 445

A% Percentage of Secure species 52% 55% 48%

B Number of Improving species (i.e. non-secure but

with stable or increasing trends; Table 4) n/a 15 30

B% Percentage of Improving species n/a 3% 7%

A + B Total number of species in target condition (i.e.

Secure + Improving) 232 260 245

A% + B% Total percentage of species in target condition (i.e.

Secure + Improving) 52% 58% 55%

Presenting other data as ancillary information to aid interpretation

Much of the most recent discussion with Member States on this subject revolved around whether non-

secure species whose rate of decline has slowed significantly (sometimes as a result of conservation

measures) should count as improvements and contribute towards the 2020 target. Ultimately, as stated

above, it was concluded that they should not contribute towards the target, because their continuing

declines represent an ongoing loss of biodiversity, which is very difficult to communicate as positive

progress towards the target.

However, such species do constitute a different type of improvement, and it is important to

communicate this as supporting information, alongside the ‘headline’ figures above. It often takes a

long time for conservation action to take effect, and for the populations or ranges of declining species

to stabilise and eventually start to increase again. Efforts to slow, halt and reverse such declines

deserve acknowledgement, as they are essential steps on the road to the recovery from non-secure to

March 2014

13

European Environment Agency

secure. The public is familiar with such cases, as they form the bulk of the improvements reported in

updates to the IUCN Red List9, and positive news stories about successful wildlife comebacks are rare

but very popular10

.

Highlighting species in this condition may also indicate where additional investment in the coming

years is most likely to deliver genuine improvements, which will help to ensure that the 2020 target is

achieved. Equally, there is value in drawing attention to non-secure species and groups whose status

has deteriorated further since the last assessment, for which current measures are evidently not

sufficient and new approaches may be needed. Deeper analysis of the Art. 12 data set and other

sources of information may be required to shed light on the underlying reasons for these patterns, but

important messages can already be conveyed.

Consequently, besides the formal assessment and presentation of progress towards the 2020 target, a

number of complementary statistics will also be calculated and reported, to make even more use of the

Art. 12 data and provide a more complete picture of how birds are faring in the EU. Table 6

summarises a few ideas.

Table 6 Examples of relevant additional information to report, based on analyses of the Art. 12 data

Number, names, habitat/ecosystems associations and regional distributions of non-secure species whose declines

have slowed, to the extent that they have moved into a lower status category since last assessed.

Number, names, habitat/ecosystems associations and regional distributions of non-secure species whose declines

have accelerated, to the extent that they have moved into a higher status category since last assessed.

Number, names, habitat/ecosystems associations and regional distributions of secure species that have increased

dramatically (e.g. by >20%) since last assessed.

9 e.g. http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/red-list-birds-2013-number-critically-endangered-birds-hits-new-high 10 e.g. http://www.rewildingeurope.com/news/articles/wildlife-comeback-in-europe-study-released/

March 2014

14

European Environment Agency

Appendix 1 – Policy context of Target 1

In May 2011 the Commission adopted a new Biodiversity Strategy that followed on from the 2006

Biodiversity Action Plan:

Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020

(COM(2011) 244)11

The Commission’s Communication builds on the long-term vision and headline target endorsed by

EU leaders in 2010

2050 vision

By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides — its natural capital —

are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and for their

essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes

caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided.

2020 headline target

Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and

restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global

biodiversity loss.

The framework for action up to 2020 includes six targets and a series of actions under each target:

Conserving and restoring nature – Target 1

Maintaining and enhancing ecosystems and their services – Target 2

Ensuring sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries – Target 3 and 4

Combating invasive alien species – Target 5

Addressing the global biodiversity crisis – Target 6

Target 1

To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and

achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to

current assessments:

(i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive

show (a favourable or) an improved conservation status; and

(ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status

The basis and justification for the figures in Target 1 are given in the ‘Commission staff working

paper: Impact assessment (SEC(2011) 540)’12

. The calculations that led to the values in Target 1 can

be found in Annex 8 of the ‘Annexes to the impact assessment’13

. The summary of the impact

assessment is available in all EU languages14

.

11

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf 12

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 13

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact_assesment_part2_v4.pdf 14

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_resume_impact_assesment_part1_v6.pdf

March 2014

15

European Environment Agency

In June 2011 the Council (ENV) adopted conclusions on the EU 2020 biodiversity Strategy:

Environment Council Conclusions of 21 June 201115

The Council globally endorsed the six targets since they respond to the main obstacles that prevented

the achievement of the previous EU targets related to biodiversity; it also indicates that further work

on the EU biodiversity strategy would be carried out.

In December 2011 the Council (ENV) adopted more detailed conclusions, namely highlighting

several of the actions from the Commission’s Communication:

Environment Council Conclusions of 19 December 201116

Meanwhile, in October 2011 the European Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on

the EU 2020 biodiversity Strategy:

EESC opinion of 26 October 201117

In April 2012 the European Parliament adopts a resolution on the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy:

European Parliament Resolution of 20 April 2012 (2011/2307(INI))18

Concerning the quantitative aspects of Target 1 the EP

21. Emphasises the need to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats

covered by EU nature conservation legislation and achieve a significant and measurable

improvement in their status at EU level; stresses that this should take the form of an improvement

in at least one of the parameters for conservation status defined in Article 1 of the Habitats

Directive, without any deterioration in the other parameters;

24. Stresses that, in order to establish a clear pathway to achieving the 2050 vision, at least

40 % of all habitats and species must have a favourable conservation status by 2020; recalls that,

by 2050, 100 % (or almost 100 %) of habitats and species must have a favourable conservation

status;

15

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st11/st11978.en11.pdf 16

http://consilium.europa.eu/media/1379139/st18862.en11.pdf 17

http://eescopinions.eesc.europa.eu/EESCopinionDocument.aspx?identifier=ces\nat\nat491\ces1600-2011_ac.doc&language=EN 18

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-146

March 2014

16

European Environment Agency

Appendix 2 – EU population status of birds in 2004

Flowchart showing filters applied to assess the EU population status of birds in 2004.

Table A summary of the criteria and thresholds used to allocate species to population status

categories in Birds in the European Union (BirdLife International 2004). EU25 population status

category (and acronym) Brief description of criteria and thresholds

2004 baseline

n spp %

Critically Endangered (CR) Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for CR at EU25 scale 8 2

Endangered (EN) Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for EN at EU25 scale 14 3

Vulnerable (VU) Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for VU at EU25 scale 32 7

Declining (D) Declined in EU25 by >10% in 10 years or three generations 76 17

Depleted (H) Not yet recovered from earlier declines in EU25 (1970-1990) 40 9

Rare (R) EU25 population <5,000 pairs and not marginal 35 8

Localised (L) ≥90% EU25 population concentrated at ≤10 sites 8 2

Secure (S) Does not currently meet any of the criteria above in EU25 232 52

Data Deficient (DD) Inadequate information available to assess EU25 status 1 <1

Not Evaluated (NE) EU25 population not evaluated against criteria 2 <1

Total 448 100

232 species

Yes

Threatened

Not Secure

Secure

54 species

159 species

Unknown:

Data Deficient

Not Evaluated 3 species

Sufficient data to assess all

extant native bird species

in the EU25? (448 species)

Yes

No

Is the species Critically

Endangered, Endangered

or Vulnerable in the EU25?

The species is considered

to be Secure in the EU25

Is the species Declining,

Rare, Depleted or

Localised in the EU25?

No

No

Yes