The development of amphibian monitoring programs in Europe. with regard to the implementation of the Habitats Directive

Transcription

1 The development of amphibian monitoring programs in Europe with regard to the implementation of the Habitats Directive Bouke van den Noort (University of Amsterdam, General Biology) Supervisor: Gerard Smit (RAVON,division Herpetology, Zoological Museum Amsterdam) Examiner: Annie Zuiderwijk (RAVON, division Herpetology, Zoological Museum Amsterdam & University of Amsterdam) May 2008

2 2

3 Contents Introduction.. p. 4 Current projects in Europe.. p. 8 Favourable conservation status.. p. 15 Discussion p. 23 Conclusions. p. 28 References p. 29 3

4 1.Introduction Amphibian decline Amphibians are declining locally and globally for reasons that act on local and global scales (Schmidt 2003). There are numerous possible explanations for these declines including climate change and chemical contaminants, but habitat destruction, alteration and fragmentation are probably the most serious causes of current and future amphibian population declines and species extinctions (Dodd and Smith 2003). Amphibians are more vulnerable then other vertebrates to today s rapid habitat changes due to their small home ranges, little ability and no instinct to migrate away from threats. In order to prevent future amphibian losses, research and conservation programs have been established worldwide. European conservation and legislation Europe has had several wildlife conservation conventions with potential implications for herpetofaunal conservation. In 1979 the Council of Europe s Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats was adopted with the objective to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats, to promote cooperation between states, and to give particular emphasis to endangered and vulnerable species. Amphibian species that were considered for this convention were categorized in two appendices. Appendix II for species to be strictly protected, including provision for protection of their breeding and resting habitats; and Appendix III covering all other amphibians not in Appendix II, requiring control of exploitation to prevent local declines. In addition Appendix IV identified prohibited means and methods of killing, capture and other forms of exploitation. However, although this convention had the full force of international law and all that implies for state obligations, it did not supersede national laws. This all changed when the Bern Convention was transposed into EU law through the adaptation of the Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEG) was adopted on 21 may It has the objective to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and the protection of wild flora and fauna in the territory of the Member States. As stated in the preamble of the Habitats Directive, the overall aim is to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and species of Community interest at a favourable status. 4

5 As in the Bern Convention appendices II and III are used for protected species, the Habitats directive uses Annexes I, II and IV for both habitat types and species; Annexes I (Natural habitat types of Community interest) and II (Animal and plant species of Community interest) to the Directive, list the habitats and species whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation. Some of them are defined as "priority" habitats or species, in danger of disappearing. Annex IV lists animal and plant species in need of particularly strict protection. A central component of the Habitats Directive is the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) which should include both intact areas and areas in need of restoration. The areas are suggested by the Member States according to the location of the habitat types, animal and plant species listed in the Directive and assigned by the European Commission. Together with the Special Protected Areas (according to the Bird Directive) they make up a coherent European ecological network called Natura The Natura 2000 habitats and its housing species should be maintained or where appropriate, restored at favourable conservation status. Undertaking surveillance of conservation status is an obligation, detailed in Article 11 of the Habitats Directive. Article 17 states that Member States are also obliged to report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive every six years, from which the Commission must produce a composite report. Furthermore, the Habitats Directive states that these reports should include information on conservation measures as well as an evaluation of the impact of those measures on the conservation status of the species and habitats listed in the directive. Network for Ecological Monitoring (NEM) In the Netherlands the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality executes the implementation of the Habitats Directive. The surveillance of the Annex II and IV species is carried out by the Network for Ecological Monitoring (NEM). The network was started in 1995 by governmental institutes in order to produce a national interrelated system of ecological information for the Dutch government. The Network Amphibian Monitoring forms a part of NEM since 1997 and has the objective to assess the population-dynamics of amphibians from the Habitats Directive, on national scale as well as in Natura 2000 areas. By cooperation of the government authorities collective priorities are set so collecting and adjustment of data can be optimised to meet the governmental information requirements. An outline of the program and preliminary results are given in Goverse

6 Objective In this thesis, I will evaluate the current state of affairs of amphibian monitoring in Europe with regard to the implementation of the Habitats Directive. I will limit myself to the Annex II, and IV species of amphibians that are native to the Netherlands. This affects eight species, that all have an international distribution (table 1). Since they are widespread an international conformity in monitoring methods and coordination at international level is needed in order to ensure that the best use is made of scarce resources and that results reach the decision makers in the most effective way. I will investigate to what extend the Dutch approach of the implementation of the Habitats Directive is corresponding to the initiatives of the other Member States and whether the results are comparable in such a way that assessments can be made on trends on European scale. I will discuss suggestions and possible consequences for NEM or the different networks from the other Member States in order to realize an international conformity in monitoring approach. Furthermore I will discuss the concept of favourable conservation status (FCS). Whereas the concept of favourable conservation status is a key element in the Habitats Directive, there is no recommended satisfactory methodology for the determination of the conservation status. Since there is no standardized methodology I will examine, if so, how it is applied by the different Member States, what the preconditions are and if international conformity can be established on the assessment of it. 6

7 Table 1: The occurrence of the Annex II and IV amphibian species in Europe that are native to the Netherlands and their national Red List status. An x resembles the presence of a species when the Red List status is unknown. The tree frog Hyla arborea has been reintroduced in Latvia.

8 2. Current projects in Europe Methodology This chapter will provide an overview and an insight in the state of affairs of the current monitoring projects in Europe, whether or not in regard to the implementation of the Habitats Directive. In order to collect data on this topic I sent a questionnaire (Appendix I) to amphibian experts and nature conservation institutes of all the Member States except for Sweden because I could not find a suitable address to send the questionnaire to. From the total of 26 countries that had been approached (Appendix II), 11 countries replied; Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the UK. For several countries information has also been obtained from other sources. In this review of running monitoring projects, differences in the amount and the kind of information can be noted between the different countries. This is due to the large variation in received answers varying from yes there are monitoring programs running to extensive descriptions of followed species and used methods. Belgium All the amphibians in Belgium that are listed as the Annex II or IV are monitored. For the most part this is done by Hyla, the amphibian and reptile network of Natuurpunt. All data are processed by the institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) which is responsible, as governmental institute, for the reporting on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. In 2007 the so called natuurraport 2007 came out in connection with the first six-yearly report on the conservation status of the Annex species and habitats of Belgium. The conservation status of Triturus cristatus, Pelobates fuscus and Hyla arborea is noted as very unfavourable. The status of Bufo calamita, Alytes obstetricans and Rana Arvalis as favourable and that of Rana lessonae unknown. Bulgaria There are no monitoring programs running in Bulgaria until now concerning the implementation of the Habitats Directive. In 2004 a pilot study started for elaboration of the National Biodiversity Monitoring System (NBMS).The project was financed by the Preaccession Programme of the EVD Agency in the Ministry of Economy of the Netherlands. The project has finished in Species (included 13 of high priority) of amphibian and reptiles were proposed to be monitored as result of the project, under which Triturus cristatus

9 and Pelobates fuscus (Stoyanov). However, due to insufficient budget of the Ministry of Environment and Waters, none of the species monitoring plans have been realised so far. Being a new member of the EU, it is too early to speak about the numerous obligatory reports, which Bulgaria must submit in the EU commission. In all probability a program will start this year, but only in several Natura 2000 sites. The species of interest that occur in the Netherlands as well are Triturus cristatus and Bombina variegata. The method that will be used is capture-recapture. Czech Republic As a new EU Member State, Czech Republic is obliged to pass the report on surveillance of all Annex II, IV and V species of the Habitats Directive to the European Commission. For that purpose, an extensive monitoring system is in preparation. All amphibian species listed in the respective Annexes will be monitored and the data will become publicly available. The only received information on the questionnaire was the next answer: Yes, there is running the monitoring in the Czech Republic. Denmark Denmark has not replied to the questionnaire and it is uncertain if it has national monitoring programs running momentary. However, Denmark takes part in an international monitoring project on Triturus cristatus, which will be discussed in chapter 4. Denmark was the first country that produced a report on the assessment of the conservation status of species and habitats. This report however, is based on historical data and will be discussed in chapter 3. Estonia Estonia has an annual State Monitoring Program, financed by the State s Budget. The monitoring of amphibians is a part of this program. All species listed in the annexes of the Habitat Directive as well as the rest of the species are monitored. 25 Areas are chosen for monitoring of which 20 areas are monitored every year and 5 areas every third year. This is mainly done by professionals, but in some years 1-2 volunteers are also involved. The used methods are transect counting at night (number of specimens/km), dipnetting of larvae to estimate the breeding success and egg counting to estimate the abundance of present of species. 9

10 Finland Regional and nationwide, continuously monitoring takes place in Finland of all the reptile and amphibian species, organized by the Natural History museum. Usually projects involve professionals, but a great deal of fieldwork is often carried out by the amateurs and enthusiasts. Reports are produced by the Finnish Environmental Institute. But according to Petri Ahlroth, who is responsible for the reporting of the reptile and amphibian species, none of these projects are related to the Habitats Directive. However, initiatives of the LIFE-Nature project show that this is about to change. One of the targets of this project for the protection of Triturus cristatus in Eastern-Baltic region is the determination of the criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status of Triturus cristatus for Estonia, Denmark and Finland. In the frame of this project the experts from participating countries have simultaneously worked out the criteria for assessing a favourable conservation status of Triturus cristatus. The chosen methods for this project are site dependent and will be discussed in chapter 4. France France has several monitoring programs running on local scale which are all funded by regional and private sources. It is unclear whether they are related to the implementation of the Habitats Directive. The monitored species as well as the methods used differ between the projects. Underneath follows a resumé of the programs in which I only mention the Annex II and IV species that also occur in the Netherlands. Monitoring the amphibians of a network of ponds in Alsace All eight species that are native to the Netherlands are monitored in this program that started in 2004 by SIBA - Indicators of Biodiversity in Alsace. 30 Sampling sites covering a total area of 8500 km² are chosen according to expert knowledge and visited 3 times a year. There are one professional and 10 volunteers involved. Monitoring amphibians of Tour du Valat Estate This local project started in 2004 as well and covers a total area of 26 km² in which 20 sites are sampled. The species of interest is Bufo calamita. Monitoring is done by one professional and takes place 5 times a year. The method that is used is tadpole sampling in ponds or water bodies. 10

11 Qualitative monitoring of amphibians in the Camargue-Crau-Alpilles area With a total of 100 sampling sites, covering an area of 2200 km², this is the largest project that started in Monitoring is done 5 times a year by 30 professionals and 20 volunteers. From the 25 species that are monitored, Bufo calamita and Triturus cristatus are the only Dutch Annex species. Due to the scale of the project and the large amount of involved species, the used methods are relative simple. Species are just scored for their presence or absence and this is only done by visual recording. Germany Three projects are supposed to be launched concerning implementation of the Habitats Directive. I was referred to the EU monitoring website to extract information on these projects, however, I was able to find information on just one whereby the only monitored species is Bombina bombina. Hungary In Hungary several monitoring programmes are running but it is unclear if they are with regard to the Habitats Directive. At least, there are momentary no preparations for the reporting on the implementation of the Habitats Directive. Some programs are focussed on a geographical feature, e.g. on the Dráva River, including the monitoring of amphibians. Other sites are monitored for a longer period, for 14 years along the River Danube and 6 years in 3 national parks, but due to their initiation they are separate programmes. The longest data set is from a 22 year running program. One program is in response to national law and only professionals are involved. Consequently it is limited and does not really cover the bio geographical regions of the country. The monitored species are Triturus cristatus, Bombina variegata, Pelobates fuscus, Hyla arborea and Rana lessonae. Methodology is a problematic part. Old and sometimes obscure methods are used and suggested (e.g. clipping toes) and there is not much improvement on this field in recent years. Latvia Until now, there are no monitoring programs running in Latvia, although initiatives were taken on the preparation of methodology for state amphibian monitoring for biological diversity. Methodology was approved and monitoring was planned to start this spring, but due to some problems with project tender nothing has started so far. It is uncertain if monitoring will start this spring. The same problem holds for Natura 2000 site monitoring. The plan was 11

12 to start monitoring together with professionals. Only 9 sites are selected for biological diversity monitoring and about 15 for Natura 2000 monitoring, so there is no need yet for volunteers. The methods that will be used for estimating biological diversity are pitfall trapping and chorus counts. The 9 sites are chosen randomly in different parts of Latvia. In every site one pitfall trap will be placed. Traps are planned to be put out two times a year, during spring and autumn migrations. Traps will stay in field for 6 days and they will be checked every two days. Natura 2000 monitoring will take place in all territories, where Bombina bombina and Triturus cristatus are found. Triturus cristatus will be monitored, as in Finland, according to LIFE project Protection of Triturus cristatus in the Eastern Baltic region (Briggs et al. 2006). The first 6 years, set out for establishing a report on the implementation of the Habitats Directive, are to be started for Latvia and there will not be a report on this until Netherlands In the Netherlands, the Habitats Directive is fully implemented in the National Law. National flora and fauna monitoring programs are organised by NGOs in close cooperation with Statistics Netherlands. RAVON (Reptile, Amphibian and Fish Research Netherlands) is the NGO that coordinates the reptile and amphibian monitoring programs. For most species, volunteers collect the field data. Preferably, monitoring is carried out in all areas where a species is present. Providing data on the NATURA 2000 species Triturus cristatus and Bombina variegata has a high priority. In addition, the relatively widespread species in the Netherlands Bufo calamita, Rana lessonae and R. arvalis get special attention. Populations of the Annex IV species Pelobates fuscus and Hyla arborea are monitored within the scope of Species Protection Plans (Goverse, 2006). Poland In 2007 the pilot monitoring project entitled Monitoring of species and habitat types with focus on Natura 2000 sites has been started. The project operates on national level and is coordinated by The Institute of Nature Conservation (Department of Biodiversity). The species of interest is Triturus cristatus. Sites are selected randomly by experts. The used method is tested and based on a sample of at least 30 water bodies per site. Species are checked for the presence or absence and experts adopted a method of habitat evaluation used in Great Britain (Oldham et all, 2000); the Habitat Suitability Index. In 2007 a report came out on the conservation status of species including in Annex II and IV of the Habitats 12

13 Directive, occurring in Poland. However, findings of this report were mostly based on the existing knowledge about species and not on the organized monitoring system, which is under preparation. In the case of amphibians it was possible to use, among others, an updated database. Romania Romania has only recently joined the EU and has problems implementing the Natura 2000 network. There are no amphibian monitoring activities at the moment in regard with the Habitats Directive. The causes are diverse and range from an inflation in legislation to institutional instability and lack of personnel. The area of protected areas has increased steadily from less than 7% to 19.5% in a few years. Most of the new protected areas do not have an administration yet and the salaries for the staff are not competitive, so there is a fluctuation of personnel with negative results. Monitoring is still limited to surface waters (the Water Framework Directive is relatively well implemented) and air quality. Foresters have also a rather good system of monitoring forest health. There were a series of major projects funded by the World Bank, UNEP, EU Phare and Life regarding the development of Special Protected Areas and the implementation of Natura Slovakia Currently 18 species of amphibians (including 1 hybrid species Rana kl. esculenta) are occurring in Slovakia. All of them are listed on the national Red List and legally protected. Because of new information on amphibian and reptile species distribution in Slovakia, an update of the Red List is necessary in the near future. In 2005 the criteria for determining the favourable conservation status for the14 species of amphibians listed in the Habitats Directive were proposed. Currently the experts are working on the methods for monitoring the conservation status. Slovenia Monitoring of amphibians does not take place in Slovenia. For several years Rana latastei has been monitored in all ponds of its distribution range but due to a lack of funding money, no initiatives have been taken since than. The monitoring of Annex IV species is of least concern for the ministry. If inventories are made, it is done once-only in an area as part of projects for environmental quality reports. By this, data have been collected over time and are stored 13

14 mainly in the database of the Centre for Cartography of Flora and Fauna. However, due to mutual quarrel, some networks do not contribute to this and data are not always easily accessible. Spain In Spain, Asociación Herpetológica Española is now starting a monitoring program, called SARE, with all the Iberian amphibians. In 2005, an amphibian monitoring program in Special areas of Conservation has started in Catalonia. Monitoring is done 4 times a year, by 2 professionals and 100 volunteers. The species of interest are Alytes obstetricans and Bufo calamita 14

15 3. Favourable conservation status The concept of FCS in the Habitats Directive The concept of FCS serves as an overall target of conservation measures in the European Union. Article I (i) of the Habitats Directive states that: conservation status of a species means the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2. It is further stated that the conservation status will be taken as favourable when: Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced in the foreseeable future There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis The Habitats Directive includes a relatively flexible definition to judge whether a species is in a favourable conservation status. How to describe conservation status needs to be harmonised in order to allow for a meaningful aggregation and analysis of data on EU-level. While the broad criteria to assess conservation status are set out, there is as yet no agreed guidance on the appropriate scale at which this is judged, nor on the way information is used to determine whether the status of a species is favourable or not. In order to establish conformity in the assessment of the conservation status, first, several questions that can be derived from the criteria for FCS in the Habitats Directive should be investigated: How to define natural range? How to define viable component? What proportion of local populations needs to be viable in order to make a conservation status favourable on national and European scale? 15

16 Natural range The word favourable implicitly refers to some ideal or target conservation level of a species, with which the favourability of the prevailing situation is compared. A criterion that is often mentioned as a possible target of conservation efforts is that the distribution of a species approaches historic coverage. This only makes sense if the historical range was larger than, or as large as, the present one. Counterarguments against the use of historical ranges are that they are unknown in most cases, and if known, it is in many cases not possible to restore them due to irreversible habitat changes (Mehtala and Vuorisalo, 2007). As suggested by Scholes and Biggs (2005), it is generally more realistic to concentrate on maintaining at least the current ranges or population sizes. With respect to pioneer species as Bufo calamita the historical range can be an over estimation, especially in quickly alternating landscapes. FCS on regional, national and European scale Apart from the rather broad definitions to determine whether a species is in a favourable conservation status, another difficulty presents itself in reaching conformity on the assessment of this status; the diversity in population size and range of the different Annex II and IV species within the EU, between the Member States. For example the tree frog Hyla arborea has the status of threatened on the national Red List of the Netherlands, whereas the species is very common in Bulgaria. The natterjack toad Bufo calamita is listed as endangered in the UK, while in the Netherlands this species is listed as not threatened. In regard to this problem, the latter species has been put to discussion during the 12 th SEH Congress in St. Petersburg by Zuiderwijk, but unfortunately there was ample reaction by the audience (Zuiderwijk, 2003). A great methodological challenge is that for legislative and administrative reasons FCS of species will be assessed over entire countries and over Europe as a whole. The concept of FCS is not only limited to the Natura 2000 network. The definition of FCS for habitats and species in Article 1 indicates clearly that the overall situation of species needs to be assessed and monitored in order to judge if it is favourable or not. To assess and evaluate the conservation status of species within the Natura 2000 network is not sufficient, especially when considering that the occurrence of most Annex II species is only partly covered by the network, and Annex IV and V species might not be covered at all. An obvious question is how big a proportion of local populations need to be viable before its conservation status can be considered as nationally favourable. And even further, 16

17 could the conservation status at the Community level be considered favourable although the criteria of the FCS would not be met in one or more of the member states? The concept of minimum viable population size (MVP), which refers to the number of individuals necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the species (Shaffer, 1981), is a possible measure of favourability of conservation status at site level. If the local population size is equal to or exceeds the MVP, its conservation status can be considered favourable. At national level, the conservation status is evidently a statistical outcome of fates of individual populations at the local scale. Synergies with IUCN Red List criteria In order not to re-invent the wheel the DG Environment suggested to make use of existing synergies for the assessment of the conservation status. Member states are proposed to use recent Red Lists on national level based on the latest IUCN criteria as an important input on their national reports. These criteria are widely recognised and used and generally similar to the ones necessary to assess conservation status. Geographic range and area of occupancy are defined by IUCN in a way which is similar to the concepts of natural range and areas it covers in the definition of favourable conservation status in the directive. The IUCN includes threats, which parallels the influences of the conservation status definition. A species that fits the criteria for red listing as regionally critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or near-threatened will obviously not be able to fit the definition of FCS. For the assessment whether a species is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, the IUCN system provides both general and specific guidelines on how to categorize populations of species in this regard. National reports As mentioned in the introduction, the member states are obliged to monitor and assess the conservation status of the natural habitat types and species and to report their findings to the Community. The Habitats directive defines a six-year cycle for reporting, with the first report submitted in 2001, covering the period and the second report in 2007, covering the period between 2001 and 2006 (table 2). The second report has to include, on the best available information, a first assessment of conservation status for all the Annex species and habitats of Community interest. To allow preparation of an EU wide report, DG Environment has proposed that the 10 new Member States follow the same reporting timetable as the older Member States with a first report submitted in

18 Reporting period National report Main focus (2003/4) (2008/9) 2013 (2014/15) Table 2: Reporting schedule according to article 11 of the Habitats Directive Progress in legal transposition and implementation of the directive; progress in establishing the Natura 2000 network, administrative aspects First assessment of conservation status based on best available data (based among others on trends and ideally in comparison with favourable reference values) Renewed assessment of conservation status, based on an established monitoring system. Assessment of effectiveness of measures taken under the directive In the 2007 reporting and assessment of conservation status, the European Commission s guidance states that the following categories of conservation status should be used: Favourable Conservation Status (green) Unfavourable Conservation Status Inadequate (amber) Unfavourable Conservation Status Bad (red) Unknown In order to determine which of these categories is currently relevant to a species, reference values need to be set for the combination of parameters used to define conservation status (as indicated in Article 1 (i) of the Directive). These parameters are: The total range occupied by the species within a member state The population size of the species concerned The area and condition of relevant habitat(s) occupied by the species Future prospects of the species When certain minimum values for each of these parameters have been exceeded then a species is considered to be at FCS. If the species is below one or more of these minimum values it will be in an Unfavourable Conservation Status and how much below determines whether this status is inadequate or bad. These minimum values are the Favourable Reference Values (FRV s) and are essential for determining the conservation status of a species. So, FCS is the overall goal and political obligation on Member States, whereas FRV s are the scientific baselines which refer to the practical implementation of FCS. 18

19 Range Favourable Reference Values The EC guidance states that the favourable range is the: Range within which all significant ecological variations of the species are included for a given biogeographical region and which is sufficiently large to allow the long term survival of the species. Favourable reference value must be at least the range (in size and configuration) when the Directive came into force. If the range was insufficient to support a favourable status the reference for favourable range should take account of that and should be larger (in such a case information on historic distribution may be found useful when defining the favourable reference range). Best expert judgement may be used to define it in absence of other data. Population Favourable Reference Values The EC guidance states that the favourable population is the: Population in a given biogeographical region considered the minimum necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the species. Favourable reference value must be at least the size of the population when the Directive came into force. Information on historic distribution/population may be found useful when defining the favourable reference population. Best expert judgement may be used to define it in the absence of other data. Criteria for conservation status of a species Range Favourable: The range of the species is stable or increasing and not smaller than the favourable reference range Unfavourable Inadequate: Any combination other than described under favourable or unfavourable bad. Unfavourable Bad: Large decline in range equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year within period specified by Member States or a range more than 10% below favourable reference range. Unknown: No or insufficient reliable information available Population size Favourable: Population size of the species is above favourable reference population and reproduction, mortality and age structure are not deviating from normal (if data available) Unfavourable Inadequate: Any combination other than described under favourable or unfavourable bad. 19

20 Unfavourable Bad: Large decline in population equivalent to a loss of more than 1% per year within the period specified by the Member States and below favourable reference population or a population size more than 25% below favourable reference population or reproduction, mortality and age structure strongly deviating from normal (if data available) Unknown: No or insufficient reliable information available Habitat for the species Favourable: Area of habitat(s) of the species is sufficiently large and stable or increasing and habitat quality is suitable for the long term survival of the species. Unfavourable Inadequate: Any combination other than described under favourable or unfavourable bad. Unfavourable Bad: Area of habitat(s) is clearly not sufficiently large to ensure the long term survival of the species or habitat quality is bad, clearly not allowing long term survival of the species. Unknown: No or insufficient reliable information available Overall assessment of the conservation status Favourable: All favourable or three favourable and one Unknown Unfavourable Inadequate: One or more Unfavourable Inadequate but none Unfavourable Bad. Unfavourable Bad: One or more Unfavourable Bad. Unknown: Two or more Unknown combined with green or all Unknown. National report of Denmark Denmark was the first country that published its assessments of the conservation status of habitats and species of European interest in its territory as it was proposed by the EC. The DG environment proposed the Member States to follow the Danish model for the second report on the initial conservation status of the Annex species. The Danish Forest and Nature Agency, the National Environmental Research Institute and the Danish county authorities have initiated a co-operative programme to provide and compile the data necessary to assess the conservation status of the natural habitat types and species concerned. The report presents the very first assessment of the conservation status of the habitats and species in Denmark on the basis of the background data and information available. An important note that has to be made is that the assessment must be considered as preliminary because precise conservation 20

21 objectives for the natural habitat types and species have yet to be developed. Systematic monitoring of particular species listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive has only been implemented in a few exceptional cases. Studies of species status and recent distribution have been carried out in a limited number of cases, but for the majority of species the report is based on historical and recent data gathered from scattered information sources. In the report, the following criteria have formed the basis for assessing the conservation status of a species: Number of localities hosting populations of the species. As an example, species occurring at less than 10 localities are assessed to be more vulnerable than species occurring at for instance more than 100 localities. Number of individuals in each population. Assessments are here based on the concept Minimum Viable Population size (MVP). Depending on the species concerned and its biology MVP is estimated to be 1,000-2,000 individuals. Isolation level of the individual populations. Isolation for instance will increase the risk of inbreed and genetic drift. Other ecological features of the species (dispersal capacity, population dynamics, etc.) The report primarily refers to the actual range as a synonym for the natural range. Depending on the quality of data available, the actual range within the latest years has been assessed. The extent of available habitat must be considered as relative to the species concerned. In the report 'habitat extent' is assessed on the basis of the population size. For the conservation status of a species 5 scales are used: favourable, unfavourable, uncertain, unknown and disappeared (table 3). These are assessed on locality level as well as on national level when the data available are sufficient. The categories 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' are exclusively applied to species where sufficient data are available to substantiate the assessment. The category 'uncertain' has been introduced because the background data available for comparison with the recent status will often be based on fragmentary historical data. Furthermore, species may be classified in this category irrespective of population development when the population is so small that its long-term survival is uncertain. The category 'unknown' is used for species where only little or no information on distribution and abundance is available. Species concerned may be those that are difficult to determine or relatively common species where the identification of their conservation status would require the introduction of a specific monitoring programme. 21

22 Table 3: Scale for a summary assessment of conservation status of populations of flora and fauna species at locality level and national level in Denmark. 22

23 4. Discussion Current state of affairs Economical issues Monitoring methods in Eastern Europe are clearly effected by cultural and economical differences between Eastern and Western Europe. Monitoring of amphibians is predominantly done by biologists and biology-students and not by volunteers. This means that data collecting is done by relative few people and can only take place on fairly small scales. In Bulgaria for example, the lack of human resources for the start of national biodiversity monitoring is an important factor is at this point. And in Slovenia, the group which is active in amphibian monitoring exists of 15 persons. As soon students are graduated, they apply for a job in another branch, since part-time jobs do not exist in this field and fulltime jobs are not paid well. Free-time is sparse and there is no tradition of voluntary work. Due to this, the group of active biologists, representing the country, exist of just 5 experts. Fieldwork is dependent on the available fundings, and that again is a matter of priorities of the government. Since Slovenia became a member of the EU, subsidization by external resources has drastically decreased because it is thought that, being a member state now, there is no need for it anymore. Hence, there are no amphibian monitoring activities and reports on conservation status are probably based on old, recycled data, replenished with some data of Environmental Impact Assessments. Social and economical issues seem to be the fundamental problems that have taken their toll on amphibian monitoring in countries like Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. The provision of sufficient funding by the European Commission and Member States is mentioned as one of the key elements for establishing, assessing and monitoring favourable conservation status. Attitude of people towards amphibians Despite some public awareness campaigns, the attitude of people towards amphibians has not greatly changed in the last years. In Hungary, amphibian and reptile species are still often killed in rural areas. Wildlife trade still occurs, although measures have been taken to reduce it, illegal collecting of the grass frog Rana temporaria still continues. Overall, an attitude of indifference towards nature conservation in general, seen as far less important than economic 23

24 and social issues, prevails in the general public. Environment-oriented education and its presence in the media can still be described as insufficient. Quite the contrary occurred in Finland, where the neglect of public opinion resulted in a widespread criticism of the Natura 2000 network and the EC conservation policy as a whole in the late 1990 s. In the Habitats Directive, taking into account economic, social cultural and regional requirements in maintenance of biodiversity is mentioned as an objective. The hierarchical structure of the conservation status assessment process provides possibilities for increasing the role of public hearings. According to Mehtala and Vuorisalo (2007), a more active role of public opinion in the planning procedure would in the long run greatly benefit European conservation policy by creating more positive attitudes toward conservation issues. International standardisation methods In article 18 of the Habitats Directive is stated that transboundary cooperative research between the Member States shall be encouraged. However, in the field of amphibian monitoring there is little sign of this. It often seemed to be difficult to get access to information on this topic in different countries and from some countries I was not able to collect any information at all (Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Sweden). A major obstacle is that many websites on this topic are not international orientated and only in the country s native language. Another problem I encountered is the grey area between the experts and the executers of the implementation of the Habitats Directive on national level. At one hand there is information on whether amphibian monitoring is taking place and if yes, which programs are running and on the other hand there are the national reports on the conservation status. But in between, how monitoring results are translated in the conservation status and what criteria are used remains unclear. In several cases it was even unclear whether the monitoring activities were with regard to the implementation of the Habitats Directive at all. So it is possible to get access to the reports with the conservation status but it is very hard to find information about the way this status is assessed. An exception on this is the Danish report on the preliminary assessment of conservation status of habitats and species in Denmark. As mentioned in table 2, the assessments of the conservation status for 2007/8 are based on best available information, which often means anecdotal historical information and scattered information sources. Experts in separate countries currently employ different monitoring methods. Therefore, gained results are often not suitable for comparison. Due to this, it is too early to pass judgement whether international conformity can be established and 24

25 assessments can be made on trends on European scale. As mentioned in the Danish report: studies of historical status and recent distribution have been carried out for a limited number of species. The assessment of the precise conservation status of a species is thus based on variable information and comprehensive adjustments are to be expected when drawing up future reports as such assessments can be based upon improved data from actual monitoring programmes designed for the particular needs of the species and a full assessment of their habitats. The need for this improvement appears from the fact that 5 out of the 8 Annex amphibian species in Denmark have yet the status of Uncertain. According to the schedule (table 2) it is the period preceding the outcome of the third report ( ) in which improved monitoring systems will be established for renewed assessments of conservation status. And hopefully, these will be orientated on an international level, with a standardized methodology. It is clear that in East-European countries, little initiatives are running concerning the implementation of the Habitats Directive. Once a member of the EU several monitoring programs have stopped since there was no need for it anymore. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, as forerunners in this field, can set an example for countries like Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. In order to do assessments on national level, one has to start on site level whereby in the different reports the concept of MVP is mentioned as a suitable measure of favourability of conservation status. The different Member States will have to decide how to deal with the monitoring of Annex II and IV amphibian species that are very common in their country. In none of the consulted literature suggestions were mentioned for this, but low profile monitoring would be a suitable option, whereby at least once every six years (once per reporting period) an inventory will be made on the species. FCS and FRVs It has to be noted that although FRVs can be seen as objectives, they are emphatically not the same as targets. FRVs are statically and do not provide information on trends. Especially in the case when a species conservation status is not favourable, specific population monitoring is needed in order to determine trends and measures that are needed. Information on tendencies in marginal populations is indispensable in order to determine their conservation status. 25

26 Another issue concerning marginal populations is which unit to apply for the assessment of FRVs. In a recently appeared protocol on the assessment of FRVs in the Netherlands, the Directie Kennis van LNV proposes to use km2 as a unit for favourable reference population for amphibians. However, population sizes expressed in distribution range do not provide information on the number of individuals occurring in a certain area. An amphibian population may decrease drastically in amount of individuals and still cover the same 1 x 1 km grid cell. International monitoring of Triturus cristatus I would like to finish this thesis with a positive and encouraging approach; the international LIFE-Nature project of the protection of the great crested newt Triturus cristatus in the Eastern Baltic region. The involved countries are: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany and Lithuania. The experts of the participating countries have simultaneously worked out the criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status of T. cristatus. This work has been based on several activities carried out by the LIFE project. The results of the evaluation of breeding ponds gave a wider understanding of the species habitat demands. This provided new knowledge about the preferable water bodies and terrestrial habitat components of T. cristatus, the key characteristics of the aquatic habitat, the preferable density of water bodies and the structure and type of aquatic and terrestrial habitat characteristic of a viable metapopulation. Furthermore, a common monitoring methodology has been elaborated as a result of the cooperation between the experts. As mentioned before, separate countries currently use different monitoring methods. Up to now, Estonia has applied mainly two monitoring methods, egg searching and dip netting of larvae, which provides an overview of the species existence (eggs, larvae) and breeding success (larvae), but not information on the number of individuals in a particular water body. In addition to these methods, Denmark has also made use of nocturnal of adult individuals of a water body. The primary monitoring methods of Finland on its part consisted of a combination of live trapping and nocturnal counting, which gives a chance to estimate the number of adult individuals in a water body, but does not provide any information on the species breeding success. The elaboration of an optimal monitoring methodology was carried out by testing and analysing the various methods used in the several countries. The common methodology worked out, provides a more exact overview of the situation of the species and the annual changes at the level of populations and meta-populations. Moreover, it allows assessing 26

27 breeding success and estimating the number of adults in a water body as well as in an entire meta-population, at the same time making it possible to compare the status and trends of populations in different regions and countries. The criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status and the monitoring methodology for Triturus cristatus will be applied in the Eastern-Baltic region and Denmark, but could -and perhaps even should- also be followed in other European countries. 27

28 5. Conclusions It is clear that there is still a long way to go with respect to establishing international conformity in monitoring approach. According to the reporting schedule of the Habitats Directive, it is not until the outcome of the third national report in 2013 that improved monitoring systems will be established for renewed assessments of conservation status. So the upcoming period preceding this report will be of great importance for the realisation of an international standardized methodology. In the Netherlands, The Habitat Directive is fully enforced and therefore, in regard to the other Member States, there are no consequences for NEM for now. In order to do assessments on national level, one has to start on site level whereby in the different reports the concept of MVP is mentioned as a suitable measure of favourability of conservation status. The statistical outcome of individual populations at the local scale will allow making assessments on a national level. A possible approach for the Member States is to follow trends in (favourable) conservation status. This can be done on national scale or regional scale per Natura 2000 area. The smaller the scale, the more accurate information can be obtained. Correlations between Natura 2000 areas and its inhabiting species would even allow for assessing the relative importance of an area. The international LIFE-Nature project of the protection of the great crested newt Triturus cristatus in the Eastern Baltic region can set as an example for other Member States. 28