Biodiversity Trends & Threats in Europe

Transcription

1 RIVM Report Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe development nd test of species trend indictor M. de Heer, V. Kpos nd B. J. E. ten Brink Mrch 2005 UNEP World Conservtion Monitoring Centre - Cmridge, UK Netherlnds Environmentl Assessment Agency (RIV M-MNP) - Bilthoven, NL

2 The ody text of this report is lso pulished s peer-reviewed scientific pper in the Philosophicl Trnsctions of the Royl Society B: Biologicl Sciences (De Heer et l. 2005). The Royl Society hs grnted permission to reprint the text in this report (some minor modifictions re mde). For more informtion, plese cont c t : Mireille de Heer, project coordintor (mireille. d e. h e e r i v m.nl), or UNEP WCMC informtion desk (informtion@unep- w c m c. o r g ) This project ws sponsored y the UK Deprt m e nt for the Environment, Food nd Rurl Affirs (DEFRA; project nr. CRO296), the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Fo r e s ts nd Lndscpe (SAEFL) nd the Netherlnds Environmentl Assessment Agency (RIVM MNP). The cont e nts of this report do not necessrily reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WC M C, s p o n s o r s, cont r i u t o ry orgniztions, editor(s) or pulisher(s). 2 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

3 P r e f c e At the glol level, Heds of Stte nd Go v e r n m e nt hve greed to significntly reduce the rte of iodiversity loss y Within Europe, they hve decided on n even more mitious trget of hlting iodiversity loss in the sme period. These 2010 t r g e ts will require strong will nd focussed ction cross wide rnge of humn ctivities nd resulting pressures on iodiversity to ensure tht they re reched successfully. They will lso require e tter qulity dt nd informtion to help chieve nd to monitor progress. Indictors re incresingly recognised s one of the most import nt forms of informtion for trcking progress nd showing where ction is required. They need to e scientificlly sound with cler nd simple messge tht cn e redily pprecited y experts, ly- p e o p l e, politicins nd decision-mkers like. S i g n i f i c nt progress hs een mde during 2004 in greeing the first sets of indictors to ssess progress to the 2010 t r g e ts; firstly within the Convention on Biologicl Diversity for the glol trget then, on the sis of the Convention set, t the pn-europen nd Europen Union level. Ech set recognises the need for n indictor on the trends in the undnce nd distriution of selected species. This report provides mjor contriution to the development of such n indictor y reviewing ville dt within Europe nd showing how these dt cn e ggregted to produce n index (or composite indictor) for rnge of species for which good dt re lredy ville. The report clerly sets out requirements for the indictor, the methodology for producing it nd the dt ville. It then provides step- y-step exmple of how dt cn e ggregted to produce the composite indictor nd hence how the indictor cn e decomposed into its constituent prts. Those interested in the overll picture cn pprecite nd respond to the composite indictor wheres those concerned with ction on specific t h r e ts ffecting individul species in different regions cn mke use of the relevnt c o n s t i t u e nt prts. As summrised in the report, further work is required to improve monitoring, the i n v o l v e m e nt of the mny non- g o v e r n m e ntl orgnistions ctive in this field nd dt hndling procedures nd hence improve the qulity of this key indictor. The pilot study p r e s e nted in this report will provide very useful contriution to the upcoming process on the implementtion of the 2010 indictors t the Europen, EU nd ntionl levels. It cn lso provide the sis to st rt monitoring trends nd for tking ction to meet the t r g e ts. There is not moment to lose! We cn improve the indictor s we proceed ut if we lose i o d i v e r s i ty we lose it for long time, if not forever. Gordon McInnes Deputy Director Europen Environment Agency Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 3

4 4 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

5 C o nt e nts S u m m ry 7 1. I nt r o d u c t i o n 9 2. M e t h o d s Geogrphicl scope nd clssifiction of the study re L o c t i n g, moilising nd compiling dt Clcultion nd gg r e g t i o n R e s u l ts Evlution of the ville dt A first tril of the indictor Discussion nd recommendtions D t moilistion H i t ts nd iogeogrphicl regions Composition nd gg r e g t i o n R e l i i l i ty nd sensitivity Reltion etween the indictor nd iodiversity loss Po t e ntil for use t the ntionl scle Themtic indictors Towrds Europen iodiversity monitoring frmework 27 A c k n o w l e d g e m e nts 2 9 R e f e r e n c e s 3 1 Appendix 1 EU NIS hitt ty p e s 3 5 Appendix 2 Species- o r i e nted NGOs 3 8 Appendix 3 Remp tles lnd cover ecosystems 4 0 Appendix 4 Clcultion nd ggregtion exmple 4 3 Appendix 5 Species sets 4 4 Appendix 6 Distriution of time series 5 2 Appendix 7 Evlution of species sets 5 4 Appendix 8 Detils on the UK index 6 5 Appendix 9 Cuses of chnge 6 7 Appendix 10 Recommended ctions 6 9 Appendix 11 Po t e ntil for Europen Biodiversity Monitoring 7 1 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 5

6 6 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

7 S u m m ry This report presents tril of species popultion trend indictor for evluting progress towrds the 2010 iodiversity trget in Europe, using existing dt. The indictor int e g r t e s trends on different species (groups), nd cn e ggregted cross hit ts nd count r i e s. T h u s, the indictor cn deliver oth hedline messges for high-level decision mking nd d e tiled informtion for in-depth nlysis, using dt from different sources, collected with d i f f e r e nt methods. I nterntionl NGOs moilised dt on over 2800 historicl trends in ntionl popultions of i r d s, utt e rflies nd mmmls, for totl of 273 species. These were comined y hit t nd iogeogrphicl region to generte pilot P n-europen scle indictor. The tril indictor sugg e s ts decline of species popultions in nerly ll hit ts, the lrgest eing in f r m l n d, where species popultions declined y n verge of 23% etween 1970 nd The indictor is potentilly useful for monitoring progress towrds 2010 iodiversity t r g e ts, ut constrints include: the limited sensitivity of the historicl dt, which leds to c o n s e rvtive estimtes of species decline; potentil dnger of miguity ecuse increses in opportunistic species cn msk the loss of other species; nd filure to ccount for pre popultion declines. We recommend moilising dditionl existing dt, prt i c u l r l y for plnts nd fish, nd elorting further the criteri for compiling representtive sets of s p e c i e s. For frequent, relile updte of the indictor, sound, sensitive nd hrmonised i o d i v e r s i ty monitoring progrmmes re needed in ll countries cross P n- E u r o p e. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 7

8 8 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

9 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n In response to glol concern over the rpid loss of the world s iodiversity, the 6 t h Conference of the P rties of the Convention on Biologicl Diversity (CBD) dopted glol trget to reduce the rte of iodiversity loss y 2010 (CBD 2002). This t r g e t, which ws lter endorsed y the World Summit on Sustinle Development (United Ntions 2002), hs lso een dopted y numer of regionl scle policies nd processes. The Europen Union S u s tinle Development Strtegy (2001) nd vrious other Europen Union policies (EC 1998, 2001, c) set similr or even more mitious iodiversity gols. The P n- E u r o p e n Ministeril E n v i r o n m e nt for Europe process dopted resolution on hlting the loss of i o d i v e r s i ty y 2010 (UN/ECE 2003). This widespred doption of t r g e ts for reducing the rte of iodiversity loss hs highlighted need for indictors tht will llow policy mkers to trck progress towrds these mitious g o l s. Recognising this need, the CoP of the CBD identified series of iodiversity indictors for immedite testing (UNEP 2004). Such indictors re needed t ntionl, regionl nd glol levels. In June 2004 the Environment Council of the EU dopted set of 15 hedline indictors for iodiversity to evlute progress towrds the 2010 trget (Council of the Europen Union 2004). This set ws recommended y the EU Biodiversity Expert Group nd i ts Ad Hoc Working Group on Indictors, Monitoring nd Assessment, nd the Mlhide s tkeholder conference (Anonymous 2004). Both the CBD decision nd the Europen documents recommend, mong other indictors for immedite testing, indictors of trends in undnce nd distriution of selected species. Species trend indictors re considered sensitive mesure of iodiversity chnge (Blmford et l. 2003; Ten Brink et l. 1991; Ten Brink 2000), nd one such pproch, composite species trend indictors, hs een incresingly widely pplied. In ddition to the glol-scle Living Plnet Index (Loh 2002; Loh et l. 2005) there re severl instnces of the successful i m p l e m e nttion of such indictors, principlly t ntionl scles (Jenkins et l. 2004). The UK Hedline indictor of wild ird popultions (Gr e g o ry 2003) is one exmple. The Europen Bird Census Council (EBCC) hs used similr pproch to develop the P n- E u r o p e n Common Bird Index for frmlnd nd woodlnd irds (Gr e g o ry 2003; Gr e g o ry et l. 2005). To ddress the need for regionl scle iodiversity indictors in (P n-) Europe, this study set out to ident i fy suitle dt nd uild upon existing methods to develop n pproprite indictor of trends in species undnce nd distriution for use t the P n-europen scle (the whole of Europe west of the Url mountins nd including the Antolin prt of Tu r k e y ; i. e. the Europen Union plus 18 other Europen countries). The trget udience for the indictor is policy mkers on the P n-europen nd ntionl levels, who will use the indictor to support high-level decision-mking on the environment nd iodiversity-relted sectorl c t i v i t i e s. The indictor should lso e suitle for informing the generl pulic on i o d i v e r s i ty trends. It should mtch the set of requirements s listed in the CBD generl guidelines nd principles for developing ntionl-level iodiversity monitoring progrmmes nd indictors (UNEP 2003). These principles require tht n indictor e, mong other c h r c t e r i s t i c s: policy nd iodiversity relevnt; scientificlly sound; rodly ccepted; ffordle to produce nd updte; sensitive; represent t i v e; flexile nd menle to gg r e g t i o n. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 9

10 In this pper, we present proposed method for clculting such composite indictor to evlute progress towrds the 2010 trget for terrestril iodiversity in Europe, n evlution of the existing dt ville for the purpose nd our experience of moilising them, nd the r e s u l ts of tril ppliction of the proposed method to some of the ville dt. We lso offer recommendtions s to how the dt nd the methodology cn e improved sed upon this pilot experience. 10 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

11 2. M e t h o d s The chllenges in developing n indictor on the trends in undnce nd distriution of selected species lie in finding pproprite dt, nd in ident i fying how est to select the c o m p o n e nt trends nd how to comine them in wy tht is representtive of the system nd trends of interest. These require choices on the clssifiction of the study re, selection of the species, nd the procedure for clcultion nd gg r e g t i o n. 2.1 Geogrphicl scope nd clssifiction of the study re This study focused on the whole of Europe west of the Urls, including the Antolin prt of Tu r k e y. The re ws ctegorised (Tle 1) y comining the 11 P n- E u r o p e n iogeogrphicl regions (Figure 1; Roekerts 2002) with the 10 top-level hitt types from the EU NIS hitt clssifiction dopted y the Europen Environment Agency (Appendix 1; Dvies nd Moss 2002). The EU NIS clsses Grsslnd nd tll for hit ts nd Regulrly or r e c e ntly cultivted griculturl, horticulturl nd domestic hit ts hve een merged into single clss, clled F r m l n d. By comining the iogeogrphicl regions nd the mjor h i tt types we imed to cover the min vrition in Europe s iodiversity. We hve termed the comintion of hitt type nd iogeogrphicl region n ecoregion. Tle 1. The pproximte res (in thousnds of km 2 ) of the Pn-Europen ecoregions defined for this study y comining iogeogrphicl regions with EUNIS hitt types. Those ecoregions selected for the pilot study re in red. Note tht the EUNIS clsses grsslnds nd cultivted hitts hve een merged into new ctegory: frmlnd. The pproximte re of ech e c o region ws clculted from GIS overlys of iogeogrphi cl regions (Roekrts 2002) with hitt mps derived from the CORINE lnd cover mp (ETC/TE 2000) nd the Glol Lndcover 2000 mp (Btholome 2002). Prts of Russi, Ukrine nd Turkey were not included in these sttistics. Biogeogrphicl re g i o n A l p i n e A n t o - A rc t i c A t l n - Blck B o re l C o n t i - M c ro - M e d i t e r- P n n o - S t e p p i c To t l l i n t i c S e n e n t l n e s i n r n e n n i n EUNIS Hitt type Mrine hitts???????????? Costl hitts < 1? < 1 2 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 2 < 1 < 1 6 Inlnd surfce wter hitts 15? 3 8 < < M i re, og nd fen hitts 26? < Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts 21? < Woodlnd nd forest hitt nd other wooded lnd 336? , 028 Inlnd unvegetted or sprsely vegetted hitts 107? < < C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts 6? < 1 41 < < F rm l n d 146? , , 909 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 11

12 F i g u re 1. Biogeogrphicl regions nd countries in Pn-Europe (Roekerts 2002) In this pilot study we hve focussed on the 22 ecoregions in red in Tle 1, which were selected sed on n priori estimtion of the vilility of relevnt dt, their size nd their perceived importnce for iodiversity. 2.2 L o c t i n g, moilising nd compiling dt* The vrious studies tht hve investigted ongoing iodiversity monitoring in Europe hve concluded tht the mny monitoring ctivities existing t int e r n t i o n l, ntionl nd locl scles re ptchy nd scttered mong plces nd orgnistions, nd there is little coordintion mong them (Delere & Nieto in prep.; ETC/NPB 2003; Fischer 2002). Moreover, with some exceptions, most of the monitoring progrmmes hve een running for only limited numer of yers. Compiling Europen dtse of long-term trends is therefore s i g n i f i c nt chllenge. Much of the coordintion tht does exist is provided y species- o r i e nted non-governmentl orgnistions (NGOs), which mostly hve wildlife conservtion s their min ojective. To help direct their conservtion ctivities, these NGOs rely on networks of experts nd orgnistions from (nerly) ll Pn-Europen count r i e s, which re involved to vrying degrees in * For ny queries regrding the use of the dt y third prt i e s, plese contct the project coordintor (mireille.de. h e e r i v m. n l; tel (0) ) or UNEP WCMC (informtion@unep- w c m c. o r g; tel (0) ) 12 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

13 Tle 2. The seven lrge NGOs used s the principl dt providers for this study nd their focl txonomic gro u p s. Species gro u p N G O We s i t e i rd s B i rdlife Intern t i o n l h t t p :// w w w. i rd l i f e. n e t / E u ropen Bird Census Council h t t p :// w w w. e c c. i n f o Wetlnds Intern t i o n l h t t p :// w w w. w e t l n d s. o rg / d e f u l t. h t m u t t e rf l i e s B u t t e rfly Conservtion Euro p e h t t p :// w w w. v l i n d e r s t i c h t i n g. n l / m m m l s L rge Crn i v o re Inititive Euro p e h t t p :// w w w. l c i e. o rg / L rge Herivore Foundtion h t t p :// w w w. l rg e h e r i v o re. o rg / p l n t s Plnt Euro p h t t p :// w w w. p l n t e u ro p. o rg / h t m l / o u t _ p e. h t m monitoring nd surveying progrmmes. The NGOs help to coordinte monitoring ctivities nd to ring together the resulting dt. In mny countries the NGOs hve ccess to informtion tht cn not esily e otined from more forml focl points for e. g. the CBD or the EEA. This is ecuse the informtion hs often not een collected in the frmework of forml governmentl iodiversity monitoring progrmme. Thus these NGOs re Europen nodes tht, with their netw o r k s, cn provide unique overview of, nd ccess to lrge m o u nts of dt on sttus nd trends in their focl species groups. For this study, seven of lrgest nd est estlished NGOs involved in species trend dt collection throughout Europe were identified s the most promising providers of species trend dt (Tle 2, Appendix 2). These NGOs work with rod rnge of prtners (locl NGOs, reserch institutes nd universities, herri nd otnicl grdens, hunt e r s orgnistions, f o r e s t ry orgnistions, etc.) nd ccordingly drw on dt collected in mny different c o nt e x ts (conserv t i o n, reserch, gme mngement, policy support, pulic informtion, etc. ). The NGOs mde ville numer of mjor dt sources (Tle 3; Burfield et l. 2004; V n S w y 2004; Vn de Vlskker Eiseng 2004; LC IE 2004), including oth existing Europen d t s e s, where dt from mny sources in mny countries hd lredy een rought t o g e t h e r, nd dt tht were still held y the originl reserchers nd rought together for this project. For reeding irds nd utt e rflies in P n- E u r o p e, popultion trend dt were ville for l l species nd l l c o u nt r i e s. For mmmls, dt vilility ws est for 5 species of lrge crnivores nd 7 species of lrge herivores in most of the relevnt count r i e s. H o w e v e r, for mmmls in quite few countries the dt re ville for only one point in time nd no trends cn e clculted. For ll three species groups dt were moilised for s mny species s ws possile within the context of this project, with the exception of invsive species nd species with highly fluctuting popultions tht would hide long-term trends. The principl source of ird dt, the Europen Bird Dtse hs its own definition for this c t e g o ry, nd the NGOs nd experts pplied similr filters for the other txonomic groups. In the context of this (pilot) project it ws not fesile to collect dt on plnts nd wint e r i n g wter irds. The originl dt were otined y wide vriety of methods, including: s tndrdised monitoring schemes with fixed smpling sites estimtes of totl popultion size, either y direct oservtion or indirectly, e. g. inferred from the totl numer of shot nimls c o u nts of numer of popultions or met- p o p u l t i o n s repeted distriution tlses (especilly for utt e rflies) which were used to otin proxy of popultion decline (see lso Thoms et l. 2004) e x p e rt judgement. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 13

14 Tle 3. The principl dt sources used y the NGOs to provide time series dt for this study. Dt derived from these sources were s t n d rdised s indices of popultion chnge etween 1970 nd G ro u p Dt sourc e ( s ) Numer Lowest sptil C o v e r g e Time interv l R e f e re n c e of species re s o l u t i o n for which trends re ville i rd s E u ropen Bird 515 c o u n t ry ll Pn-Euro p e n , B i rdlife Intern t i o n l / E u ro p e n Dtse I nd II c o u n t r i e s B i rd Census Council (2000), (EBD), incorporting B i rdlife Interntionl (2004) dt from the P n - E u ropen Common Bird Monitoring Scheme u t t e rf l i e s Red Dt Book of 576 c o u n t ry ll Pn-Europen Vn Swy & W rren (1999) E u ropen utterflies c o u n t r i e s (nd underlying d t s e ) ntionl nd m n y c o u n t ry or region mny Pn-Euro p e n vries y country see re f e rences in regionl tlses within country c o u n t r i e s Vn Swy (2004) ntionl monitoring m n y c o u n t ry or re g i o n Finlnd, vries y country; see re f e rences in s c h e m e s within country The Netherlnds, f rom few yers Vn Swy (2004) Spin, UK, Ukrine to since 1976 (UK) mmmls, Species Action Plns 5 c o u n t ry ll Pn-Euro p e n vries y species see re f e re n c e s l rge nd mny dt c o u n t r i e s nd y country ; in LCIE (2004) c rn i v o re s s o u rces residing since with individul re s e rchers nd i n s t i t u t e s mmmls, mny dt sources 7 c o u n t ry ll Pn-Euro p e n vries y species see re f e rences in l rge residing with individul c o u n t r i e s nd y country ; Vn de Vlskker Eiseng h e r i v o re s re s e rchers nd since ( 2004 ) i n s t i t u t e s T h e r e f o r e, the originl dt were expressed in different units nd were ssocited with v rying degrees of uncert i nty. The two lrgest dt sources for utt e rflies nd irds, s well s the erliest mmml, counts dte ck to the 1970s. Ve ry few dt re ville for the 1980s, while dt collection ecme fr more common prctice in the 1990s. Trends re therefore often given for lrger time int e rvl of two or three decdes, i. e. without intermedite yers. To ddress this vriility, ll dt were re-expressed s the proportionl chnge etween prgmtic seline, the yer 1970, nd n pproximtion of the present, round the yer In most cses the dt were provided in clsses (e. g % decline), or indicted s greter thn or less thn (e. g. > 50% increse). In these cses the index ws ssigned respectively s the middle of the clss (e. g. 40% decline) or the specified oundry vlue 14 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

15 ( e. g. 50%). The vlue 1 ws dded to ll indices to void clcultion prolems generted y zero vlues when tking logrithms. The NGOs lso supplied n indiction of the dt qulity for ech of the time series ccording to stndrd set of ctegories developed for this project nd provided utecologicl informtion for ech of the species. Idelly the dt on species trends would e collected t the level of ecoregions within c o u nt r i e s, ut nerly ll the dt provided y the NGOs were ville only t the level of c o u ntries (Tle 3). Therefore, for ech ecoregionl index we included the ntionl trends of those species using the focl hitt within the iogeogrphicl region (the ecoregion) s their primry hitt. This pproch is similr to tht used for the Europen indictors of frmlnd nd woodlnd irds (Gr e g o ry et l. 2003, 2005). For reeding irds the link etween species nd ecosystems ws mde through the use of existing dtses on the hitt preferences of the species, in comintion with expert judgement from the interntionl NGO (Burfield et l. 2004). Fo r u t t e r f l i e s the link etween species nd hit ts ws mde through the judgement of ntionl experts nd the interntionl NGO (Vn Swy, 2004). For those ird nd utt e rf l y species considered to e specific for certin hit t, ut occurring in more thn one iogeogrphicl region in count ry, the sme ntionl trend ws ssigned to ll iogeogrphicl regions. For m m m l s the link etween the species nd the hit ts ws sed on the informtion provided y the NGOs (LC IE 2004; Vn de Vlskker Eiseng 2004) nd dditionl expert judgement. The mmml species were ssigned to the hit ts nd iogeogrphicl regions where the mjority of the popultions occur. 2.3 Clcultion nd gg r e g t i o n For ech ecoregion, species popultion trend dt re incorported for ech count ry. The comintion of n ecoregion nd count ry is termed uilding lock nd is the lowest level for the dt of this indictor. For ech of the uilding locks the indictor is clculted s the geometric men of the trends (indices) of the selected species. Species from ll species groups re tken together; every species hs equl weight. The results cn then e ggregted on n r e -weighted sis. Thus, for given ecoregion, the index is the verge of ech of the uilding lock indices in the ecoregion, weighted y the re of the uilding lock. Fo r e x m p l e: A t l ntic Forest (AF) Ecoregion Index = [(AF index Irelnd)(re AF in Irelnd)] + [(AF index UK)(re AF in UK)] +... To tl re of AF The resulting ecoregionl indices cn then e similrly ggregted towrds the hit ts. T h u s, Europen Forest species trend indictor would e otined y verging ll of the forest ecoregion indices on n re-weighted sis. The dt on re of the uilding locks were otined from GIS overlys of countries with iogeogrphicl regions (Roekerts 2002; downloded from EEA wesite) nd hit ts. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 15

16 H i tt mps were derived from the CORINE lnd cover mp (ETC/TE 2000; coverge: EU 25, with the exception of Sweden, Cyprus, Mlt nd Bulgri, Romni) or from the Glol L n d Cover 2000 mp (Brtholome 2002) for those countries not included in the CORIN E s s e s s m e nt (see Appendix 3 for remp t l e s ). Finlly, the results cn e ggregted towrds n index for Europe s whole, y ggregting cross the hit ts. All hit ts re given equl weight, y pplying nonweighted verging of the vlues per hitt. The results cn lso e ggregted y individul countries or clusters of count r i e s. Appendix 4 p r e s e nts n exmple of the clcultion nd ggregtion procedure. 16 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

17 3. R e s u l t s 3.1 Evlution of the ville dt In totl the NGOs moilised dt on 2810 time series for 273 unique species, which re mostly irds nd utt e rf l i e s, ut lso include some lrge mmmls (Tle 4). The numer of species per ecoregion rnged from 6 in Atlntic mires, ogs nd fens to 38 for Mediterrnen frmlnds (Tle 5, see Appendix 5 for species lists), with n verge of 22 species per ecor e g i o n. The dt come from 43 count r i e s, with n verge of round 5 ecoregions per c o u nt ry (Appendix 6). Tle 4. The totl numer of unique species nd the totl numer of time series otined Species gro u p Numer of species Numer of time series u t t e rf l i e s i rd s m m m l s t o t l Generlly the dt re well distriuted cross the hit ts, iogeogrphicl regions nd c o u nt r i e s. Countries with lrge re of given ecoregion usully hve firly lrge numer of time series for tht ecoregion. There re more thn 50 time series ville for most h i t ts, with the exception of the EU NIS clss M i r e s, ogs & fens for which only 8 time series re ville. Over 900 time series were ville for frmlnd. Over 100 time series were ville for ll ut three iogeogrphicl regions, the Steppic, Arctic nd P n n o n i n. Only very few dt could e otined for Bosni nd Herzegovin, Yugoslvi (Seri nd M o ntenegro) nd some of the very smll count r i e s. The utecologicl informtion provided y the NGOs showed tht the species set, oth s whole nd for most ecoregions, includes representtives of most guilds (herivores, c r n i v o r e s, piscivores, insectivores, omnivores), species with wide rnge of dispersl d i s tnces nd re requirements, nd migrtory s well s sedent ry species (Appendix 7). Both rre nd common species, nd oth thretened nd non-thretened species were included in the dt for ll count r i e s, nd some endemic species were included for ll e c o r e g i o n s. The NGOs ssessments of the cuses of chnge indicte tht the dtset includes species with different sensitivities to ll mjor humn pressures s well s species tht seem not to e very sensitive to humn ctivities. The ctegoristion of dt qulity provided y the NGOs (Tle 6) shows tht the mjority were sed on limited qunt i ttive dt with some corrections nd int e r p r e ttion y experts. Especilly for utt e rf l i e s, these include mesures of chnge in distriution, which re oft e n reltively conservtive mesures of overll chnge. A minority of the time series were sed on complete qunt i ttive dt. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 17

18 Tle 5. The numer of (unique) species incorported into the pilot indictor per ecoregion. Only those hitt types nd iogeogrphicl regions ddressed in the pilot indictor re included. Biogeogrphicl re g i o n A l p i n e A rc t i c A t l n t i c Blck B o re l C o n t i - M c ro - M e d i t e r- P n n o - S t e p p i c S e n e n t l n e s i n r n e n n i n Costl hitts Inlnd surfce wter hitts M i re, og nd fen hitts 6 Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts Woodlnd nd forest hitt nd other wooded lnd Inlnd unvegetted or sprsely vegetted hitts 15 3 F rm l n d Tle 6. The qulity of the dt included in the pilot indictor, shown s the numer of time series elonging to ech dt qulity c t e g o ry for ech txonomic group. F re q u e n c y C t e - D e s c r i p t i o n B i rd s B u t t e rf l i e s M m m l s : M m m l s : O v e r l l g o ry c rn i v o re s h e r i v o re s Complete quntittive dt Limited quntittive dt, some corrections nd interprettions pplied c Limited quntittive dt, no corrections nd interprettions pplied d Extensive expert judgement e Limited expert judgement f Red Dt Book for Butterflies (no qulity indiction otined) g U n k n o w n Totl numer of time series A first tril of the indictor The dt descried ove were the sis for the first tril of the indictor. From the totl of 2810 time series, we excluded the 513 time series with clss c qulity (Limited qunt i t t i v e d t, no corrections nd int e r p r e ttions pplied). These were minly utt e rfly dt, derived from repeted tlses ut without corrections for chnges in recording int e n s i ty, nd therefore potentilly misleding. Most of the remining 2297 time series showed either st l e or decresing popultions within uilding lock (Figure 2), while minority (19%) r e p r e s e nted incresing popultions. Aout 1% of the time series showed locl extinction of the species within uilding lock. A further 60 time series were excluded ecuse they relted to uilding locks of unknown re (smll nd frgmented hit ts not detected y the lnd cover mps). L s t, Europen Russi (72 time series) ws excluded, to void the indictor eing dominted y one single c o u nt ry. Thus, 2165 time series were used for this first nlysis. When clculted for ech mjor hitt type t P n-europen scle, the indictor shows tht popultions declined in nerly ll hit ts etween 1970 nd Frmlnd showed the lrgest decrese in popultion index, 23%; ll of the nturl hit ts hd much smller clculted chnges (Figure 3). The popultion index for nturl hit ts collectively showed decline of only 2%, which cont r s ts strongly with the index for frmlnd (Figure 4). 18 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

19 F i g u re 2. Distriution of the direction of chnge mong the 2297 time series otined. Those clssed s stle showed no net chnge in popultion etween 1970 nd 2000 (0 ws the midpoint of the rnge of possile chnge). Those clssed s decresing or incresing hd non-zero chnge, nd few time series showed the species ecoming extinct within the uilding lock. F i g u re 3. The percentge chnge in the species popultion index of ech EUNIS hitt etween 1970 nd The numer of time series included in the index for ech hitt is shown in rckets s (ird s, u t t e rflies, mmmls). Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 19

20 F i g u re 4. The percentge chnge in species popultion index etween 1970 nd 2000 for nturl nd f rmlnd hitts t Pn-Europen scle (43 countries). Numer of time series in rckets. F i g u re 5. The percentge chnge in species popultion index of frmlnd species etween 1970 nd 2000, showing tht declines were much lrger in the 15 Europen Union Countries thn in the 10 countries tht cceded to the EU in My 2004 or the non-eu countries. Numer of time series in rckets. 20 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

21 F i g u re 6. The verge percentge chnge in ird species popultion index etween 1970, 1990 nd Little evidence of chnge in the rte of decline is visile for most hitts. Numer of time series for ech hitt in rckets. F i g u re 7. Exmple of the indictor for single country. The grph shows the percentge chnge in species popultion index per hitt, for the United Kingdom. Numer of time series (in this cse equl to the numer of unique species) in rckets. For detils on species, time series nd sources for the UK i n d i c t o r, see Appendix 9. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 21

22 Given the strong decline in frmlnd species t P n-europen scle, it is of interest to exmine the indictor in form tht my e more directly policy- r e l e v nt, for exmple in reltion to the Europen Union s Common Agriculturl Po l i cy. Figure 5 shows tht frmlnd species hve experienced much greter popultion declines over the pst three decdes in the fifteen memer countries of the Europen Union thn in the ten recently (My 2004) cceded countries or in the remining 18 countries in Europe. The indictor cn potent i l l y e clculted for other policy- r e l e v nt clusters of count r i e s. This ppliction shows one wy in which the indictor cn hve strong policy relevnce. H o w e v e r, in order for it to e useful in evluting progress towrds policy t r g e ts relting to rtes of iodiversity loss (e. g. the 2010 trget) it would e necessry to clculte verge index chnges over different time int e rv l s. At minimum, three points in time would e needed to determine whether the rtes of loss of iodiversity were chnging s needed. Within the scope of this project, irds were the only group for which dt could e moilised for n intermedite point in time. The ddition of 1990 dt point for the irds (Figure 6) gives some indiction of chnges in the rte of species decline for some hit ts, ut with the dt ville it is difficult to sy whether the chnges in the rte of loss re s i g n i f i c nt. Although this pilot project focused on testing the indictor t the Europen level, the indictor method hs lso een designed to e suitle for use on the ntionl level, using the sme types of dt. For exmple, pplying the method t ntionl scle in the United Kingdom (Figure 7, Appendix 8) mkes it possile to see clerly the ntionl trends in species within prticulr hit ts; the UK, like the rest of Europe, hs experienced mjor declines in frmlnd species over the pst three decdes. Individul countries my find it useful to dopt this pproch. Using consistent indictors t different scles cn provide insights into trends tht my require specil tt e ntion t prticulr scles of policy nd decision- m k i n g. L s t, policy-mkers do not only need to know out the sttus nd trends of iodiversity, ut lso out the cuses of the indicted chnges. Cuses of chnge cn est e nlysed using ecologicl models which qunt i ttively relte species to pressures. At the moment on the Europen scle such models re ville for some pressures (e. g. climte; Bkkenes et l. 2001), ut models which clculte the overll impcts of ll mjor pressures on species on this scle re still under development. Therefore, in this study we used n lterntive pproch to mke first, preliminry nlysis of the cuses of chnge in the indictor (Appendix 9). This nlysis shows tht cuses of species decline vry per hit t, with hit t loss nd lnd use eing the most frequent fctors cross the hit ts, followed y f r g m e nttion nd disturnce. 22 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

23 4. Discussion nd recommendtions * In this study we hve piloted species trend indictor, which integrtes trends of different species nd species groups nd cn mke use of dt coming from different sources, collected with different methods. The indictor cn e ggregted from its uilding locks towrds h i t ts on the Europen level, iogeogrphicl regions nd lso towrds (clusters of) c o u nt r i e s. Thus, the indictor cn deliver oth hedline messges for wreness rising nd h i g h-level decision mking nd detiled informtion for in-depth nlysis. The method is p o t e ntilly suitle for evluting progress towrds the 2010 trget; the dt compiled in this study mke it possile to estlish first estimte of the rte of iodiversity loss in the period , with which susequent estimtes for lter periods cn e compred. 4.1 D t moilistion We hve demonstrted tht int e r n t i o n l, species- o r i e nted NGOs, with their Europen- w i d e n e tw o r k s, re effective mechnisms for moilising the sust ntil qunt i ty of existing dt on species trends, t lest for reeding irds, utt e rflies nd lrge mmmls. Within the txonomic groups nd ecoregions covered in this tril, dt re ville for nerly ll s p e c i e s, covering rod rnge of ecologicl chrcteristics, nd mking it possile for the indictor to represent rod cross-section of iodiversity in Europe. Trgeted efforts re now needed to ident i fy nd moilise historicl trend dt for other txonomic groups, nd for those ecoregions not included in this (pilot) study. Species groups tht hve not een covered in this pilot study ut for which sust ntil mounts of dt re proly ville include vsculr plnts, freshwter nd mrine fish, wter irds (Gilissen et l. 2002), nd mrine m m m l s. In ddition, specific efforts re needed to otin dt from countries nd regions, such s Europen Russi nd the rctic region, which were not effectively trgeted y the d t moilistion strtegy of this study. Additionl dt from intermedite points in time (e. g. 1990) would increse the utility of the indictor for monitoring progress towrds the 2010 trget. Interntionl NGOs nd ntionl sources oth hve vitl roles to ply in moilising existing dt. 4.2 H i t ts nd iogeogrphicl regions The top-level of the EU NIS hitt clssifiction, hs generlly proven to e useful sis for s t r t i fying the species trend indictor. We dopted the frmlnd ctegory ecuse it ws difficult to link species dt clerly to either of its component clsses ( g r s s l n d nd cultivted re ). This ctegory will continue to e useful for future work. Additionl merging e tween EU NIS clsses my e dvisle in the future ecuse some clsses hve few, if ny, species strictly limited to them. This is especilly the cse for the clss M i r e s, ogs nd fens. In ddition, n improved pproch is needed for hndling hitt ssocitions for those s p e c i e s, especilly lrge mmmls, which usully use more thn one hit t. * Appendix 10 p r e s e nts summry of the recommendtions mde in this chpter Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 23

24 F u rther difficulties in ggregtion rose ecuse of the limited precision of hitt mps derived from lndcover mpping, which mde it difficult to otin res for reltively f r g m e nted hit ts nd ecoregions such s mires, ogs nd fens, nd those which re less esily detected vi remote sensing. The use of iogeogrphicl regions, though ecologiclly nd politiclly useful dded to the demnds on the dt; working with only hit ts nd c o u ntries would e more strightf o rwrd nd is recommended for future work. 4.3 Composition nd gg r e g t i o n The degree to which the index is representtive of overll iodiversity trends is oviously function of the species composition nd the wy the dt re gg r e g t e d. In this tril ppliction the lck of inclusion of txonomic groups other thn mmmls, irds nd u tt e rflies hs implictions tht vry y mjor hitt ty p e. For exmple, incorporting dt on freshwter fish or mphiins would increse the vlidity of the indictor for inlnd s u rfce wter hit ts. The ddition of dt on plnts would potentilly improve the r e p r e s e nttion of ll hit ts. Furt h e r m o r e, t present the species re comined without regrd to whether prticulr txonomic groups re represented y greter numers of time series thn others. This could men tht prticulr group domintes the indictor nd leds d e c i s i o n-mkers to drw conclusions tht re more pplicle to it thn to other groups. A solution to this might e to dopt stged ggregtion procedure, wherey species re first verged cross their species groups (e. g. plnts, invertertes nd vertertes) nd the groups re then comined with equl (or potentilly other) weightings pplied etween the g r o u p s. However this pproch is dependent on hving sufficient dt for ech species group for ech uilding lock to produce meningful verge. Prolems of the sme type re discussed y Loh et l. ( 2005 ). The composition of the indictor with respect to the ecologicl chrcteristics of the species is lso import nt. At present no qunt i ttive criteri re pplied to specify the lnce mong species with different chrcteristics, e. g. how mny sedent ry species versus how mny m i g r t o ry species nd how mny thretened (red list) species versus how mny nonthretened species. The linking of species to hitt types my hve in some cses effectively excluded hitt generlist species. Rre species re included longside common ones nd only species with widely fluctuting popultions re excluded. The inclusion of dt on rre species cont r s ts with the pproch tken y others, for other purposes, for exmple in the UK ird indictor (Gr e g o ry et l ,). Excluding dt on fluctuting species is common p r c t i c e. While reducing noise in the dt s e t, it risks filing to detect nd incorporte ny l o n g-term trend in these species. All of these fctors suggest tht it would e useful to devote more effort to developing f u rther the criteri for uilding the set of species included in the indictor nd to considering how est to comine species within the indictor. Such criteri could usefully include guidelines for the minimum numer of species within uilding lock for which the indictor generlly cn e considered roust, nd should lso ddress lterntive pproches for ggregtion nd weighting. We used re-weighted ggregtion in this pilot ecuse weighting uilding locks y the proportion of the totl popultion size within them is not fesile cross ll txonomic groups. It is more rigorous thn pplying no weighting during ggregtion from one sptil scle to nother. 24 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

25 4.4 R e l i i l i ty nd sensitivity The pilot indictor covers such lrge numer of species nd time series over such long p e r i o d, tht it is likely to e firly roust. For the ecoregions covered y the pilot study, we do not elieve tht the ptterns shown y the indictor would e ltered significntly y the inclusion of dditionl species or time series from the sme txonomic groups. A st t i s t i c l nlysis of the reliility nd sensitivity of the indictor hs yet to e crried out. It should include the clcultion of confidence int e r v l s, which would est e done using oots t r p p i n g. The limited sensitivity of mny of the dt included limits the sensitivity of the indictor. Not only re mny of the estimted trends reltively conservtive (e. g. those derived from distriution chnges), ut they re provided in reltively corse clsses so tht they will tend not to pick up chnges less thn 15%. This limittion cn est e overcome y est l i s h i n g monitoring progrmmes tht will generte consistent qunt i ttive dt (see elow). The different ctegories of dt qulity hve different implictions for the different t x. The exclusion of time series sed on limited qunt i ttive dt without correction (dt qulity c) hs eliminted the most uncertin dt for utt e rf l i e s, nd lso significntly reduced the q u nt i ty of crnivore dt tht could e included. It hd little effect on the ird or herivore d t included. For these t x, expert judgement contriuted significnt proportion of the time series dt, nd the implictions of this my need to e explored furt h e r. 4.5 Reltion etween the indictor nd i o d i v e r s i ty loss The sic ssumption ehind this indictor is tht, in ddition to telling the user something out the trends in the component species, it represents wider trends in iodiversity. These re of interest in the context of policy nd decision-mking tht ffect progress towrds the 2010 trget on iodiversity loss. B i o d i v e r s i ty loss is chrcterised y the decrese in undnce of mny species nd the increse of some often opportunistic species, s result of the environmentl impcts of humn ctivities (McKinney & Lockwood 1999; UNEP 2003, 2003). In this pilot indictor, increses in species popultions since 1970 contriute to higher vlues of the indictor; nd decreses to lower vlues. However, this simplistic pproch rises two issues: 1. An increse in popultion of species since 1970 cnnot lwys e considered iodiversity g i n, nd decrese cnnot lwys e considered loss. This cn even e the cse for species tht re considered chrcteristic of certin hitt. Exmples include the increse of freshwter irds due to eutrophiction of their hit t, the increse of Molini sp. due to eutrophiction of hethlnds nd the increse of mny ird species in mrshes nd dune res which hve ecome overgrown y shrus due to nutrient enrichment. Thus, with the pproch used, the messge of the indictor is potentilly miguous, which conflicts with the requirement of eing meningful nd simple to underst n d. 2. B i o d i v e r s i ty chnges efore 1970 (often lrge losses) re not ddressed y the indictor. Chnges since 1970 might e very smll in comprison to these losses (see lso Hutchings & Bum 2005; Puly et l. 2005), nd my differ significntly mong countries nd hit ts. T h e r e f o r e, chnge reltive to the yer 1970 provides incomplete informtion tht will not necessrily e ppropritely interpreted y policymkers nd the pulic. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 25

26 Modelling species undnce under reference (e. g. low humn impct) conditions could e used to help resolve miguity in the indictor nd put recent chnges into meningf u l c o ntext. Building such scenrio would require informtion on historicl nd geogrphicl trends nd qulittive nd qunt i ttive ecologicl knowledge. 4.6 Po t e ntil for use t the ntionl scle As demonstrted using the United Kingdom s n exmple, the indictor method nd the Europen dtse cn potentilly e used to clculte species trend indictors for individul c o u nt r i e s. These my complement iodiversity dt nd indictors lredy in use t ntionl l e v e l, which in turn could lso contriute to Europen scle indictors. For exmple, in the UK severl species (trend) indictors in use include: the UK hedline indictor for wild ird popultions (Gr e g o ry et l. 2003); trends for utt e rflies (Asher et l. 2001); nd trends for p l nts (Preston et l. 2003). Also, trend indictors re ville on Biodiversity Action Pln ( BAP) priority species. However, there is no indictor in use tht comines the trends cross species groups. Additionl differences in pproch, for exmple regrding hit t c l s s i f i c t i o n, species selection criteri (selecting ll species vs. focusing on hit t - s p e c i l i s ts ) nd different sources for species- h i tt ssocitions men tht no direct comprison of indictor results cn e mde. In some cses different dt sources were used; in those cses usully the Europen project hd ccess to less precise dt. Working towrds furt h e r hrmonistion of indictor methodologies nd exchnge of dt, would enhnce the synergy e tween ntionl nd Europen work on indictors. 4.7 Themtic indictors A further ppliction of this indictor method nd the dt ville is to generte trend indictors for different susets of species tht ddress prticulr issues. Such susets cn for exmple e sed on txonomy, policies, ecologicl chrcteristics, or relted to prt i c u l r p r e s s u r e s. Exmples re: species of the Hit ts nd Birds Directives Red List species or Species of Europen Conservtion Concern (SPEC) species for which species ction plns re in plce, e. g. lrge crnivores species which re hunted or otherwise exploited species with prticulr ecologicl chrcteristics, such s wter irds with feeding strtegies tht might e relted to their rection to eutrophiction of freshwters, or s e d e nt ry versus migrtory species. u tt e rflies with northern distriution versus utt e rflies with southern distriution, to explore potentil reltion with climte chnge. The nlysis of the popultion trends of susets of species, nd comprison with the overlltrends or trends in contrsting groups, will hve vlue on its own for ssessments nd c o n s e rvtion plnning, nd will lso help to otin etter understnding of the overllindictor nd the cuses of chnge. 26 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

27 4.8 Towrds Europen iodiversity monitoring f r m e w o r k With the current level of d hoc nd structurl dt collection in Europe we estimte tht it will e possile to updte this indictor meningfully nd relily only fter pproximtely nother 3 decdes. This is due to the lck of sensitive nd frequent dt on species trends. To llow more frequent nd relile updting of the indictor, implementtion of long- t e r m monitoring will e needed under common Europen iodiversity monitoring frmework. Such frmework would provide guidelines nd mnuls to help countries implement ntionl monitoring schemes tht meet their own ntionl needs. The only requirement would e tht the design of the monitoring schemes would e such tht the results (indices, not rw dt) could feed into the Europen picture. The P n-europen Common Birds Monitoring Scheme (PEC BMS) is good exmple of such n pproch (Gr e g o ry et l ). The guidelines should for exmple consider strtifiction, suitle mesuring methods, selection of species nd dimensions of monitoring schemes (numer of plots nd frequency of recording). The monitoring schemes should e uilt s fr s possile on existing inititives. They should preferly use direct mesures of chnges in popultion size rther thn less sensitive p r o x i e s, such s chnges in distriution re. Furt h e r m o r e, the numer of plots nd f r e q u e n cy of mesuring (dimensions of the scheme) should e high enough to llow the production of sensitive indices of chnge. The finl decisions on the dimensions of monitoring progrmmes will of course e sed on the lnce etween costs nd enefits t oth ntionl nd Europen scles. Int e r n t i o n l, species- o r i e nted NGOs, with their n e tworks of experts nd orgnistions in ll Europen count r i e s, cn potentilly ply unique nd essentil role in the design nd implementtion of Europen iodiversity m o n i t o r i n g. Appendix 11 p r e s e nts summry of recommendtions for the development of monitoring progrmmes per species groups, sed on recommendtions of the NGOs. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 27

28 28 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

29 A c k n o w l e d g e m e nts We would like to thnk the funders of this study: the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Fo r e s ts nd L n d s c p e, the UK Deprt m e nt for Environment, Food nd Rurl Affirs (DE F R A ) nd the Netherlnds Environmentl Assessment Agency (RIV M-MNP). The following individuls nd NGOs were instrumentl in providing dt: Chris vn Sw y (Dutch Butterfly Conservtion), In Burf i e l d, Ro Pople nd Wrd Hgemeijer (BirdLife nd E B C C), Luigi Boitni nd Agnieszk Olsznsk (Lrge Crnivore Inititive Europe), Joep vn de Vlskker nd Fred Berselmn (Lrge Herivore Foundtion). A vst rmy of experts nd o r g n i s t i o n s, who re prtners of these NGOs, collected the dt in the field greed to their use in this project. GIS nlyses for the project were performed y Michel Bkkenes (RIV M- M N P ). The conceptul frmework of the indictor ws developed in collortion with the project on the development of Europen Biodiversity Index (OLI28) y the Europen Topic Cent r e for Nture Protection nd Biodiversity (led y Vieke Horlyck). Andrew Stott nd Rocky Hrris (oth DEFRA), Jmes Willims (UK Joint Nture Conservtion C o m m i t t e e), Jos Notenoom (Europen Environment Agency) nd Arco vn Strien (S t t i s t i c s N e t h e r l n d s) provided dvice nd stimulting discussions. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 29

30 30 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

31 R e f e r e n c e s A n o n y m o u s Finl messge from Mlhide. Hlting the loss of iodiversity. Priority ojectives nd trgets for htt p: / / www. e u i e / t e m p l t e s / d o c u m e nt _ f i l e.sp? id=17810 (downloded 1 Oct. 2004). A s h e r, J, W r r e n, M., Fo x, R., Hrding, P., Jeffcote, G. & Jeffcote, S The millennium tls of utterflies in Britin nd Irelnd. Oxford University Press, Oxford. B k k e n e s, M, Alkemde, J. R. M., Ihle, F., Leemns, R. & L t o u r, J. B Assessing effects of forecsted climte chnge on the diversity nd distriution of Europen higher plnts for Glol Chnge Biology 8: B l m f o r d, A., Gr e e n, R. E., nd Jenkins, M Mesuring the chnging stte of nture. Trends in Ecology nd Evolution 18: B rtholome E., Belwrd, A. S., Achrd, F., Brt l e v, S., Crmon- M o r e n o, C., Ev, H., Fritz, S., Gr e g o i r e, J- M., Myux, P., & Stiig H- J GLC 2000 Glol Lnd Cover mpping for the yer Europen Commission Joint Reserch Centre Institute for Environment nd S u s t i n i l i ty. EUR EN, It l y. BirdLife Int e r n t i o n l Birds in Europe 2: popultion estimtes, trends nd conservtion s t t u s. BirdLife Int e r n t i o n l, W g e n i n g e n, The Netherlnds. BirdLife Interntionl/Europen Bird Census Council Europen ird popultions: estimtes nd trends. BirdLife Conservtion series no. 10. BirdLife Int e r n t i o n l, Cmridge, U K. B u rf i e l d, I. J. Po p l e, R. G., Hgemeijer, E. J. M., & Ngy, S. P Bird popultion trends nd threts in Europe. Unpulished report y BirdLife Interntionl & Europen Bird Census C o u n c i l. BirdLife Int e r n t i o n l, W g e n i n g e n, The Netherlnds. C BD Decision VI/26 Strtegic Pln for the Convention on Biologicl Diversity. ( h tt p: / / www. i o d i v.org/decisions/ defult.spx?lg=0&dec=vi/26 Accessed 1 Octoer 2004). Council of the Europen Union Hlting the loss of iodiversity y 2010 Council c o n c l u s i o n s /04, unofficil informtion note. (htt p: / / www. i o t. c s. c z / i o p / t e x ts / C o u n c i l _ C o n c l u s i o n s _ 3 0 _ J u n e _ % 5 B 1 % 5 D.doc Accessed 1 Octoer 2004). De Heer, M., Kpos, V., Ten Brink, B. J. E Biodiversity Trends in Europe: development nd testing of species trend indictor for evluting progress towrds the 2010 trget. Ph i l. Tr n s. R. S o c. Lond. B. D v i e s, C. E. & Moss, D EUNIS hitt clssifiction work progrmme, finl report. CEH Monks Wo o d, Hunt i n g d o n, UK. D e l e r e, D. nd Nieto, A. in prep. Ntionl Biodiversity Monitoring Networks in Europe. EC Communiction of the Europen Commission to the Council nd to the Prliment on Europen Community Biodiversity Strtegy. Brussels. (htt p: / / e u r o p. e u. i nt / c o m m / e n v i r o n m e nt / d o c u m / e n.pdf Accessed 1 Octoer 2004) Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 31

32 EC A Sustinle Europe for Better World: A Europen Union Strtegy for Sustinle D e v e l o p m e n t. COM(2001)264 finl Brussels. (htt p: / / www. e u r o p. e u. int / e u r- lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0264en01.pdf Accessed 1 Octoer 2004) EC Communiction from the Commission to the Council nd the Europen Prliment - Biodiversity Action Plns in the res of Conservtion of Nturl Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries, nd Development nd Economic Co-opertion. Brussels. (htt p: // i o d i v e r s i tyc h m. e e. e u. i nt / c o n v e nt i o n / c d _ e c / s t r t e gy / BAP_html Accessed 1 Octoer 2004). EC. 2001c. E nvironment 2010: Our future, Our choice the Sixth Environment Action Progrmme. COM(2001) 31 finl Brussels. ETC / N P B An inventory of Europen site-sed iodiversity monitoring networks. Finl drft r e p o rt, prepred y B. Delere, Europen Centre for Nture Conserv t i o n. Copenhgen, Europen Environmentl Agency. ETC / T E CORINE lnd cover dtse ( Version 12/2000 extended coverge). Brcelon. F i s c h e r, R Fesiility study for future contriutions in the field of forest iodiversity s s e s s m e n t s. Federl Reserch Centre for Fo r e s t ry nd Forest Products, Hmurg. Gi l i s s e n, N., H n s t r, L., Delny, S., Boere, G. nd Hgemeijer, W Numers nd distriution of wintering wter irds in the Western Plerctic nd Southwest Asi in 1997, 1998 nd Results from the Interntionl Wter ird Census. Wetlnds Interntionl Glol Series No. 11, W g e n i n g e n, The Netherlnds. Gr e g o ry, R. D., Eton, M. A., Nole, D. G., Roinson, J. A., P r s o n s, M., Bker, H., Austin, G. nd H i l t o n, G. M The stte of the UK s irds The RSP B, BTO, WWT nd JNCC, Sndy, UK. Gr e g o ry, R. D., Vo r i s e k, P., Vn Strien, A. J., Eton, M. nd Wo tt o n, S. R From ird monitoring to policy-relevnt indictors. A report to the Europen Topic Centre on Nture Protection nd Biodiversity. Gr e g o ry, R. D., vn Strien, A., Vo r i s e k, P., Meyling, A. W. G., Nole, D. G., Fo p p e n, R. P. B. & Gi o n s, D. W Developing indictors for Europen irds Phil. Trns. R. Soc. B 3 6 0, xxxx-xxxx H u t c h i n g s, J. A. & Bum, J.K Mesuring mrine fish iodiversity: temporl chnges in u n d n c e, life history, nd demogrphy Phil. Trns. R. Soc. B 3 6 0, xxxx-xxxx J e n k i n s, M, Kpos, V. & Loh, J Rising to the iodiversity chllenge. Drft discussion pper for CBD CoP7. World Bnk, UNEP-WCMC nd WWF. LC IE Sttus nd trends for lrge crnivores in Europe. Institute of Nture Conserv t i o n PAS, Krkow, Po l n d. L o h, J Living Plnet Report World Wide Fund for Nture, Gl n d, Switz e r l n d. L o h, J., Gr e e n, R. E., Ricketts, T., L m o r e u x, J., Jenkins, M., Kpos, V. & Rnders, J The Living Plnet Index: using species popultion time series to trck trends in iodiversity P h i l. Trns. R. Soc. B 3 6 0, xxxx-xxxx 32 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

33 McKinney, M. L. & Lockwood, J. L Biotic homogenistion: few winners replcing mny losers in the next mss extinction. Trends in Ecology nd Evolution 14: P r e s t o n, C. D., Te l f e r, M. G., Roy, D. B., Crey, P. D., Hill, M. O., Meek, M. R., Rothery, P., Smrt, S. M., S m i t h, G. M. & W l k e r, K.J The chnging distriution of the flor of the United Kingdom: Technicl report. CEH, Hunt i n g d o n, UK. Puly, D. & W ts o n, R Bckground nd int e r p r e ttion of the 'Mrine Trophic Index' s mesure of iodiversity Phil. Trns. R. Soc. B 3 6 0, xxxx-xxxx R o e k e rts, M The iogeogrphicl regions mp of Europe. Bsic principles of its cretion nd overview of its development. Europen Environment Agency, Copenhgen. Ten Brink, B. J. E, Hosper, H. nd Colijn, F A Quntittive Method for Description nd Assessment of Ecosystems: the AMOEBA - p p r o c h. Mrine Pollution Bulletin 3: Ten Brink, B. J. E., Biodiversity indictors for the OECD Environmentl Outlook nd Strtegy; A fesiility study. RIVM report , Bilthoven. T h o m s, J. A., Te l f e r, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Gr e e n w o o d, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fo x, R., Clrke, R. T. & L wt o n, J. H Comprtive losses of British utterflies, irds, plnts nd the glol extinction crisis. Science 303, U N / EC E Declrtion y the environment Ministers of the region of the United Ntions Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Fifth Ministeril Conference E n v i r o n m e nt for E u r o p e Kiev, Ukrine, My EC E / C E P / 94 / R e v. 1. ( h tt p: // www. r u s r e c. r u / h o m e p g e / d t s e s / i nt _ l w / e c e. c e p. 94. r e v. 1. e.pdf Accessed 1 Octoer 2004 ) U N E P Monitoring nd indictors: designing ntionl-level monitoring progrmmes nd i n d i c t o r s. UNEP/CBD / S BSTTA/9/10. Mont r e l. U N E P Proposed iodiversity indictors relevnt to the 2010 trget. U N E P / C BD / S BST TA / 9 / INF/26. Mont r e l. U N E P, Strtegic Pln: future evlution of progress. UNEP/CBD / COP / V II/30. Mont r e l. United Ntions Report of the World Summit on Sustinle Development, Johnnesurg, South Afric, 26 August - 4 Septemer A/CON F / 2 0. h tt p: / / www. u n c t d. o r g / e n / d o c s / c o n f d 2 0 & c 1 _ e n.pdf Accessed 27 Septemer 2004 Vn de Vlskker Eiseng, J. W. G Popultion Trends for Lrge Herivores. LHF report The Lrge Herivore Fo u n d t i o n, Vo o r s c h o t e n, The Netherlnds. Vn Swy, C. A.M & W r r e n, M. S Red Dt ook of Europen utterflies (Rhoplocer). Nture nd Environment, No. 99, Council of Europe Pulishing, Strsourg. Vn Swy, C. A. M Trends for utterfly species in Europe. Rpport VS De V l i n d e r s t i c h t i n g, W g e n i n g e n, The Netherlnds. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 33

34 34 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

35 Appendix 1 EU NIS hitt ty p e s Descriptions re derived from Dvies & Moss (2002) An extensive description, including keys, of these nd of the hitt types lower in the hierrchy, cn e found on htt p: / / e u n i s. e e. e u. i nt / h i t ts. j s p A Mrine hitts Mrine hitts re directly connected to the ocens,i.e.prt of the continuous ody of wter which covers the greter prt of the erth s surfce nd which surround its lnd msses. Mrine wters my e fully sline,rckish or lmost fresh. Mrine hitts include those elow spring high tide limit (or elow men wter level in non-tidl wters)nd enclosed costl sline or rckish wters, without permnent surfce connection to the se ut either with intermittent surfce or su-surfce connections (s in lgoons). Rockpools in the suprlittorl zone re considered s enclves of the mrine zone. Includes mrine littorl hitts which re suject to wet nd dry periods on tidl cycle including tidl sltmrshes;mrine littorl hitts which re normlly wter-covered ut intermittently exposed due to the ction of wind or tmospheric pressure chnges; freshly deposited mrine strndlines chrcterised y mrine invertertes. Wterlogged littorl zones ove the men wter level in non-tidl wters or ove the spring high tide limit in tidl wters re included with mrine hitts.includes constructed mrine sline hitts elow wter level s defined ove (such s in mrins,hrours,etc)which support semi-nturl community of oth plnts nd nimls. The mrine wter column includes odies of ice. B Costl hitts C o s tl hit ts re those ove spring high tide limit (or ove men wter level in nontidl wters) occupying costl fetures nd chrcterised y their proximity to the se, including costl dunes nd wooded costl dunes,eches nd cliffs. Includes free- d r i n i n g s u p r l i ttorl hit ts djcent to mrine hit ts which re normlly only ffected y spry or splsh, strndlines chrcterised y terrestril invertertes nd moist nd wet cost l dune slcks. Excludes dune slck pools nd rockpools. C Inlnd surfce wter hitts Inlnd surfce wter hit ts re non- c o s tl ove-ground open fresh or rckish wterodies (e. g. rivers, s t r e m s,lkes nd pools,springs), including their littorl zones. Also includes dune slck pools. Includes constructed inlnd freshwter, rckish or sline wterodies (such s cnls, ponds,etc)which support semi-nturl community of oth plnts nd nimls; normlly wet hit ts which my e dry sesonlly (temporry or int e r m i tt e nt rivers nd lkes nd their littorl zones). Freshwter littorl zones include those prts of nks or shores which re sufficiently frequently inundted to prevent the formtion of closed terrestril v e g e t t i o n. Excludes permnent snow nd ice. Note tht hit ts which intimtely comine w t e r l o gged hit ts with pools of open wter re considered s complexes. D Mire, og nd fen hitts H i t ts which re sturted, with the wter tle t or ove ground level for t lest hlf of the yer, dominted y herceous or ericoïd vegettion e. g. ogs, mrshes. Includes w t e r l o gged hit ts where the groundwter is frozen. Excludes wterlogged hit ts dominted y trees or lrge shrus. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 35

36 Note tht hit ts which intimtely comine wterlogged hit ts with pools of open wter re considered s complexes. E Grsslnd nd tll for hitts N o n- c o s tl hit ts which re dry or only sesonlly wet (with the wter tle t or ove ground level for less thn hlf of the yer) with greter thn 30% vegettion cover. The d o m i n nt vegettion is grsses nd other non-woody vegettion (including moss-, lichen-, f e r n- nd sedge-dominted communities). Includes sprsely wooded grsslnd res with cnopy cover of 5-10%. Includes successionl weedy communities nd mnged grsslnds such s recretion fields nd lwns. Does not include regulrly tilled hit ts dominted y cultivted herceous vegettion such s rle fields. Includes griculturl grsslnds (Moss, pers comm. ). F Hethlnd,scru nd tundr hitts N o n- c o s tl hit ts which re dry or only sesonlly wet (with the wter tle t or ove ground level for less thn hlf of the yer) with greter thn 30% vegettion cover. The d o m i n nt vegettion is shrus or dwrf shrus. Includes regulrly tilled shru orchrds, hedges (which my hve occsionl tll trees) nd hit ts chrcterised y the presence of permfrost. Also includes dwrf trees nd scru (under 50cm, such s occur in extreme lpine conditions). G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd H i t ts where the dominnt vegettion is, or ws until very recently, trees, typiclly singles t e m m e d, nd with cnopy cover of t lest 10%. Includes lines of trees, coppices,nd very r e c e ntly cler-felled res with pre-existing ground cover, not yet re-stocked nd with no succession to weedy veget t i o n. Trees re normlly le to rech height of 5m t mturity ut this height my e lower t high ltitudes or ltitudes. Tll shrus such s hzel (Cory l u s ) nd some willows (Slix) with woodlnd- type structure re treted s woodlnd. Includes regulrly tilled tree nurseries nd tree-crop plnt t i o n s. Excludes dwrf trees nd scru (under 50cm) such s occur in extreme lpine conditions nd sprsely wooded grsslnd res with cnopy cover 5-10%, including prklnd. H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts N o n- c o s tl hit ts with less thn 30% vegettion cover (other thn where the vegettion is c h s m o p h ytic or on scree nd or cliff) which re dry or only sesonlly wet (with the wter tle t or ove ground level for less thn hlf of the yer). Suterrnen non-mrine cves nd pssges including underground wters. Hit ts chrcterised y the presence of p e r m n e nt snow nd surfce ice other thn mrine ice odies. I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, horticulturl nd domestic hitts H i t ts mintined solely y frequent tilling or rising from recent ndonment of previously tilled ground such s rle lnd nd grdens. Includes tilled ground suject to i n u n d t i o n. Excludes shru orchrds,tree nurseries nd tree-crop plnt t i o n s. 36 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

37 J Constructed,industril nd other rtificil hitts Primrily humn sett l e m e nts, uildings, industril developments, the trnsport netw o r k, wste dump sites. Includes highly rtificil sline nd non-sline wters with wholly constructed eds or hevily contminted wter (such s industril lgoons nd sltw o r k s ) which re virtully devoid of plnt nd niml life. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 37

38 Appendix 2 S p e c i e s- o r i e nted NGOs BirdLife Interntionl is glol prtnership of non- g o v e r n m e ntl orgnistions (NGOs) with specil focus on conservtion nd irds. The regionl office in The Netherlnds coordintes the Europen ctivities. In 1994 BirdLife Interntionl pulished 'Birds in Europe: Their Conservtion Sttus', which ws the first Europen ssessment of ird conserv t i o n p r i o r i t i e s. Bird popultion dt from lmost ll Europen countries were ssessed. The nlysis hs een one of the min foundtions of ird conservtion work in Europe. In 2004 the Birds in Europe II Project will fully updte this prioritistion excercise. The nlysis will e fed into two min glol conservtion ssessments: (1) the 2004 IUCN Red List of Thretened A n i m l s; nd (2) the 2004 Stte of the World's Birds. The project is conducted in prt n e r s h i p with the Europen Bird Census Council (EBC C ). The Europen Bird Census Council (EBCC) is n indepent NGO with the im of providing s c i e ntificlly sound informtion on the sttus nd trends of Europe s irds. In 1997 the EBC C pulished the Europen tls of reeding irds (Hgemeijer & Blir 1997). Furt h e r m o r e, the E BCC coordintes the P n-europen Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PEC BMS). Currently 18 c o u ntries prticipte in this scheme, nd the numer is still growing. Indictors sed on d t from the PEC BMS, notly the Europen frmlnd irds indictor, re frequently used to inform Europen policy-mkers on the trends in Europen irds. Wetlnds Interntionl (WI) is glol non-profit orgnistion working on wetlnd c o n s e rvtion nd sustinle mngement. One of the strtegic res of work is We t l n d i n v e nt o ry, monitoring nd ssessment. With its hedqurters in The Netherlnds, ctivities re crried out in over 120 count r i e s. Wetlnds Interntionl mintins network of experts (orgnised in Specilist Groups) nd close prtnerships with key orgnistions. Since 1967 WI runs the Interntionl Wterirds Census, which st rted in Europe nd is still developing to ecome glol monitoring scheme. Most of the oservers re volunteers (11,000 individuls in the Western Plerctic census), with professionl coordintion t the ntionl level. Dutch Butterfly Conservtion ws founded in 1983, with conservtion nd restortion of the Dutch utt e rfly fun s its chief ims. Since then, it hs extended those ims to include drgonflies nd dy-flying moths. Monitoring ctivities ecme very import nt wy of rising wreness out the decline of the species groups. Furt h e r m o r e, the re of ctivity hs grown over the order, where Butt e rfly Conservtion now works with sister orgnistions in Europe. A lrge network of ntionl utt e rfly experts in ll Europen countries hs een uilt. As first result of this coopertion the Red Dt Book of Europen Butt e rflies ws p r o d u c e d, together with British Butt e rfly Conserv t i o n. As follow-up to this report the ook Prime Butt e rfly Ares in Europe ws pulished in In course of 2004 Dutch Butt e rf l y C o n s e rv t i o n, together with British Butt e rfly Conserv t i o n, will found new orgnistion clled Butt e rfly Conservtion Europe. In June 1995, WWF together with prtner orgnistions nd experts in 17 Europen c o u nt r i e s, lunched the Lrge Crnivore Inititive for Europe (LCIE). The LC IE is n int e g r l p rt of WWF's Europen Progrmme ut it is independent nd open to ll interested prt i e s. To dte more thn 100 individuls hve joined from c. 30 count r i e s, including r e p r e s e nttives from governments, the Bern Convent i o n, interntionl nd ntionl NGOs, together with scient i s ts, lnd mngers nd other experts. The LC IE hs identified four min res of work to support lrge crnivore conserv t i o n: Protection of lrge crnivore popultions nd hit ts I ntegrtion of lrge crnivores with locl development 38 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

39 C o n s e rvtion of lrge crnivores through legisltion, policies nd economic instruments Pulic cceptnce for the existence of lrge crnivores in Europe Pn Europen Action plns hve een developed nd pproved for the five lrge crnivore s p e c i e s. Through their ctivities LC IE reserchers hve collected nd ccess to lrge mount of dt on the sttus nd trends in the popultions of their focl species. The Lrge Herivore Foundtion (LHF) is n independent network orgnistion with the ojective of conservtion nd restortion of lrge herivore communities in the Eursin n t u r e. In the four yers the inititive is opertionl, network hs een creted of over 150 e x p e rts nd interested prties from over 30 ntionlities, including governments, NGOs, universities nd reserch institutes. The LHF progrm involves over 45 species of lrge h e r i v o r e s. Some 30 projects re ddressed throughout Europe, Russi, Mongoli nd Cent r l A s i. Informtion on the distriution nd sttus of the lrge herivore species is considered sis to meet LHF s ojectives. A species dtse hs een compiled with informtion on c u r r e nt nd former distriution re, interntionl conservtion st t u s, the totl popultion size nd the popultion trend (Cromsigt 2000). Plnt Europ is network of Non Go v e r n m e nt nd Go v e r n m e nt orgnistions in Europe, working to chieve the mission of conserving the wild plnts, oth higher nd lower, of Europe nd their hit ts. The implementtion of the Plnt Europ progrmme nd the coordintion of its ctivities is executed y Plntlife Int e r n t i o n l, Non Go v e r n m e nt orgnistionl legl ent i ty in the UK. Plnt Europ nd the Council of Europe developed the Europen Plnt Conservtion Strtegy (EPCS), contriution to nd prt of the Gl o l S t r t e gy for Plnt Conserv t i o n, to provide frmework for wild plnt conservtion in E u r o p e. The strtegy contins two t r g e ts which re relevnt to monitoring nd indictors: Mnul of tried nd tested (species nd hitt) monitoring protocols for scient i s ts nd n t u r l i s ts mde ville on the we (trget 1.3) Ntionl progrmmes to ident i fy nd monitor non red-listed rpidly declining species promoted in 15 Europen countries (trget 2.1) Mny of the Plnt Europ memers re involved in mpping nd monitoring of the flor in their count ry. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 39

40 Appendix 3 Remp tles lnd cover ecosystems Tle. Remp tle CORINE Lnd Cover clssifiction to EUNIS hitt clssifiction C O R I N E C O R I N E CORINE Lel E U N I S EUNIS lel Code 1 Code 2 c o d e Continuous urn fric J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts Discontinuous urn fric J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts Industril or commercil units J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts Rod nd ril networks nd ssocited lnd J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts P o rt re s J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts A i r p o rt s J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts Minerl extrction sites J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts Dump sites J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts C o n s t ruction sites J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts G reen urn re s I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts S p o rt nd leisure fcilities I J CLC-clss shred y I nd J N o n - i rrigted rle lnd I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts P e rmnently irrigted lnd I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts Rice fields I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts Vi n e y rd s F Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts F ruit trees nd erry plnttions G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd Olive gro v e s G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd P s t u re s E Grsslnd nd tll for hitts Annul crops ssocited I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, with permnent cro p s h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts Complex cultivtion pttern s I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts Lnd principlly occupied y griculture, I Regulrly or recently cultivted griculturl, with significnt res of nturl vegettion h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts A g ro - f o re s t ry re s E Grsslnd nd tll for hitts B rod-leved fore s t G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd C o n i f e rous fore s t G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd Mixed fore s t G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd Nturl grsslnd E Grsslnd nd tll for hitts Moors nd hethlnd F Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts S c l e rophyllous vegettion F Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts Trnsitionl woodlnd/shru G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd Beches, dunes nd snd plins B Costl hitts B re ro c k H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts Sprsely vegetted re s E Grsslnd nd tll for hitts B u rnt re s H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts Glciers nd perpetul snow H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts Inlnd mrshes D M i re, og nd fen hitts P e t o g s D M i re, og nd fen hitts Slt mrshes A Mrine hitts S l i n e s A Mrine hitts I n t e rtidl flts A Mrine hitts 40 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

41 Tle. Remp tle CORINE Lnd Cover clssifiction to EUNIS hitt clssifiction C O R I N E C O R I N E CORINE Lel E U N I S EUNIS lel Code 1 Code 2 c o d e W t e rc o u r s e s C Inlnd surfce wter hitts Wter odies C Inlnd surfce wter hitts Costl lgoons B Costl hitts E s t u r i e s B Costl hitts Se nd ocen A Mrine hitts Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 41

42 Tle. Remp tle Glol Lnd Cover 2000 clssifiction to EUNIS hitt clssifiction GLC GLC lel EUNIS EUNIS lel C o m m e n t s c o d e c o d e 1 Tree cover, rodleved, everg re e n G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd 2 Tree cover, rodleved, deciduous, closed G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd 3 Tree cover, rodleved, deciduous, open G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd 4 Tree cover, needle-leved, everg re e n G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd 5 Tree cover, needle-leved, deciduous G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd 6 Tree cover, mixed lef type G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd 7 Tree cover, regulrly flooded, fresh wter G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd (& rckish) 8 Tree cover, regulrly flooded, sline wter B Costl hitts r re in Euro p e (dily vrition of wter level) 9 Mosic1: Tree cover/other nturl vegettion G Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd r re in Euro p e 10 Tree cover, urn t H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts EUNIS su-clss H S h ru cover, closed-open, everg re e n F Hethlnd, scru & tundr hitts 12 S h ru cover, closed-open, deciduous F Hethlnd, scru & tundr hitts 13 Herceous cover, closed-open E Grsslnd nd tll for hitts 14 Sprse herceous or sprse shru cover H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts in GLC definition of sprse is < 20% cover 15 Regulrly flooded shru nd/or D M i re, og nd fen hitts smll mistke herceous cover to e ccepted: v i n e y rds = F o rc h rds = G plnttions = G 16 Cultivted nd mnged re s I Regulrly or recently cultivted, griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts 17 M o s i c 1 : cro p l n d / t ree cover/ Regulrly or recently cultivted, griculturl, other nturl vegettion I h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts 18 M o s i c 1 : cro p l n d / s h ru or grss cover I Regulrly or recently cultivted, griculturl, h o rticulturl nd domestic hitts 19 B re re s H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts 20 Wter odies (nturl nd rt i f i c i l ) C Inlnd surfce wter hitts this GLC clss reltes to inlnd w t e r 21 Snow nd ice (nturl nd rt i f i c i l ) H Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts 22 A rtificil surfces nd ssocited re s J C o n s t ructed, industril nd other rtificil hitts 1 In the mosics the first clss is dominnt, covering some 70-80% 42 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

43 Appendix 4 Clcultion nd ggregtion exmple An exmple is provided of how the indictor is clculted per uilding lock nd then cn e ggregted towrds single vlue for Europe. Dt re rel dt, s used in the project. The coloured circles in the tles indicte how the figures re crried forwrd from step to step. Step 1 Clcultion of the indictor for Atlntic Forests in the United Kingdom S p e c i e s G ro u p Index 1970 Index 2000 C e rthi fmiliris i rd s D e n d rocopos minor i rd s P rus cristtus i rd s P rus plustris i rd s P e rnis pivoru s i rd s P h o e n i c u rus phoenicuru s i rd s Phylloscopus siiltrix i rd s Regulus ignicpillus i rd s Sitt euro p e i rd s Tetro uro g l l u s i rd s A rgynnis pphi u t t e rf l i e s Bolori euphro s y n e u t t e rf l i e s G o n e p t e ryx rh m n i u t t e rf l i e s Limenitis cmill u t t e rf l i e s P r rge egeri u t t e rf l i e s Polygoni c-lum u t t e rf l i e s Index (geometric men of {indices +1}) Step 2 Clcultion of the indictor for Atlntic Forests in Euro p e C o u n t ry A re (km 2 ) N r. of time series Index 1970 Index 2000 B e l g i u m D e n m r k United Kingdom F r n c e N e t h e r l n d s G e rm n y S p i n Repulic of Ire l n d N o rw y Index (re-weighted men) Step 3 Clcultion of the indictor for Forests in Euro p e Biogeogrphicl re g i o n A re (km 2 ) N r. of time series Index 1970 Index 2000 A l p i n e A t l n t i c B o re l C o n t i n e n t l M e d i t e rr n e n Index (re-weighted men) Step 4 Clcultion of the indictor for Europe H i t t A re (km 2 ) N r. of time series Index 1970 Index 2000 unvegetted hitts hethlnd, scru nd tundr woodlnd nd fore s t m i res, ogs nd fens f reshwter hitts costl hitts Index nturl hitts (non-weighted men) Index frm l n d Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 43

44 Appendix 5 Species sets Bird species in rckets: these species cn e linked to n ecoregion, ut in none of the c o u ntries with the ecoregion trend dt were ville nd therefore these species re not included in the indictor clcultions. Costl hitts Atlntic region Costl hitts Mediterrnen region F r m l n d Alpine region u t t e r f l i e s : Thymelicus lineol Pyrgus mlve Polyommtus icrus L s i o m m t meger Issori lthoni Hipprchi semele Cupido minimus Coenonymph pmphilus Arici gestis A r gynnis nioe i r d s : A nthus petrosus Cepphus gry l l e Chrdrius lexndrinus Frtercul rctic Puffinus puffinus Somteri mollissim Stern lifrons Stern dougllii Stern prdise Stern sndvicensis Alc tord Fulmrus glcilis Hydrotes pelgicus Morus ssnus Phlcrocorx ristotelis Riss tridcty l Uri l g e u t t e r f l i e s : Vness t l nt Po nti dplidice complex Ppilio mchon Gegenes pumilio Gegenes nostrodmus Colis croceus Crchrodus st u d e r i Crchrodus lcee i r d s : Clonectris diomede Flco eleonore Lrus udouinii Lrus melnocephlus Puffinus muret n i c u s Puffinus yelkoun Hydrotes pelgicus Phlcrocorx ristotelis u t t e r f l i e s : Polyommtus icrus Polyommtus eros Pleeius oritulus Pleeius glndon M e l i te vri Mculine rion Erei medus Colis phicomone Coenonymph grdett Bolori tit n i Bolori ples Bolori npe Vness t l nt Pieris rpe Pieris rssice Ppilio mchon Issori lthoni Inchis io Colis hyle Aglis urt i c e i r d s : A nthus spinolett Pyrrhocorx grculus Sxicol ruetr Alud rv e n s i s Emeriz citrinell Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix (Coturnix coturnix) ( Vnellus vnellus) 44 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

45 F r m l n d Alpine region F r m l n d Atlntic region Frmlnd Borel region u t t e r f l i e s : Polyommtus icrus Polyommtus eros Pleeius oritulus Pleeius glndon M e l i te vri Mculine rion Erei medus Colis phicomone Coenonymph grdett Bolori tit n i Bolori ples Bolori npe Vness t l nt Pieris rpe Pieris rssice Ppilio mchon Issori lthoni Inchis io Colis hyle Aglis urt i c e i r d s : A nthus spinolett Pyrrhocorx grculus Sxicol ruetr Alud rv e n s i s Emeriz citrinell Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix (Coturnix coturnix) ( Vnellus vnellus) u t t e r f l i e s : Aglis urt i c e A nthochris crdmines Bolori selene Celstrin rgiolus E rynnis t g e s E u p h y d rys urini Inchis io L s i o m m t meger Mniol jurt i n Melnrgi glthe M e l i te cinxi Ppilio mchon Pieris rssice Pieris rpe Polygoni c- l u m Polyommtus icrus Thymelicus lineol Vness t l nt i r d s : Alud rv e n s i s Alectoris ruf Athene noctu Coturnix coturnix Crex crex Emeriz cirlus Emeriz citrinell Gllingo gllingo Limos limos Miliri clndr M o tcill flv Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix Philomchus pugnx Pyrrhocorx pyrrhocorx Sxicol ruetr Vnellus vnellus ( Tetrx tetrx) u t t e r f l i e s : Aglis urt i c e Inchis io Lycen phles Ppilio mchon Pieris rssice Pieris rpe Vness t l nt i r d s : Alud rv e n s i s Coturnix coturnix Emeriz citrinell M o tcill flv Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix Vnellus vnellus Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 45

46 F r m l n d Continentl region F r m l n d Mediterrnen region F r m l n d Pnnonin region u tt e rf l i e s: A p h ntopus hypernt u s Crchrodus lcee Coenonymph pmphilus Colis lfcriensis Colis hyle Colis myrmidone E u p h y d rys urini Issori lthoni Lycen hippothoe Mculine teleius Mniol jurt i n Melnrgi glthe Minois dry s Ppilio mchon Pieris rssice Pieris rpe Polyommtus icrus Polyommtus semirgus Po nti dplidice complex Thymelicus cteon Vness t l nt i r d s: Alud rv e n s i s Athene noctu Coturnix coturnix Crex crex Emeriz citrinell Emeriz hort u l n Gllingo gllingo Limos limos Miliri clndr M o tcill flv Otis t r d Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix Philomchus pugnx Sxicol ruetr Vnellus vnellus u t t e r f l i e s : Arethusn rethus C cyreus mrshlli Crchrodus lcee Chzr riseis Coenonymph pmphilus Colis croceus Glucopsyche lexis Leptotes pirithous Mculine rion Melnrgi occit n i c Ppilio mchon Pieris rssice Polyommtus icrus Polyommtus thersites Pyroni tithonus Thymelicus cteon Vness t l nt Z e ry nthi polyxen Z e ry nthi rumin Zizeeri knysn i r d s: Alud rv e n s i s Alectoris ruf Athene noctu Circus pygrgus Corcis grrulus Coturnix coturnix Emeriz hort u l n Flco numnni M e l n o c o ryph clndr Miliri clndr M o tcill flv Otis t r d Psser hispniolensis Psser mont n u s Pterocles lcht Pterocles orient l i s Tetrx tetrx Vnellus vnellus u t t e r f l i e s : Crchrodus lcee Colis hyle Issori lthoni Ppilio mchon Pieris rssice Pieris rpe Po nti dplidice complex Vness t l nt i r d s : Circus pygrgus Alud rv e n s i s Athene noctu Corcis grrulus Coturnix coturnix Emeriz citrinell Miliri clndr M o tcill flv Otis t r d Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix Vnellus vnellus 46 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

47 F r m l n d Steppic region i r d s : Corcis grrulus M e l n o c o ryph clndr Miliri clndr Otis t r d Tetrx tetrx (Alud rv e n s i s ) (Athene noctu) (Circus pygrgus) (Coturnix coturnix) ( M o tcill flv) ( Psser mont n u s ) ( Perdix perdix) ( Vnellus vnellus) Inlnd surfce wter h i t t s Atlntic region i r d s : Acrocephlus rundinceus Acrocephlus scirpceus Alcedo tt h i s Ans crecc Ans streper Arde purpure A ythy ferin A ythy fuligul B o turus stellris Cinclus cinclus Fulic tr Gllinul chloropus Mergus mergnser M o tcill cinere N e tt rufin Pndion hlietus Podiceps crist t u s Podiceps nigricollis Tchyptus ruficollis Tring hypoleucos Inlnd surfce wter h i t t s Continentl region i r d s : Acrocephlus rundinceus Acrocephlus scirpceus Alcedo tt h i s Ans crecc Ans streper Arde purpure A ythy ferin A ythy fuligul A ythy nyroc B o turus stellris Cinclus cinclus Fulic tr Gllinul chloropus Mergus mergnser N e tt rufin Pndion hlietus Podiceps crist t u s Podiceps grisegen Podiceps nigricollis Tchyptus ruficollis Tring hypoleucos ( M o tcill cinere) Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 47

48 Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts Arctic region Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts Atlntic region Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts Mediterrnen region i r d s : Anser rchyrhynchus Anser flis B r nt ernicl Buteo lgopus Clcrius lpponicus Clidris lpin Clidris mritim Clidris minut Flco columrius Lgopus mutus Pluvilis pricri Pluvilis squt r o l ( Lgopus lgopus) u t t e r f l i e s : C l l o p h rys rui Coenonymph pmphilus Hesperi comm Hipprchi semele Lycen phles Mculine lcon Pleeius rgus i r d s : Cprimulgus europeus Crduelis flvirostris Circus cy n e u s Eudromis morinellus Flco columrius Lgopus lgopus Lullul rore Sylvi undt Tetro tetrix Turdus torqutus utterflies: A nthochris dmone E u p h y d rys urini Glucopsyche melnops Hipprchi fidi Lycen ott o m n u s Ppilio lexnor Pyroni thse S tyrium esculi Z e ry nthi rumin i r d s : Buteo rufinus Emeriz cinerce Sylvi cnt i l l n s Sylvi conspicillt Sylvi melnothorx Sylvi rueppelli Sylvi srd Sylvi undt 48 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

49 Mire, og nd fen hitts Atlntic region u t t e r f l i e s : Bolori quilonris C l l o p h rys rui Coenonymph tulli Lycen dispr Pleeius optilete i r d s : Ans penelope Inlnd unvegetted or sprsely vegetted hitts Alpine region u t t e r f l i e s : Erei clcri Erei christi Erei meolns Erei pluto L s i o m m t petropolit n Oeneis glcilis Prnssius pollo Inlnd unvegetted or sprsely vegetted hitts Arctic region i r d s : Prunell collris Tetrogllus cucsicus Tichodrom murri m m m l s : Cpr iex Rupicpr rupicpr i r d s : Flco rusticolus Gypetus rtus M o ntifringill nivlis Pgophil eurne Phoenicurus eryt h r o g s t e r Plectrophenx nivlis Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 49

50 Woodlnd & forest hitt nd other wooded lnd Alpine region Woodlnd & forest hitt nd other wooded lnd Atlntic region Woodlnd & forest hitt nd other wooded lnd Borel region utterflies: A r gynnis pphi Bolori euphrosyne Bolori thore Erei ethiops Erei lige E u p h y d rys int e r m e d i Limenitis cmill Prrge egeri m m m l s : Alces lces Bison onsus Cnis lupus Gulo gulo Lynx lynx Rngifer t r n d u s Ursus rctos irds: Bons onsi C e rthi fmiliris Dendrocopos leucotos Dendrocopos minor D ryocopus mrt i u s Nucifrg cry o c t c t e s Prus crist t u s Prus mont n u s Prus plustris Pernis pivorus Phoenicurus phoenicurus Phylloscopus siiltrix Picoides tridcty l u s Regulus ignicpillus S i tt europe Tetro urogllus utterflies: Aptur iris A r gynnis dippe A r gynnis pphi Bolori euphrosyne C rterocephlus plemon Go n e p t e ryx rhmni Limenitis cmill M e l i te thli Neozephyrus quercus Prrge egeri Polygoni c- l u m mmmls: C e rvus elphus i r d s : C e rthi fmiliris Dendrocopos minor D ryocopus mrt i u s Prus crist t u s Prus plustris Pernis pivorus Phoenicurus phoenicurus Phylloscopus siiltrix Regulus ignicpillus S i tt europe Tetro urogllus u t t e r f l i e s : C rterocephlus silvicol Erei lige E u p h y d rys mturn Go n e p t e ryx rhmni Leptide sinpis complex Limenitis populi Loping chine M e l i te thli Nymphlis nt i o p Prrge egeri m m m l s : Alces lces Cnis lupus C e rvus elphus Lynx lynx Rngifer t r n d u s Ursus rctos i r d s : Bomycill grrulus Bons onsi C e rthi fmiliris Dendrocopos leucotos Dendrocopos minor D ryocopus mrt i u s Ficedul hypoleuc Ficedul prv Nucifrg cry o c t c t e s Prus cinctus Prus crist t u s Prus plustris Perisoreus infustus Pernis pivorus Phoenicurus phoenicurus Phylloscopus siiltrix Picoides tridcty l u s Picus cnus S i tt europe Tetro urogllus 50 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

51 Woodlnd & forest hitt nd other wooded lnd Continentl region Woodlnd & forest hitt nd other wooded lnd Mediterrnen region u t t e r f l i e s : Aptur ili Aptur iris Arschni levn A r gynnis pphi C rterocephlus plemon Coenonymph hero Erei lige E u p h y d rys mturn Limenitis cmill Loping chine M e l i te dimin Neptis rivulris S tyrium ilicis u t t e r f l i e s : B r e nthis dphne B r i ntesi circe Chrxes jsius Go n e p t e ryx cleoptr Hipprchi fgi Leosopis rooris L i ythe celtis Limenitis reduct Prrge egeri m m m l s : Cnis lupus Lynx prdinus mmmls: Alces lces Bison onsus C e rvus elphus Dm dm i r d s : C e rthi rchydcty l C e rthi fmiliris Dendrocopos leucotos Dendrocopos medius Dendrocopos minor D ryocopus mrt i u s Ficedul licollis Ficedul hypoleuc Ficedul prv Nucifrg cry o c t c t e s Prus crist t u s Prus plustris Pernis pivorus Phoenicurus phoenicurus Phylloscopus siiltrix Picus cnus Regulus ignicpillus S i tt europe i r d s : C e rthi rchydcty l Dendrocopos minor Ficedul semitorqut H i e r etus penntus Prus crist t u s Prus luguris Pernis pivorus Phoenicurus phoenicurus Regulus ignicpillus S i tt europe S i tt krueperi S i tt whitehedi Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 51

52 Appendix 6 Distriution of time series The distriution of time series dt mong hit ts nd count r i e s. The numers per uilding lock re equl to the numer of unique species in uilding lock. Note tht some species hve een used in more thn one uilding lock nd therefore the sutotls do not necessrily equl the numer of unique species. The division of the totl time series per c o u nt ry mong the three mjor species groups is lso shown. A l n i A n d o rr 6 6 A u s t r i B e l ru s B e l g i u m Bosni nd Herz B u l g r i C ro t i C y p ru s Czech Repulic D e n m r k E s t o n i F i n l n d F r n c e FYR Mcedoni G e rm n y G re e c e H u n g ry I c e l n d 3 3 I t l y L t v i L i e c h t e n s t e i n 3 3 L i t h u n i L u x e m o u rg M l t M o l d o v N e t h e r l n d s N o rw y P o l n d P o rt u g l Repulic of Ire l n d R o m n i R u s s i S l o v k i S l o v e n i S p i n S v l rd 5 5 S w e d e n S w i t s e r l n d Tu r k e y U k r i n e United Kingdom Yu g o s l v i Grnd To t l Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

53 A l n i A n d o rr A u s t r i B e l ru s B e l g i u m Bosni nd Herz e g o v i n B u l g r i C ro t i C y p ru s Czech Repulic D e n m r k E s t o n i F i n l n d F r n c e FYR Mcedoni G e rm n y G re e c e H u n g ry I c e l n d I t l y L t v i L i e c h t e n s t e i n L i t h u n i L u x e m o u rg M l t M o l d o v N e t h e r l n d s N o rw y P o l n d P o rt u g l Repulic of Ire l n d R o m n i R u s s i S l o v k i S l o v e n i S p i n S v l rd S w e d e n S w i t s e r l n d Tu r k e y U k r i n e United Kingdom Yu g o s l v i Grnd To t l Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 53

54 Appendix 7 Evlution of species sets E c o re g i o n : tlntic costl hitts totl numer of species included 27 E u ropen endemic species 22 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 6 3 % u t t e rf l i e s : 3 7 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 3 7 % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 4 % p i s c i v o re s : 5 2 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 1 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 1 1 % 3-15 km: 7 % > 15 km: 4 1 % unknown: 4 1 % minimum vile popultion re h: 3 3 % h: 4 % h: 0 % > 2000 h: 6 3 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 2 % m i g r t o ry : 2 2 % v r i l e : 2 6 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 0 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 33 % E c o re g i o n : m e d i t e rrnen costl hitts totl numer of species included 16 E u ropen endemic species 44 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 5 0 % u t t e rf l i e s : 5 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 5 0 % c rn i v o re s : 6 % o m n i v o re s : 0 % p i s c i v o re s : 3 8 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 3 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 0 % > 15 km: 4 4 % unknown: 5 6 % minimum vile popultion re h: 6 % h: 1 3 % h: 6 % > 2000 h: 6 3 % unknown: 1 3 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 1 9 % m i g r t o ry : 3 1 % v r i l e : 5 0 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 6 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 31 % 54 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

55 E c o re g i o n : tlntic fre s h w t e r totl numer of species included 20 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : % u t t e rf l i e s : 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 1 0 % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 2 5 % p i s c i v o re s : 3 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 5 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 1 0 % > 1 5 k m : 2 5 % unknown: 6 5 % minimum vile popultion re h: 0 % h: 0 % h: 0 % > 2000 h: % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 % m i g r t o ry : 3 0 % v r i l e : 6 5 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 0 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 30 % E c o re g i o n : continentl fre s h w t e r totl numer of species included 21 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : % u t t e rf l i e s : 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 1 4 % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 2 4 % p i s c i v o re s : 2 9 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 3 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 1 0 % > 15 km: 2 4 % unknown: 6 7 % minimum vile popultion re h: 0 % h: 0 % h: 0 % > 2000 h: % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 % m i g r t o ry : 3 8 % v r i l e : 5 7 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 0 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 33 % Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 55

56 E c o re g i o n : tlntic mires, ogs & fens totl numer of species included 21 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 1 7 % u t t e rf l i e s : 8 3 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 0 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 0 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 1 7 % > 1 5 k m : 1 7 % unknown: 6 7 % minimum vile popultion re h: 6 7 % h: 1 7 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 1 7 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 8 3 % m i g r t o ry : 1 7 % v r i l e : 0 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 17 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 17 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 17 % E c o re g i o n : rctic hethlnd, scru & tundr totl numer of species included 12 E u ropen endemic species 8 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : % u t t e rf l i e s : 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 3 3 % c rn i v o re s : 1 7 % o m n i v o re s : 0 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 5 0 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 0 % > 1 5 k m : 8 % unknown: 9 2 % minimum vile popultion re h: 0 % h: 0 % h: 0 % >2000 h: % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 8 % m i g r t o ry : 7 5 % v r i l e : 1 7 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 0 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 8 % 56 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

57 E c o re g i o n : tlntic hethlnd, scru & tundr totl numer of species included 17 E u ropen endemic species 12 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 5 9 % u t t e rf l i e s : 4 1 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 5 3 % c rn i v o re s : 1 8 % o m n i v o re s : 6 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 2 9 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 1 8 % 3-15 km: 6 % > 1 5 k m : 1 8 % unknown: 5 9 % minimum vile popultion re h: 4 1 % h: 0 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 5 9 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 3 % m i g r t o ry : 1 2 % v r i l e : 3 5 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 6 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 6 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 35 % E c o re g i o n : m e d i t e rrnen hethlnd nd scru totl numer of species included 17 E u ropen endemic species 35 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 4 7 % u t t e rf l i e s : 5 3 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 5 3 % c rn i v o re s : 6 % o m n i v o re s : 6 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 5 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 6 % 3-15 km: 0 % > 1 5 k m : 0 % unknown: 9 4 % minimum vile popultion re h: 4 7 % h: 0 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 4 7 % unknown: 6 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 3 % m i g r t o ry : 1 2 % v r i l e : 3 5 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 6 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 18 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 41 % Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 57

58 E c o re g i o n : lpine woodlnd & fore s t totl numer of species included 31 E u ropen endemic species 6 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 5 2 % u t t e rf l i e s : 2 6 % m m m l s : 2 3 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 4 2 % c rn i v o re s : 1 3 % o m n i v o re s : 1 3 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 5 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 6 % 3-15 km: 1 3 % > 1 5 k m : 2 6 % unknown: 5 5 % minimum vile popultion re h: 2 3 % h: 3 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 7 4 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 5 % m i g r t o ry : 1 3 % v r i l e : 3 2 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 19 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 13 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 13 % E c o re g i o n : tlntic woodlnd & fore s t totl numer of species included 23 E u ropen endemic species 9 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 4 8 % u t t e rf l i e s : 4 8 % m m m l s : 4 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 5 7 % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 9 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 5 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 2 6 % 3-15 km: 1 7 % > 1 5 k m : 1 7 % unknown: 3 9 % minimum vile popultion re h: 3 5 % h: 4 % h: 4 % >2000 h: 5 7 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 6 1 % m i g r t o ry : 1 3 % v r i l e : 2 6 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 0 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 4 % 58 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

59 E c o re g i o n : o rel woodlnd & fore s t totl numer of species included 36 E u ropen endemic species 3 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 5 6 % u t t e rf l i e s : 2 8 % m m m l s : 1 7 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 4 2 % c rn i v o re s : 8 % o m n i v o re s : 1 7 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 6 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 6 % 3-15 km: 1 1 % > 1 5 k m : 2 2 % unknown: 6 1 % minimum vile popultion re h: 1 9 % h: 3 % h: 3 % >2000 h: 7 5 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 6 % m i g r t o ry : 1 7 % v r i l e : 2 8 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 11 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 8 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 17 % E c o re g i o n : continentl woodlnd & fore s t totl numer of species included 35 E u ropen endemic species 14 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 5 1 % u t t e rf l i e s : 3 7 % m m m l s : 1 1 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 4 9 % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 9 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 4 3 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 1 7 % 3-15 km: 9 % > 1 5 k m : 1 7 % unknown: 5 7 % minimum vile popultion re h: 2 9 % h: 9 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 6 3 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 6 0 % m i g r t o ry : 1 7 % v r i l e : 2 3 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 11 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 11 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 14 % Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 59

60 E c o re g i o n : m e d i t e rrnen woodlnd & fore s t totl numer of species included 23 E u ropen endemic species 30 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 5 2 % u t t e rf l i e s : 3 9 % m m m l s : 9 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 3 9 % c rn i v o re s : 1 3 % o m n i v o re s : 1 7 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 0 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 9 % > 1 5 k m : 2 2 % unknown: 7 0 % minimum vile popultion re h: 3 0 % h: 4 % h: 4 % >2000 h: 6 1 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 6 1 % m i g r t o ry : 1 7 % v r i l e : 2 2 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 9 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 17 % E c o re g i o n : lpine unvegetted re totl numer of species included 15 E u ropen endemic species 40 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 4 0 % u t t e rf l i e s : 4 7 % m m m l s : 1 3 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 6 7 % c rn i v o re s : 7 % o m n i v o re s : 7 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 2 0 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 2 0 % > 1 5 k m : 0 % unknown: 8 0 % minimum vile popultion re h: 4 0 % h: 0 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 5 3 % unknown: 7 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 8 0 % m i g r t o ry : 0 % v r i l e : 2 0 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 20 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 20 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 27 % 60 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

61 E c o re g i o n : rctic unvegetted re s totl numer of species included 3 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : % u t t e rf l i e s : 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 0 % c rn i v o re s : 3 3 % o m n i v o re s : 3 3 % p i s c i v o re s : 3 3 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 3 3 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 0 % > 1 5 k m : 0 % unknown: % minimum vile popultion re h: 0 % h: 0 % h: 0 % >2000 h: % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 0 % m i g r t o ry : 0 % v r i l e : % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 0 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 67 % E c o re g i o n : lpine frm l n d totl numer of species included 27 E u ropen endemic species 15 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 2 6 % u t t e rf l i e s : 7 4 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 7 8 % c rn i v o re s : 4 % o m n i v o re s : 1 1 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 1 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 7 % 3-15 km: 1 5 % > 1 5 k m : 3 0 % unknown: 4 8 % minimum vile popultion re h: 4 4 % h: 1 1 % h: 7 % >2000 h: 3 7 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 5 6 % m i g r t o ry : 1 1 % v r i l e : 3 3 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 11 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 11 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 19 % Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 61

62 E c o re g i o n : tlntic frm l n d totl numer of species included 35 E u ropen endemic species 3 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 4 9 % u t t e rf l i e s : 5 1 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 5 7 % c rn i v o re s : 3 % o m n i v o re s : 2 3 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 7 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 1 1 % 3-15 km: 3 1 % > 1 5 k m : 2 9 % unknown: 2 9 % minimum vile popultion re h: 2 9 % h: 9 % h: 3 % >2000 h: 6 0 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 4 6 % m i g r t o ry : 2 0 % v r i l e : 3 4 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 3 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 3 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 26 % E c o re g i o n : continentl frm l n d totl numer of species included 37 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 4 3 % u t t e rf l i e s : 5 7 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 5 9 % c rn i v o re s : 5 % o m n i v o re s : 1 9 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 9 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 2 2 % 3-15 km: 2 4 % > 1 5 k m : 2 2 % unknown: 3 2 % minimum vile popultion re h: 3 5 % h: 1 1 % h: 5 % >2000 h: 4 9 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 4 3 % m i g r t o ry : 2 2 % v r i l e : 3 5 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 14 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 11 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 32 % 62 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

63 E c o re g i o n : pnnonin frm l n d totl numer of species included 20 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 6 0 % u t t e rf l i e s : 4 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 4 5 % c rn i v o re s : 1 0 % o m n i v o re s : 3 0 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 5 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 5 % 3-15 km: 2 5 % > 1 5 k m : 4 0 % unknown: 3 0 % minimum vile popultion re h: 0 % h: 2 0 % h: 1 0 % >2000 h: 7 0 % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 1 5 % m i g r t o ry : 2 5 % v r i l e : 6 0 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 5 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 30 % E c o re g i o n : steppic frm l n d totl numer of species included 5 E u ropen endemic species 0 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : % u t t e rf l i e s : 0 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 0 % c rn i v o re s : 0 % o m n i v o re s : 6 0 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 % i n s e c t i v o re s : 4 0 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 0 % 3-15 km: 0 % > 1 5 k m : 0 % unknown: % minimum vile popultion re h: 0 % h: 0 % h: 0 % >2000 h: % unknown: 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 0 % m i g r t o ry : 2 0 % v r i l e : 8 0 % unknown: 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 % h e r c e o u s : 0 % iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 % d ry : 0 % q u t i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % c i d : 0 % s i c : 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % nutrient rich: 0 % nutrient poor: 0 % i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 % f re s h : 0 % s l t : 0 % r c k i s h : 0 % v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 20 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 0 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 80 % Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 63

64 E c o re g i o n : m e d i t e rrnen frm l n d totl numer of species included 38 E u ropen endemic species 3 % ecologicl chrcteristics species gro u p i rd s : 4 7 % u t t e rf l i e s : 5 3 % m m m l s : 0 % p l n t s : 0 % t rophic level p ro d u c e r s : 0 % c o n s u m e r s : % re d u c e r s : 0 % g u i l d h e r i v o re s : 6 1 % c rn i v o re s : 8 % o m n i v o re s : 1 8 % p i s c i v o re s : 0 i n s e c t i v o re s : 1 6 % dispersl distnce 0-3 km: 8 % 3-15 km: 1 3 % > 1 5 k m : 1 8 % unknown: 6 % minimum vile popultion re h: 3 4 % h: 8 % h: 0 % >2000 h: 5 8 % u n k n o w n : 0 % m i g r t o ry ehviour s e d e n t ry : 4 7 % m i g r t o ry : 2 1 % v r i l e : 3 2 % u n k n o w n : 0 % s t ru c t u re (plnts) w o o d y : 0 h e r c e o u s : 0 iotic pre f e rences (plnts) m o i s t : 0 d ry : 0 q u t i c : 0 i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 c i d : 0 s i c : 0 i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 nutrient rich: 0 nutrient poor: 0 i n t e rm e d i t e : 0 f re s h : 0 s l t : 0 r c k i s h : 0 v u l n e r i l i t y IUCN Red List (thre t e n e d ) 13 % E u ropen Red Dt Book utterf l i e s 8 % SPEC sttus 1-3 irds, utterf l i e s 39 % 64 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

65 Appendix 8 D e tils on the UK index For ll relevnt UK hit ts species re listed for which time series were otined nd which were used in the indictor. Dtsources re: i r d s: BirdLife Interntionl/Europen Bird Census Council (2000) nd BirdLife I nterntionl (2004); explntion nd species hitt ssocitions in Burfield et l. (2004) u tt e rf l i e s: Gretorex-Dvies & Roy (2002), explntion nd species hitt ssocitions in Vn Swy (2004) Behind the species nmes dt qulity codes re given (see Tle 6 for explntion of codes). Costl hitts Atlntic region Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded l n d Inlnd surfce wter h i t t s Atlntic region i r d s : Alc tord Cepphus gry l l e Frtercul rctic Fulmrus glcilis Morus ssnus Atlntic region i r d s : C e rthi fmiliris Dendrocopos minor Prus crist t u s i r d s : Ans crecc Ans streper Fulic tr Gllinul chloropus Phlcrocorx ristotelis Riss tridcty l Somteri mollissim Stern lifrons Stern dougllii Stern prdise Stern sndvicensis Prus plustris Pernis pivorus Phoenicurus phoenicurus Phylloscopus siiltrix Regulus ignicpillus S i tt europe Tetro urogllus Podiceps crist t u s B o turus stellris Acrocephlus scirpceus Alcedo tt h i s A ythy ferin A ythy fuligul Cinclus cinclus Uri l g e u t t e r f l i e s : Hipprchi semele u tt e rf l i e s: A r gynnis pphi Bolori euphrosyne Go n e p t e ryx rhmni Limenitis cmill Prrge egeri Mergus mergnser M o tcill cinere Pndion hlietus Podiceps nigricollis Tchyptus ruficollis Tring hypoleucos Polygoni c- l u m Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 65

66 Hethlnd, scru nd Mire, og nd fen hitts Atlntic region F r m l n d Atlntic region tundr hitts Atlntic region i r d s : Cprimulgus europeus Crduelis flvirostris Circus cy n e u s d i r d s : Ans penelope i r d s : Alud rv e n s i s Alectoris ruf Athene noctu Coturnix coturnix Crex crex Eudromis morinellus Flco columrius Lgopus lgopus Sylvi undt Tetro tetrix Turdus torqutus c Emeriz citrinell Gllingo gllingo Miliri clndr M o tcill flv Psser mont n u s Perdix perdix Pyrrhocorx pyrrhocorx u t t e r f l i e s : C l l o p h rys rui Coenonymph pmphilus Sxicol ruetr Vnellus vnellus u t t e r f l i e s : Aglis urt i c e Celstrin rgiolus c Inchis io Pieris rssice Pieris rpe Polygoni c- l u m Vness t l nt A nthochris crdmines Bolori selene E rynnis t g e s L s i o m m t meger Mniol jurt i n Melnrgi glthe Polyommtus icrus 66 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

67 Appendix 9 Cuses of chnge Method nd dt The NGOs listed the mjor cuses of decline for ech of the species in the trend dt s e. Fo r u tt e rflies the cuses of chnge were given per species per ecoregion. For irds nd mmmls the cuses of chnge were species- s p e c i f i c, ut not ecoregion specific. For ech species mximum of 5 cuses ws listed. The informtion ws prtly derived from lredy pulished studies nd prtly sed on expert judgement, generted in the context of this project. The informtion ws then ggregted y clculting the totl numer or percent g e of species for which certin pressure is mjor cuse of decline. R e s u l t s Tle nd Figure present the cuses of species decline, respectively per hitt type nd for Europe s whole. The cuses of species decline vry per hit t, with hitt loss nd lnd use eing the most frequent fctors, followed y frgmenttion nd disturnce. Tle. The most importnt cuses of decline per hitt (species-sed) s indicted y pulished studies nd expert judgement (Burfield et l. 2004, Vn Swy 2004, LCIE 2004, LHF 2004). H i t t Cuses of decline Costl re s Toxifiction, disturnce, sedimenttion, over fishing Inlnd surfce wter hitts Hitt loss, lowering groundwter tles, disturnce M i re, og nd fen hitts Hitt loss, frgmenttion, lowering groundwter tles Hethlnd, scru nd tundr hitts Hitt loss, lnd use, frgmenttion Woodlnd nd forest hitts nd other wooded lnd Hitt loss, lnd use, frgmenttion Inlnd unvegetted nd sprsely vegetted hitts Lnd use, disturnce, unknown fctors F rm l n d Hitt loss, lnd use Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 67

68 F i g u re. Reltive importnce of pre s s u res on species (in the ecoregions s investigted in this test), e x p ressed s the percentge of species popultions (i.e. species in uilding lock) declining due to ech of the pre s s u res. The ctegory other includes incresed sedimenttion, fire, over fishing, loss of old uildings. These fctors were found relevnt for irds. Bsed on ll species included in the indictor. 68 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

69 Appendix 10 Recommended ctions S u m m ry of the recommendtions s descried in Chpter Moilistion of historicl dt 1. to moilise dt for ecoregions not covered in this pilot study; 1. to moilise dt for dditionl species groups, specificlly vsculr plnts, fish (freshwter nd mrine), wterirds nd mrine mmmls; 1 c. to explore possiilities for dditionl dt moilistion for countries nd iogeogrphicl regions which were not effectively trgeted y the dt moilistion of this pilot study, such s Europen Russi nd the rctic region; 1 d. to explore possiilities to collect dt for intermedite points in time, e. g. 1990; 1 e. with the help of ntionl prtners to moilise dt on species nd species groups which re not covered y interntionl NGOs. 2. Hitts nd iogeogrphicl regions 2. to further explore merging of some EU NIS clsses with other clsses, especilly clss D: M i r e s, ogs nd fens ; 2. to further improve species- h i tt ssocitions for ll species groups, with specific tt e ntion for those species which use more thn one hit t ; 2 c. to investigte how dt on re of the EU NIS hit ts in Europe cn e further improved. 3. Composition nd ggregtion 3. to further develop nd qunt i fy the species criteri, to mke the species evlution nd selection s ojective s possile, given the purpose of the indictor; 3. to develop guideline for the minimum numer of species within uilding lock y which the indictor generlly cn e considered roust. 4. Reliility nd sensitivity 4. to explore the sensitivity nd reliility of the indictor y using sttisticl techniques; 4. to further explore the implictions of the use of expert judgement longside qunt i t t i v e d t. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 69

70 5. Reltion etween the indictor nd iodiversity loss 5. to develop reference scenrio for the indictor to help resolve miguity in the indictor nd put recent chnges into meningful context. 6. Potentil for use t the ntionl scle 6. to further hrmonise indictor methodologies nd exchnge of dt, to enhnce the s y n e r gy etween ntionl nd Europen work on indictors. 7. Themtic indictors 7. to develop themtic indictors, using the ville (nd new) dt. 8. Towrds Europen iodiversity monitoring frmework 8. to (further) develop nd implement long-term ntionl monitoring progrmmes in ll c o u ntries cross P n- E u r o p e, under common Europen iodiversity monitoring frmework. See lso Appendix Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe

71 Appendix 11 Po t e ntil for Europen Biodiversity M o n i t o r i n g S u m m ry of the most import nt recommendtions to further develop species monitoring in Europe s mde y the NGOs. Opportunities for Europen ird monitoring (Burfield et l. 2004) to continue the P n-europen Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (site-sed monitoring) nd the updting of the Europen Bird Dtse (ntionl level trend estimtes) once per d e c d e. The coordintion of nd communiction etween existing ird monitoring schemes needs further strenghtening; to specificlly uild nd strengthen the ird monitoring cpcity nd prticiption in the PEC BMS in numer of southern nd estern Europen count r i e s; to specificlly strengthen the monitoring in some poorly covered hit ts nd iogeogrphicl regions, esp. in some Alpine, Arctic nd Mediterrnen hit ts; to specificlly strengthen the monitoring of numer of species with high indictor p o t e nt i l; to look for synergies etween monitoring for the EU Birds Directives nd generic species trends monitoring; to support nd stremline the production of ntionl ird tlsses cross Europe. Opportunities for Europen utterfly monitoring (Vn Swy 2004) to collte nd nlyse the dt from the existing five ntionl monitoring schemes (The N e t h e r l n d s, UK, Belgium/Flnders, Finlnd nd Spin/Ct l o n i ) ; to (continue to) produce ntionl utt e rfly tlsses nd underlying dt s e s. This is oft e n the first step in compiling the knowledge on utt e rflies on the ntionl level; to perform trend nlyses sed on ntionl tls dt from ll Europen count r i e s, with ppliction of techniques to correct for chnges in recording int e n s i ty ; to implement monitoring schemes in other count r i e s. Especilly single-species monitoring s i t e s, which re to e counted during the species flight period only, seem to e highly effective pproch. Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe 71

72 Opportunities for Europen lrge crnivore monitoring (LCIE 2004) In most of the Europen countries there is no continuous monitoring system of lrge c r n i v o r e s. However, there is usully system of officil popultion estimtes, wherey locl f o r e s t ry or hunting units report nnully on the estimted numers of individuls of rnge of species present in their unit. The following opportunities re ident i f i e d: To continue the present officil popultion estimtes, s they provide foundtion for locl mngement nd re well est l i s h e d. Strong improvements cn nd should e mde with regrd to (stndrdistion of) methodology nd registrtion (using st n d r d i s e d forms nd GIS mps). Dt should e entered into ntionl level dtses nd cn then e used to monitor gross chnges in popultion size; To complement this totl distriution re monitoring with more detiled dt collection from network of smpling sites (fixed trnsects) tht represent the diversity of hit ts within the ecoregions. Different oservtion methods re ville for different species. Some one-off smll-scle more fundmentl studies could id the int e r p r e ttion of the d t. Opportunities for Europen lrge herivore monitoring (Vn de Vlskker Eiseng 2004) to set up pilot projects to test nd compre the different monitoring methods currently in u s e; for ech count ry to designte one ntionl, independent orgnistion (e. g. university or the ntionl forest nd wildlife reserch institute) to gther the monitoring dt from the r e g i o n s, hunting units, protected res etc. Furthermore to mndte n orgnistion to collect the dt from the countries in Europen dt s e; for ech count ry to set up ntionl lrge herivore dtse to store dt on distriution nd undnce in spce nd time. Dt should e collected using specil (uniform throughout the EU) dt- s h e e ts; for ech count ry to produce tlses on the distriution nd popultion size nd trends e v e ry ten yers. This would e first step in comining the knowledge of lrge herivores. The tlses should e stndrdised on n Europen scle. 72 Biodiversity Trends & Threts in Europe