Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Composite - Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive
Date: 2009-07-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU action, EU programme, animal life, biodiversity, environmental impact, environmental protection, plant life, protected species

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.7.2009 
COM(2009) 358 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Composite Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species  
as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

Composite Report on the Conservation Status of Habitat Types and Species  
as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive 

Executive Summary 

The  first  ever  systematic  assessment  of  the  conservation  status  of  Europe’s  most  vulnerable 
habitat types and species protected under the Habitats Directive has been carried out as part of 
the regular six-yearly progress reporting across 25 Member States and 11 (seven land and four 
marine)  bio-geographical  regions.  The  scale  of  this  reporting  exercise  is  unparalleled  in 
Europe and has provided a first overview and point of reference for assessing future trends. 

The results, covering 2001-2006, show that only a small proportion of the habitats and species 
of Community interest are in a favourable conservation status. The reports submitted by the 
Member  States  show  that  grassland,  wetland  and  coastal  habitat  types  are  under  the  most 
pressure.  Grassland  habitat  types  are  predominantly  associated  with  traditional  patterns  of 
agriculture,  which  are  disappearing  throughout  the  EU.  Wetland  habitats  continue  to  be 
converted  to  other  types  of  land  use  and  also  suffer  from  the  effects  of  climate  change. 
Coastal habitats are under increasing pressure from tourist and urban developments. Some of 
the species protected under the Directive, such as the wolf, Eurasian lynx, beaver and otter, 
are showing signs of recovery in parts of the EU but for these and a majority of other species 
we are a long way from achieving healthy, sustainable populations. 

The findings demonstrate that the conservation measures in the Directive as well as funding 
and other instruments under sectoral policies can deliver positive results. Considerable work 
remains to be done to build on the progress achieved to date. In particular, the Natura 2000 
network should be completed, individual sites may need restoration measures and individual 
sites and the network will need to be managed effectively and properly resourced. 

Lastly,  the  reports  submitted  during  the  current  reporting  round  demonstrate  that  relatively 
few Member States invest sufficient resources in monitoring the status of species and habitats 
within their territories. A good monitoring programme requires expert staff and considerable 
resources. However, in the absence of reliable data it will be impossible to assess the impact 
of conservation measures. 

Detailed results of  the Article 17 reporting exercise can be  found on the  following website: 
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17. 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2001 the European Union set the political objective of halting biodiversity loss in the EU 
by  2010.  Under  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity,  the  European  Union  agreed  to  a 
global target of ‘significantly reducing the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010’. In 2006 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
in  its  Communication  -  ‘Halting  the  Loss  of  Biodiversity  by  2010  and  Beyond’1  -  the 
European Commission reaffirmed the target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 and set out a 
road-map - the Biodiversity Action Plan - to achieve this objective. 

A  prerequisite  for  both  EU  and  international  policy  is  a  reliable  measure  of  the  status  and 
trends  in  biodiversity.  At  EU  level,  the  information  collected  and  reported  by  the  Member 
States  under  the  Habitats  Directive2  constitutes  an  important  source  of  data  on  the  status  of 
some of the most threatened habitat types and most vulnerable species of animals and plants. 

2. 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 17 OF THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE 

What the Directive requires 

Under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, Member States must submit information on how 
the  Directive  is  being  implemented  every  six  years.  For  the  reporting  period  2001  to  2006, 
Member States for the first time provided detailed assessments on the conservation status of 
each  of  the  habitat  types  (216)  and  species  (nearly  1 182)  listed  in  the  Directive  and  found 
within their territory. 

On the basis  of  the  reports  submitted by the Member States, the Commission  is  required to 
produce a composite report (this document) including an evaluation of the progress made and 
the contribution that the Natura 2000 network has made towards achieving the objectives set 
out in Article 3 of the Directive. 

Conservation Status 

Article 2 of the Habitats Directive states that ‘measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall 
be  designed  to  maintain  or  restore,  at  favourable  conservation  status,  natural  habitats  and 
species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest’ (the habitat types listed in Annex I and 
species listed in Annexes II, IV or V to the Directive). 

Article 1 of the Directive defines the term conservation status as applied to habitats and to 
species. These definitions take into account parameters such as the extent of the area in which 
the habitat/species is found, the surface of the habitat area, its structure and functions (in case 
of  habitat),  the  size  of  the  population,  its  age  structure,  mortality  and  reproduction  (of 
species).  This  forms  the  basis  for  developing  a  common  assessment  method  and  reporting 
format,  which  was  agreed  by  the  Habitats  Committee3  in  March  2005.4  The  Commission 
provided supplementary guidance on the assessment process in 2006.5 

1 
2 
3 

4 

5 

COM(2006) 216 final, 22.5.2006. 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 
Regulatory Member States Committee established under Article 20 of the Habitats Directive to assist 
the Commission in implementing the Directive. 
Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation status — Preparing the 2001-2006 report under 
Article  17  of  the  Habitats  Directive.  Note  to  the  Habitats  Committee,  DG  Environment,  Brussels,  15 
March  2005  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-
2007/reporting_framework&vm=detailed&sb=Title. 
Assessment, monitoring and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory Notes & 
Guidelines October 2006.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Bio-geographic Regions 

Habitats and species which are typically found together are associated with regions displaying 
similarities  in  climate,  altitude  and  geology.  From  an  ecological  perspective,  Europe  can  be 
divided  into  seven  land  and  four  marine  bio-geographic  regions.  Therefore,  when  an 
assessment  of  the  conservation  status  of  a  species  or  habitat  was  carried  out  by  a  Member 
State, the reference area for the assessments was not the territory of that Member State but the 
respective  parts  of  bio-geographic  regions  within  that  Member  State  (see  Box  1  for  more 
information on bio-geographic regions). 

The Reporting Process 

The  reports  were  submitted  in  electronic  format  through  the  ‘Reportnet’  System  of  the 
European Environment Agency (EEA). National reports were to be submitted by June 2007. 
Three Member States met this deadline, but Member States were still submitting reports until 
March 2008.6 When a report from a Member State was first received, it was screened by the 
European Topic Centre for Biological Diversity (ETC-BD) of the EEA to assess the quality 
and  completeness  of  the  information.  Requests  for  clarifications,  additions  and  amendments 
were sent to the Member State with a short deadline for submitting any missing/updated data. 

Consultations 

Member  States  were  consulted  at  three  stages  during  the  assessment  of  the  data  and  the 
preparation  of  this  document.  Firstly,  they  were  invited  to  review  the  national  summaries, 
which  were  compiled  on  the  basis  of  the  national  reports.  Secondly,  a  public  internet 
consultation was held from 28 July to 15 September 2008 allowing for comments from a wide 
range  of  stakeholders.  About  2 000  visitors  from  700  network  locations  across  the  EU  were 
registered and nearly 400 comments were received. 75 % of these comments were considered 
relevant and integrated in the online database-information (‘Data Sheet Info’). Lastly, a draft 
version of this document was submitted to the Habitats Committee. 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/habitats_reporting/reporting_2001-
2007/guidlines_reporting&vm=detailed&sb=Title. 
Information received after that date could no longer be taken into account. 

6 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Box 1: Bio-geographic Regions. 

Key for the different bio-geographic regions. 

ALP=Alpine;  ATL=Atlantic;  BOR=Boreal;  CON=Continental;  MAC=Macaronesian; 
MED=Mediterranean;  PAN=Pannonian;  MATL=Marine  Atlantic;  MBAL=Marine  Baltic; 
MMAC=Marine Macaronesian; MED=Marine Mediterranean 

3. 

DATA COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY 

Missing information 

Overall, some 13 % of regional habitat assessments and 27 % of regional species assessments 
were reported by Member States as ‘unknown’. The number of ‘unknown’ classifications was 
particularly high for species found in the countries of southern Europe, with Cyprus, Greece, 
Spain  and  Portugal  all  indicating  ‘unknown’  for  more  than  50 %  of  the  species  reported  in 
their territories. Many Member States lacked comprehensive and reliable information on bats. 

There is a particular problem with the marine environment, where 57 % of the marine species 
assessments  and  about  40 %  of  the  marine  habitats  assessments  were  classed  as  ‘unknown’. 
Many Member States simply lack the necessary information on the status of marine species 
and habitats found within their territories. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
Quality & coherence 

Even when information is available, problems often arise due to the different ways in which 
data is collected and presented. Where feasible, some of these data anomalies were addressed 
by  the  ETC-BD  during  data  processing  and  assessment.  The  Commission  and  the  Member 
States are already working to use the lessons learnt in this first reporting exercise to improve 
the information submitted in the next reporting cycle. 

4. 

THE MAIN MESSAGES FROM THE ARTICLE 17 REPORTS 

A) Introduction 

The  Biodiversity  Topic  Centre  of  the  European  Environment  Agency  made  integrated 
assessments across bio-geographic regions based on the Member States’ reports and using an 
agreed  methodology.  The  Member  State  assessments  were  weighted  according  to  the 
proportion of that species or habitat found within the national territories. The results were then 
aggregated to give a single, integrated assessment for each bio-geographical region. In total, 
701 habitat assessments and 2 240 species assessments were made at bio-geographic level. 

The  website  (http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17)  provides  more  details  of  the 
Member  State  assessments  of  conservation  status  and  the  biogeographic  assessment 
(including maps and data sheets) and a detailed technical report. 

In this report, the outcome of the assessments made on the conservation status of a habitat or 
species is presented in one of four categories: ‘favourable’ (green), ‘unfavourable inadequate’ 
(amber), ‘unfavourable bad’ (red) or ‘unknown’ (grey). 

favourable 

unfavourable-inadequate 

unfavourable-bad

unknown 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
B) Status of the habitat types listed under Annex I to the Habitats Directive 

At bio-geographic level nearly 65 % of the 701 Annex 1 habitat assessments are unfavourable. 
Only 17 % of the habitats assessments are favourable (Fig.1.A). 

17%

37%

18%

28%

ALP (106)

MED (141)

MAC (37)

CON (143)

BOR (85)

PAN (54)

ATL (115)

MMAC (4)

MATL (5)

MMED (6)

MBAL (5)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 1.A 

Figure 1.B 

Figure  1.A:  Summary  of  the  conservation  status  of  Annex  I  habitats  (the  percentage 
relates to the number of assessments made) 

Figure  1.B:  Summary  of  the  conservation  status  of  habitat  types  in  the  different  bio-
geographical regions (numbers in brackets refer to the number of assessments) 

The  situation  regarding  the  conservation  status  of  habitats  in  the  different  bio-geographic 
regions  (Figure  1.B)  shows  distinct  differences  between  the  regions.  None  of  the  habitat 
assessments  from  the  Atlantic  region  were  favourable,  whereas  20  to  30 %  of  habitat 
assessments are favourable in the Mediterranean and Alpine regions. 

Annex 1 to the Habitats Directive includes a wide variety of habitats which are divided into 
nine  groups  of  related  habitat  types,  such  as  forests  or  grasslands.  Figure  2  summarises  the 
results of the assessments carried out for each of these nine habitat groups. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
dunes habitats (62)

bogs, mires & fens  (56)

grasslands (102)

heath & scrub  (36)

coastal habitats (84)

freshw ater habitats (84)

forest (181)

sclerophyllous scrub  (32)

rocky habitats  (64)

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 2: Assessment of conservation status of habitats by habitat group (the number in 
brackets refers to the number of assessments carried out for each group) 

The majority of grassland habitats in Europe require active management. The abandonment of 
traditional  management  practices  has  resulted  in  a  loss  of  biodiversity  in  some  locations 
whereas  in  others  the  shift  towards  more  intensive  agricultural  practices  is  the  root  of  the 
problem.  Grassland  habitats  are  under  particular  pressure  in  the  Atlantic,  Pannonian  and 
Boreal regions. 

Bogs, mires and fens require specific hydrological regimes. The status of these habitat types is 
particularly bad in the Atlantic and Continental bio-geographic regions. 

Dune  habitats  are  under  severe  pressure  throughout  the  EU  with  almost  no  favourable 
assessments. Member States identify coastal, tourism development as the main threat. 

Rocky  habitats  and  sclerophyllus  shrubs  (e.g.  different  types  of  screes)  tend  to  have  more 
positive assessments than other habitat groups. One clear exception to this general rule is the 
habitat type ‘permanent glaciers’. This is because glaciers are under threat throughout the EU 
due to climate change. 

With  regard  to  forest  habitat  types,  the  situation  is  quite  varied  and  general  trends  are  less 
evident. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
C) The status of species listed in the Annexes to the Habitats Directive 

Overall,  across  the  EU,  2 240  separate  species  assessments  were  carried  out.  Only  17 %  of 
these  assessments  were  favourable,  52 %  were  unfavourable  and  in  31 %  of  cases  the  status 
was reported as unknown (Figure 3.A). 

17%

22%

31%

30%

BOR (174)

MAC (171)

ALP (358)

PAN (214)

MED (652)

CON (338)

ATL (230)

MATL (34)

MMAC (33)

MMED (32)

MBAL (4)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 3.A 

Figure 3.B 

Figure 3.A: Summary of the conservation status of species (the percentage refers to the 
number of assessments made) 

Figure  3.B:  Summary  of  the  conservation  status  of  species  in  the  different  bio-
geographical regions (the numbers in brackets refer to the number of assessments) 

The  Boreal  region  showed  the  highest  percentage  of  assessments  of  conservation  status 
categorised as ‘favourable’, followed by the Macaronesian and Alpine regions (Figure 3.B). 
The  very  high  proportion  of  assessments  reported  as  unknown  in  the  Mediterranean  and 
Atlantic regions makes comparisons very difficult. 

In the marine regions, the majority of assessments were reported as unknown, except for the 
Baltic where the status of all four mammal species was uniformly bad. 

With regard to the major taxonomic groups, it is difficult to discern any systematic differences 
between them with regard to their conservation status across the EU (Figure 4). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Amphibians  (152)

Fish  (242)

Arthropods  (336)

Molluscs  (81)

Vascular plants  (799)

Non-vascular plants  (92)

Reptiles  (149)

Mammals  (381)

Others  (8)

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure  4:  Summary  of  the  conservation  status  of  species  by  taxonomic  grouping  (the 
number in brackets refers to the number of assessments for each group) 

D) The conservation status of habitat types associated with agriculture 

A comparison was made of the results of assessments carried out for habitat types associated 
with agriculture compared to other land uses (Figure 5). It is clear that habitat types linked to 
agriculture  generally  have  a  worse  conservation  status,  with  only  7 %  of  assessments  being 
favourable,  compared  to  21 %  for  ‘non-agricultural’  habitats.  The  situation  is  particularly 
severe  in  the  Atlantic  region  where  none  of  the  habitats  associated  with  agriculture  were 
assessed as favourable. The Atlantic region has the highest pressure on agricultural land and 
includes  some  of  the  most  intensively  farmed  areas  on  the  continent.  In  the  Pannonian  and 
Mediterranean regions, the percentage of favourable assessments for these habitat types was 
5 % and 3 % respectively. However, the situation in the Mediterranean region is complicated 
by  the  very  high  percentage  of  assessments  being  reported  as  being  ‘unknown’.  The  results 
from the present reporting period will provide a benchmark against which to assess the impact 
of  the  wide-range  of  biodiversity  positive  measures  being  implemented  under  the  Common 
Agricultural Policy. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
Figure  5:  Conservation  status  of  habitat  types  considered  as  being  associated  with 
agriculture compared to those not associated with agriculture 

Habitats types associated with agriculture 
(204 assessments) 

Habitats types not associated with agriculture 
(497 assessments) 

7%

17%

24%

21%

30%

52%

19%

30%

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
E) Habitats and Species affected by climate change 

In  the  reports  submitted  by  the  Member  States,  climate  change  was  indicated  as  having  a 
negative impact on the conservation status of 42 habitats (19 %) and 144 species (12 %). 

Wetland habitats such as bogs, mires and fens are apparently the most influenced by climate 
change, with dune habitats also negatively affected. 

Among the major species groupings, it appears that amphibians react to climate change more 
than other groups. Amphibians are strongly associated with wetland habitat types which are 
affected by climate change (see above). It is also possible that climate shifts may also impact 
breeding success as temperature changes are often the cue for the start of the breeding season 
in amphibian species. 

5. 

BEHIND THE HEADLINES 

The  Article  17  reporting  exercise  has  generated  extensive  information  on  the  conservation 
status of over 200 habitat types and nearly 1 200 species in 25 Member States and across 11 
bio-geographic  regions.  In  this  report,  the  Commission  has  endeavoured  to  distil  the  main 
results and conclusions but inevitably the process of aggregation and consolidation results in 
much of the detailed information being masked. 

Although the overall message is that the conservation status of many habitat types and species 
is negative, the more detailed results show that some species such as the brown bear, the wolf 
and the beaver are recovering and re-establishing themselves in many (not all) areas. For large 
species such as these to be expanding their ranges means that the right habitats are available 
and that negative pressures such as hunting and pollution have been reduced. 

In addition, for many species and habitat types assessed as being overall in an unfavourable 
conservation  status  across  a  bio-geographic  region,  a  more  detailed  assessment  reveals  that 
the conservation status varies between the Member States. Regional assessments are based on 
up  to  ten  MS  assessments  and  negative  regional  assessments  often  include  countries  where 
different  assessments  have  been  reported.  For  example,  the  dragonfly  Aeshna  viridis  was 
assessed as ‘unfavourable-bad’  in  the Continental region overall  but, as shown  by  Figure 6, 
the conservation status differs in each of the three countries in which it is present. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Figure  6:  Member  State  assessments  in  the  Continental  region  for  the  Annex  IV 
dragonfly  Aeshna  viridis  (green  hawker).  This  species  has  been  assessed  as 
‘unfavourable-bad’ for this region (from http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17) 

Similarly  the  plant  Arnica  montana  has  been  assessed  as  ‘unfavourable-inadequate’  for  the 
Alpine region but Figure 7 suggests that the conservation status at national level changes from 
favourable  in  the  west  to  unfavourable-bad  in  the  east.  However  this  is  only  true  for  the 
Alpine region since in ‘Atlantic’ France and the Benelux countries (Atlantic and Continental), 
the status of the species is ‘unfavourable-bad’. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 7: Member State assessments in the Alpine region for the Annex IV plant Arnica 
montana.  This  species  has  been  assessed  as  ‘unfavourable-inadequate’  for  this  region  
(from http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17) 

6. 

THE LINK BETWEEN CONSERVATION STATUS AND THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK 

A) Introduction 

The  Habitats  Directive  requires  that  the  Commission’s  composite  report  shall  address  the 
contribution  of  Natura  2000  to  achieving  the  objectives  set  out  in  Article  3.  In  particular, 
Natura  2000  aimed  to  enable  the  habitat  types  listed  in  Annex  I  to  the  Directive  and  the 
species  listed  in  Annex  II  ‘to  be  maintained,  or  where  appropriate,  restored  at  a  favourable 
conservation status in their natural range’. 

B) What is Natura 2000? 

Under Article 3 of the Habitats Directive, Member States are required to establish a series of 
protected sites. These sites are part of the Natura 2000 network (comprising sites designated 
under the Habitats and the Birds Directives), which is the biggest ecological network in the 
world. Today, nearly 22 000 sites are designated under the Habitats Directive covering some 
13.3 % of EU territory. In total, the Natura 2000 network contains over 25 000 sites (Birds and 
Habitats  Directives  combined)  located  on  a  diverse  range  of  land  use  types  –  agriculture, 
forests, wilderness areas and covering 17 % of EU territory. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
C) The Natura 2000 Network and its contribution to achieving favourable conservation status 

The Natura 2000 network has developed steadily over the last 15 years (Figure 8) and the land 
part of the network should be completed by 2010. 

Cumulative number of sites

20000

16000

12000

8000

4000

0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 8. Development of the Natura 2000 network in terms of number of sites 

Under  the  Directive,  once  a  site  is  formally  added  to  the  EU  list  of  Sites  of  Community 
Interest, a Member State has six years to develop the conservation measures needed to protect 
the ecological value of the area. Given the delays in establishing the network and the fact that 
in many cases, conservation measures are still being developed, it is unrealistic to expect to 
see  at  this  stage,  a  clear,  positive  relationship  between  the  Natura  2000  network  and  the 
conservation  status  of  habitat  types  (Annex  I)  and  species  (Annex  II)  covered  by  the 
Directive. This is not to say that there are no positive examples (see sections 3 and 4 above). 
Indeed  there  are  many  cases  where  Natura  2000  sites,  especially  those  receiving  funding 
through LIFE programmes or rural development programmes, have clearly benefited at local 
level.  Furthermore,  there  is  now  clear  scientific  evidence  that  Natura  2000  sites  designated 
under the Birds Directive, that was adopted 13 years before the Habitats Directive, contribute 
significantly  to  the  protection  of  bird  species.7  By  the  time  the  second  and  third  reports  are 
due  in  2013  and  2019  respectively,  the  positive  contribution  of  Natura  2000  to  the 
conservation status of the habitat types and species covered by the Habitats Directive should 
be clearly discernible. 

7 

International Conservation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe. Science 10 August 2007. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
D) Financial Support for Implementing the Habitats Directive 

In  2004,  the  European  Commission  estimated  that  the  total  annual  cost  of  managing  the 
Natura  2000  network  was  €6.1  billion. 8  Added  to  this  are  the  conservation  measures  that 
Member States take outside Natura 2000 sites to achieve the objectives of the Directive. At 
EU  level,  most  of  the  available  financial  support  for  nature  protection  comes  from  rural 
development  programmes  under  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  and  Cohesion  policy 
programmes.  In  addition,  targeted  projects  financed  under  the  LIFE  programme  have  also 
contributed  to  improving  the  conservation  status  of  specific  habitats  and  species.  There  are 
wide  variations  in  the  way  the  different  Member  States  use  the  opportunities  to  support 
biodiversity  provided  for  under  EU  funding  instruments  and  the  results  presented  in  the 
present  report  suggest  that  in  many  cases  the  level  of  investment  will  need  to  increase  if 
Member States are to respect their obligations under the Habitats Directive.  

7. 

CONCLUSIONS 

For the first time, the EU has carried out a comprehensive assessment of the status of its most 
vulnerable habitats and species across 25 Member States and 11 (seven land and four marine) 
bio-geographic regions. The EU now has a clear point of reference for assessing future trends 
in the status of its most vulnerable species and habitats. The scale of this reporting exercise on 
biodiversity is unparalleled in Europe. 

Protecting  biodiversity  is  a  priority  for  the  European  Union  and  for  our  policies  to  be 
successful  we  must  have  a  comprehensive  and  reliable  measure  of  the  status  of  our 
biodiversity.  Therefore,  it  is  vital  that  sufficient  resources  are  invested  in  monitoring  and 
reporting  under  both  the  Habitats  and  the  Birds  Directives.  This  report  demonstrates  that 
many  Member  States  need  to  invest  considerably  more  in  this  work  and  that  information  is 
weak or lacking for marine habitats and species. 

The  results  of  the  2001-2006  reports  show  that  for  many  of  the  habitats  and  species  listed 
under  the  Habitats  Directive,  favourable  conservation  status  has  not  been  achieved  either  at 
national  or  bio-geographic  regional  level.  Nevertheless,  there  are  indications  that  in  some 
cases the trend is positive. We will need to await the results of the next round of monitoring 
and reporting before these trends can be confirmed. 

A  key  determinant  for  the  success  of  the  Directive  is  the  level  of  investments  made  in 
biodiversity protection. The increase in EU funding for biodiversity during this decade is of 
particular  importance  and  its  effects  and  those  of  policy  changes  on  practice  need  to  be 
monitored  to  ensure  they  are  providing  a  permanent  improvement  in  the  situation  of 
biodiversity.  Clearly  the  immensity  of  the  challenge  to  halt  the  decline  in  biodiversity  will 
require greater effort in coming years. 

The  reports  submitted  by  the  Member  States  indicate  that  the  overall  status  of  grassland, 
wetland  and  coastal  habitat  types  is  particularly  poor.  Grassland  habitat  types  are 
predominantly  associated  with  traditional  patterns  of  agriculture,  which  are  disappearing 
throughout  the  EU.  In  general,  the  conservation  status  of  all  habitat  types  associated  with 

8 

COM(2004)  431  final,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament — Financing Natura 2000. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
agriculture  is  significantly  worse  than  other  types  of  habitat.  While  in  parts  of  the  EU  the 
explanation is related to shifts towards more intensive agriculture, in other areas abandonment 
of the land and the absence of management is the underlying reason for the decline. Wetland 
habitats  continue  to  be  converted  for  other  types  of  land  use  as  well  as  suffering  from  the 
effects  of  climate  change.  Coastal  habitats  are  under  increasing  pressure  from  urban 
developments. 

The land part of the Natura 2000 network is in the final stages of completion and the priority 
now  must  be  to  ensure  the  development  and  implementation  of  appropriate  conservation 
measures  for  all  Natura  2000  sites,  including  sufficient  financial  support.  For  the  marine 
environment, considerable work still has to be done to complete the network. 

EN 

17 

   EN