Methodology for an Assessment of Europe's Biodiversity (MN2.1 Sub-Project)

Transcription

1 MN2.1 Report, page 1 Methodology for an Assessment of Europe's Biodiversity (MN2.1 Sub-Project) Final Draft submitted to the European Environment Agency January 1997 by the European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation based on a report by D. M. Wascher, ECNC, June 1996

2 MN2.1 Report, page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 List of acronyms used in this report Introduction 1.1 EEA-ETC/NC Work Programme The Aim and Structure of Sub-project MN Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Scope and Objectives for a Biodiversity Assessment Project History Biodiversity in Europe 2.1 Ecological Characteristics of Europe's Biodiversity Human Impacts and Loss of Biodiversity Information Needs for a European Biodiversity Assessment Information Sources: actualness, accessibility and assessment qualities Review of Existing Initiatives, Tools and Methodologies for Ecological (Biodiversity) Assessment The Findings of the Biogeographic Pilot Studies Framework for an Assessment Methodology Coarse Filter modules (CF) Reference Base modules (RB) Data Base modules (DB) Fine Filter modules (FF) Conclusions References Annex 1: Policy and Strategy Background for a European Biodiversity Assessment Annex 2: Chronology of Project Activities 1995/1996 Annex 3: Pressures and Impacts at Different Levels of Scale Annex 4: Information Sources Annex 5: Existing Assessment Tools Annex 6: Address List of Project Partners

3 MN2.1 Report, page 3 Methodology for an Assessment of Europe's Biodiversity Executive Summary Following the UNCED 1 conference of Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the protection of biological diversity is increasingly becoming a priority objective for national and international environmental policies. In response to the newly arising methodological needs deriving from these policies, the European Environment Agency - through its European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation - launched a specifically designed project to develop a methodology for assessing the state and trends of biological diversity at the European level. The methodological framework proposed here draws upon literature and data survey, three international workshops and experimental biodiversity assessments in ten biogeographic and ecological regions (Biogeographic Pilot Studies). These Pilot Studies explored new possibilities for reporting on the state of biodiversity at the level of species, habitats and landscapes with an emphasis on human activities, especially the role of land use. In doing so, they recognised substantial limitations with regard to the current level of detail, coverage, classification standards and availability of the existing European data (e.g. on land cover, biotopes, species distribution) as well as for national or regional data. However, given the relatively low profile and tentative nature of current assessment procedures, any advanced approach that builds upon the existing data is likely to substantially improve the current information on Europe s biodiversity. This holds especially true for the prospect of introducing the concept of ecological regions as the future spatial reference base. The challenge of developing a framework for a European biodiversity assessment lies in systematically overcoming observed limitations by improving and extending data sampling, while consequently building upon existing information structures and assessment techniques. The complex nature of these objectives requires the implementation of four different groups of assessment modules: I. analysis of existing bio-physical data at the European scale such as CORINE land cover, CORINE biotopes, atlas inventories on species, or potential vegetation to identify (1) the profiles of ecological regions, (2) potential biodiversity centres with regard to habitats and species, and (3) baseline data on vegetation changes (these activities are summarised as coarse filter - modules, CF); II. standardised description of the ecological and land management profiles for priority species and habitats as a reference base that allows a qualitative assessment of their current state and conservation needs, (RB); III. update and validation of existing atlas inventories on species, habitat, land cover and human activity data to improve future coarse filter analysis, within appropriated Data Bases (DB); IV. monitoring programmes at the site, ecosystem and landscape level to build upon and contribute to the successive improvement of above module-groups. Depending on the objectives, the size of the reference area can vary at the site level (including Natura 2000) between square meters and hectares and at the ecosystem and landscape level between 1x1 km and 10x10 km (these activities are summarised as fine filter -modules, FF). The implementation of these four module groups is expected to generate a broad ( coarse ) geographic representation of biodiversity components such as species, habitats and land use throughout Europe, to allow standard assessment procedures for the state of habitats and species, to consistently improve existing international data and to monitor state and trends at the level of sites, ecosystems and landscapes by increasingly integrating regional and national activities. Rather than being a stand-alone project, this framework constitutes an ongoing process, successively increasing the level of detail and accuracy to meet present and future policy and reporting requirements. 1 All acronyms used in this report are explained in section 0

4 MN2.1 Report, page 4 List of acronyms used in this report BfN Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn CAP Common Agriculture Policy, EC CBD Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCED conference of Rio de Janeiro, 1992 CEC Commission of the European Communities, now known as EC CF Coarse Filter modules (in this report) CNR National Centre for Research, Italy CoE Council of Europe, Strasbourg CORINE CO-oRdination of INformation on the Environment, CEC, 1991; EEA DB Data Base modules (in this report) DG XI Directorate General XI (Environment) of the EC DMEER Digitised Map of European Ecological Regions, task MN2.2a of ETC/NC 5EAP 5th Environmental Action Programme, EC EC European Commission, Brussels ECNC European Centre for Nature Conservation, Tilburg EEA European Environment Agency, Copenhagen EEC European Economic Community, former structure of EU EP European Parliament EPI Environmental Pressure Indices ESEPI European System of Environmental Pressure Indices, project of EUROSTAT ESA European Space Agency, Paris ETC/NC European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation, Paris, (EEA) EU European Union EUNIS European Nature Information System, ETC/NC EUROSTAT Statistical Office of the European Union, Luxembourg FF Fine Filter modules (in this report) FFH-Directive Fauna, Flora and Habitats Directive, (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) GIS Geographical Information System ITE Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, UK JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK JRC Joint Research Centre of the EC MaB Programme Man and the Biosphere, UNESCO MN Monitoring of Nature, project of the EEA work programme NERI National Environment Research Institute, DK NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, N NUTS Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques, EUROSTAT OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PADU Protected Areas Database, WCMC PEBLDS Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (CoE) RB Reference Base modules (in this report) RIVM National Institute of Public Health and Environment Protection, NL SAC Special Area of Conservation (FFH-Directive) SPA Special Protection Area (Birds Directive) SPOT Satellite Pour l Observation de la Terre TAAG Technical Advisory and Appraisal Group, EUNIS UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992 UN-ECE United Nations - Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UTM Universal Transverse Mercator (geographic projection) WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge

5 MN2.1 Report, page Introduction 1.1 EEA-ETC/NC Work Programme The establishment of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the associated European Topic Centres (ETCs) in 1994 marks the beginning of an institutionalised approach to environmental data management and reporting at the European level. Building upon the experience of the CORINE Programme (CEC, 1991) as well as the preparatory work done by the EEA-Task Force in the light of the Environment for Europe process (EEA, 1994a), the EEA s task is to support and assist the implementation of the European Union s and other international environmental policies. In February 95 the newly established European Topic Centre on Nature Conservation (ETC/NC) in Paris prepared a Work Plan (ETC/NC, 1995b) according to which 14 subprojects were grouped around the following three core projects: MN1: MN2: MN3: Nature Protection: General Approach State and Trends of Biodiversity Support for NATURA 2000 Network Part of MN2, State and Trends of Biodiversity, is composed by the following sub-projects: MN0 MN2.1 MN2.2a MN2.2b MN2.3 MN2.4 MN2.5 MN2.6 MN2.7 Biogeographic Approach Biodiversity Assessment/Monitoring Methodology Digitised Map of European Ecological Regions Pilot Studies in Ecological Regions Nature Indicators Survey Species Nomenclature CORINE Habitat Classification Site Monitoring Methodology Ecological Corridors and Buffer Zones The above sub-projects were to be implemented by contracted partners of the ETC/NC consortium (see Annex 6) under the co-ordination of the ETC/NC within 1995 (1994 budget). 1.2 The Aim and Structure of the Report The task MN2.1 was designed within the EEA and ETC/NC work programmes to review and interpret : international legal and strategic reporting frameworks with respect to biodiversity; characteristics of Europe s biodiversity and its implication for the scope of the assessment; existing information sources with respect to their possible role for biodiversity assessment; existing approaches to biodiversity assessment at the local, regional, national and international level; the results of a co-ordinated biodiversity assessment within pilot study areas in 10 biogeographic and ecological regions;

6 MN2.1 Report, page 6 with the objective to: develop a methodological approach for a European biodiversity assessment at the species, habitat/ecosystem and landscape level, not taking into account the genetic level which is considered to require different tools; identify actual and potential information needs for implementing methodology; draw up criteria and guidelines for implementing a biodiversity monitoring scheme, including an assessment of anthropogenic impacts. The structure of the report MN2.1 reflects very much the process when developing a methodological framework that is closely integrated into the legal objectives as well as into the technical options defined by the existing data quality and availability at the European level. Chapter 2 hence provides a brief overview on Europe s biodiversity in the context of species, habitats, landscapes and genetic aspects as well as the role of human activities that influence these factors. The same chapter concludes with an overview on the most relevant information needs and sources for making qualitative and quantitative assessments of their current status (see also Annexes 3 and 4). Chapter 3 reviews a number of existing global, international and national approaches to biodiversity assessments. Here, the emphasis is to examine the appropriateness of such concepts with regards to the European scale, the legal objectives and the data availability. More detailed presentations of the various concepts can be found in Annex 5. The analysis presented in Chapters 2 and 3 was undertaken prior to the design and implementation of Biogeographic Pilot Studies and forms in fact the very basis of its underlying rationale. One of the principle objectives of the Pilot Studies, which have been carried out in parallel, was to test the potential use of existing national and international data for the assessment of biodiversity. The findings of the Pilot Studies are presented in Chapter 4. More details concerning their implementation and the actually compiled data is fully described within a separate report (ETC/NC 1996a). In the context of the background analysis of the previous chapters, the Pilot Study findings define the guiding principles for proposing a framework for a biodiversity assessment methodology in Chapter Biodiversity and Nature Conservation The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has been heralded for introducing a broader and more holistic approach to safeguarding the world s natural environment and its resources than traditional nature conservation. As Lovejoy commented: "Biodiversity in essence represents the most fundamental library in support of the life sciences: tens of millions of species with unique sets of properties, processes and 'solutions' to unique sets of biological histories and challenges" (Lovejoy, 1995). Despite the shortcomings of traditional nature conservation due to historical reasons and socio-political barriers, conservation-rooted ecosystem research, landscape-ecological disciplines and strategic planning have made substantial advances over the last decades. Together they not only paved the way, but ultimately gave birth to the Convention on Biological Diversity. As such, the expanding concept of maintaining biodiversity is viewed as complimentary, integrative and supportive towards the objectives of classic nature conservation and vice versa. The experts present at an international workshop on a methodology to assess the state and trends of biodiversity ( , Wageningen, NL) agreed that this cannot be restricted solely to aspects of species richness but needs to take into account ecosystem functions as well as aspects such as rareness, representativeness, naturalness and habitat connectivity, in the larger context of landscapes.

7 MN2.1 Report, page 7 Biodiversity must hence also be understood as a qualitative criteria that has its scale within each individual, and on various levels -- organic (genetic, species), structural (habitats, ecosystems), and functional (nutrient, energy flow) -- all of which are important components of the landscape dimension. This implies that biodiversity is a concept that cannot be approached in a selective manner, but rather concerns all ecosystems and landscapes within 100% of the terrestrial and aquatic environment. Such a concept of preserving biodiversity encompasses the conservation of nature and provides the link to sustainability. 1.4 Scope and Objectives for a Biodiversity Assessment The scope and objectives for assessing Europe s biodiversity derive from the following policies and strategic programmes: The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; UNEP, 1992) The Bern Convention (Council of Europe, 1979) 5th Environmental Action Programme (5EAP, CEC, 1992a) Bird Directive (79/409/EEC; CEC, 1979) FFH Directive (92/43/EEC; CEC 1992b; also called Habitats-Directive) Community Strategy on Biological Diversity (EU Strategy, in preparation for 1997) Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS, Council of Europe, 1996; UNEP, 1996) These instruments are described in more detail in Annex 1. Table 1.1: Objectives for Biodiversity Assessment deriving from international legislation, programmes and strategies. Objectives CBD PEBLDS 5EAP Bern Convention Bird Directive FFH Directive EU Strategy Biodiversity levels genes x species/populations x x x x x x x ecosystems/habitats x x x x x x x landscapes x x x buffers & corridors x x x Human activities general landuse x x x x agriculture x x x x forestry x x x economic aspects x x Sustainable landuse x x x x x All of the above listed legal and strategic instruments are targeted at maintaining or enhancing biodiversity in Europe (EU, pan-europe, or globally). There are, however, some differences in the scope and level of specification on how to achieve this goal. Table 1.1 presents the principle objectives according to biodiversity as a scientific discipline at different levels on the one hand, and the human activities as factors controlling biodiversity on the other hand. While CBD, 5EAP, PEBLDS, and EU-strategy promote integrated approaches to biodiversity at several levels - including landscapes - on the base of human activities and sustainable land use principles, the existing legislation and agreements of the EU and the CoE are more confined to

8 MN2.1 Report, page 8 traditional nature conservation concepts of site and species protection, hence oriented towards segregation. Following the EEA and ETC/NC s work programmes, a European biodiversity assessment is supposed to serve both the EU-legislation as well as the integrated approaches laid down in CBD and the 5EAP.

9 MN2.1 Report, page Project History of MN2.2b On the background of the wide scope of legal and strategic objectives, the expert discussions of the MN2.1 workshops were intensively examining questions of technical and conceptual implications for defining an adequate assessment methodology. The experts acknowledged especially the difficulties arising from the project's limitations related to time, budget, logistics and data availability. There was overall concern that these limitations were likely to affect the quality and scale of the project implementation, risking: to also narrow the scope of the proposed biodiversity assessment for practical rather than for scientific reasons; to compromise on the quality of the scientific and methodological approaches to be taken; to lack access to information in a biogeographic context, since (a) the map of ecological regions (task MN2.2a, ETC/NC) was not available within the project time table, and (b) since most institutes rely on only national data ; to operate - nationally as well as internationally - on the base of patchy, non-harmonised and incomparable data; to develop methodological procedures that ignore scientific expertise outside the project network or to repeat already undertaken procedures. Because of the unique challenge that MN2.1 and MN2.2b offered to prepare the ground for developing a large-scale biodiversity assessment and monitoring methodology, the experts agreed to proceed despite the concerns mentioned above. Since the final decision for the scope and orientation will depend not only on scientific but also on political factors, the present report does not attempt to propose one singular methodology to be implemented, but presents a series of methodological modules reflecting the various scales and policy objectives as optional components. However, the report puts forward recommendations on choices which appear to be appropriate from a strict scientific point of view. The overall objectives of the biodiversity monitoring methodology were identified through an informal meeting (13 March 1995) and an international workshop (19-20 April 1995) in Wageningen, The Netherlands. The experts agreed (ECNC, 1995a), that theoretical approaches and knowledge in the field of biodiversity assessment are not sufficient to define appropriate assessment procedures a priori, and that Biogeographic Pilot Studies are likely to provide the necessary information. These Pilot Studies have been implemented in two phases and focused on the experimental identification of biodiversity properties within 10 biogeographic and ecological regions of Europe as well as on potential data management options at the European level. The 10 biogeographic and ecological regions were identified on the base of commonly accepted criteria as well as of the map of biogeographic regions prepared for the implementation of the FFH Directive. The technical and organisational preparations were undertaken in close co-operation between ECNC, NINA and the ETC/NC. The study consisted of a three-level approach to assess biodiversity on the base of land cover, habitats and species in areas representative for the biogeographic and/or ecological regions and selected by the ETC/NC consortium partners. Because of administrative problems and unforeseen difficulties in accessing data, only a few Pilot Studies were completed by the deadline on November 15th The EEA and ETC/NC agreed on extending the work under the 1995 subvention to June The preliminary results of Phase I were summarised in the interim Project Report MN2.1 and MN2.2b.

10 MN2.1 Report, page 10 The overall MN2.1 deadline set by the EEA required that the writing of this report be started before all Pilot Studies have been completed. The chronology on the projects activities in the framework of MN2.1 is presented as a table in Annex 2. Although the report on MN2.1 builds largely on the findings of the Pilot Studies Phases I and II, which are compiled and presented separately in the report on MN2.2b, the proposed assessment methodology for Europe's biodiversity also draws upon existing literature and comparable assessment initiatives at national or international levels, as well as upon the subproject reports for MN2 listed above.

11 MN2.1 Report, page Biodiversity in Europe 2.1 Ecological characteristics of Europe's biodiversity The wide range of Europe s climatic and geo-morphological conditions has resulted in widely diverse patterns of ecological and cultural characteristics, that are unequally distributed over the European continent. The presentation of biogeographic aspects of Europe's biodiversity during the ECNC-Workshop in Wageningen ( , ECNC 1995a) pointed at the wide range of ecological characteristics that define the different regions of Europe. Ecological values of Northern and Western regions are often determined by aspects such as species abundance, presence of rare and threatened species, functional integrity and coherency (connectivity) of natural habitats as parts of complex (cultural) landscape-systems. The studies describing Mediterranean and Alpine ecosystems (L. Olivier/H. Maurin and G. Grabherr) underline in addition the role of species richness and endemism as significant ecological properties number of habitat types Number of Habitat Types Number of Higher Plants number of higher plants 0 DE FR IT NL BE LB UK IR DK GR ES PT 0 Figure 2.1.: Number of habitat types and higher plants for 12 EU countries (ETC/NC, 1995c) Species Diversity Despite the inclusion of several components such as genetics, habitats and landscapes, biodiversity is frequently associated with species diversity and in particular with species richness, the number of species within an area. Species richness is partly influenced by two factors that apply at the global scale (Kirkland, 1994): the latitudinal gradient, describing a decrease of richness from the tropics to the poles and the island biogeography theory according to which there is a relation between species numbers and the size of habitat areas as well as their level of isolation. Geo-historical prioritisation which is solely based on numerical aspects of biodiversity (species richness) will fail to reflect the land use and cultural characteristics of the Europe s natural environment. At the global scale, 10 plant hotspots with 27% of all known flowering plant species occur in areas of tropical forests covering less than 0.2% of the earth surface (Myers, 1988). Non of these centres occur in Europe where the potential for species richness is comparably low, due to the reasons mentioned above. Quite contrary to the global perspective, Europe s highly valuable ecosystems and landscapes are frequently associated with low species numbers, e.g. tundra, heath land and mire biomes. The workshop participants concluded that the regional characteristics point at the need for an

12 MN2.1 Report, page 12 adequate biogeographic classification ( ecological regions, see task MN2.2a) and for assessment criteria that reflect and balance all observed ecological properties. Table 2.1: Distribution of Higher Plants by Continent ( WCMC, 1992) Continent/Region Plant Numbers Latin America (Mexico through S-America) 85,000 Tropical & Subtropical Africa 45,000 Tropical & Subtropical Asia 50,000 Australia 15,000 North America 17,000 Europe 12,500 Habitat Diversity While there is a comparably modest level in species numbers (see Table 2.1 for plant richness between continents), Europe s biological diversity is strongly based on the role of human activities and the large number of semi-natural habitats as parts of cultural landscapes. By encompassing many important natural habitats (relatively untouched areas) as well, European ecosystems are composed of more than 2500 habitat types (according to the CORINE Habitat Classification before Austria, Sweden and Finland entered the EU, and of even more than 5300 habitat types according to the PHYSIS data base on the Palearctic Habitats classification), and provide home to about species, of which more than 90% are members of the invertebrate group (CEC 1991a) Distribution of ecosystem types in CORINE Biotopes (%) (several ecosystem types per site are possible) coast & marine freshwater grass- & scrubland woodland marshes & bogs rocks, screes & sands agriculture Figure 2.2: Distribution of ecosystem types as percentage of sites within CORINE biotopes (CEC 1991a). The comparison between the number of habitat types and of higher plants per country shows that these two entries are independent levels of biological diversity (see figure 2.1). Most notably France and Italy have a relatively high number of habitat types compared to Greece and Portugal, for example. Both data on plants and habitats could tell us more if the reference

13 MN2.1 Report, page 13 base would not be the territories of the individual Member States, but - as it is intended through the future biodiversity assessment methodology - the areas of the ecological regions. Figure 2.2 presents information concerning the types of ecosystems that prevail in nature conservation sites that are of Community interest and is derived from the CORINE biotopes database (CEC, 1991a). The data derives only from selected areas (7740 sites in 9/95) covering approximately 13% of the EU territory and is hence not representative for Europe as a whole (ETC/NC, 1995c). Nevertheless, the results can be considered as indicative for the overall role of different ecosystem types for Europe s biodiversity. Considering that large portions of Europe s grass- and scrublands are the result of, and maintained through, human site management, the high representation of these habitat types (> 60%) and of agriculture (35%) among CORINE biotopes underline the important role of semi-natural ecosystems. As compared to human managed ecosystems (31473 records) - which include with only a few exceptions also all forests - natural and semi-natural ecosystems such as coastal (5062 records), non-marine water (8363 records), bog (9257), rock and dune habitats (3134 records) sum up to less than 50% of all habitat type records. This implies that Europe s biodiversity is far from being restricted to natural ecosystems and is instead also an essential attribute of our cultural landscapes. The CORINE biotopes is currently the only European programme under which digitally accessible data on habitats has been compiled. In the future digital access will be possible for the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the FFH Directive and the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds-Directive, forming together the network of sites Natura DGXI has entrusted the management of the central data base for NATURA 2000 to the ETC/NC. ETC/NC will enter data that has been officially communicated by the Member States in a standard format that builds upon the CORINE biotopes software. The Directive lists about 250 habitat types and sub-types of community interest, among which are about 50 coastal, 20 freshwater, 30 scrub, 40 grassland, 10 wetland, 15 rocky, and more then 60 forest habitat types. The future NATURA 2000 list of sites will constitute an essential framework for maintaining Europe s biodiversity (see also Annex 1, page 2). ETC/NC sub-project MN0 Biogeographic Approach examined the question of habitat presence and threats for each biogeographic region based on the EU-map for the implementation of the Habitat Directive (CEC 1992b), for which only descriptive data was gathered. The same accounts for the HABNUTS geographical database developed at the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique (IRSNB) as a subset of PHYSIS 2 although it allows some level of assessment concerning presence and non-presence of habitat types in 124 NUTS regions of the former 12 EU-Member States. Landscape Diversity The inclusion of landscapes as one of the basic corner-stones of a European biodiversity assessment is founded on the appreciation of Europe s rural areas and their critical role for maintaining biodiversity. While European nature conservation legislation focuses on some of the most important key-areas for rare and endangered species and habitats, the remaining large areas - dominated by agriculture and forestry - are exposed to an ever increasing intensification of agro-forestry land use or to changes in management regimes that devalue both their long-term economic potential and their environmental functions important for 2 PHYSIS is a working database tool belonging to IRSNB, and is not published or publicly available. A technical description of PHYSIS by Charles Vander Linden of IRSNB is included in the MN2.5 Report (ETC/NC 1995d).

14 MN2.1 Report, page 14 Europe s nature and wildlife. Birdlife International (1994) noted that despite the recent reforms, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is still one of the most damaging influences on the rural environment due to habitat destruction and pollution. The issue has also been addressed during the conference of the International Association for Landscape Ecology in Toulouse (August 27-31, 1995) which came to the conclusion that relationships between landuse changes and biological diversity suggest that future landscape diversity can be directed by acting upon the driving forces of land-use changes, with particular reference to Common Policies of the EU, especially the CAP. This view is supported by many environmental reports, including the EEA s latest publication Europe s Environment - The Dobris Assessment which documents the role of landscapes for a sustainable development (Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995), and the Council of Europe s Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (CoE, 1995). A crucial criteria for securing a sustainable future is the definition of carrying capacities of Europe s natural and cultural resources. Such an undertaking can only be based on reliable data that compares environmental information with socio-economic baseline information. The assessment of sustainability has been tested on several occasions, and it has been proven that pragmatic solutions exist for determining effective trade-offs among competing land-use demands so as to maximise net benefits for society (Faith, 1995). As a consequence, a biodiversity assessment that is concerned with the sustainable future of Europe s natural resources will have to take into account the factors controlling the biodiversity such as land use, pollution and socio-economic processes at the level of landscapes. Although the EEA report Europe s Environment - The Dobris Assessment (Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995) succeeded in raising the profile of landscapes as an environmental issue, landscape ecology as a discipline is still lacking consistency in terms of methodology and reporting mechanisms. The problems can be summarised as follows: no satisfying, internationally (European-wide) harmonised typology of landscapes; no quantitative, only few qualitative, data on these landscapes; no integration into information on land use; no systematic links to other trend reports (nature conservation, forestry, agriculture); no official list of endangered landscapes ( red list ); no reliable large-scale trend analysis. One specific aspect of landscapes is the notion of change. As products of human land management history, landscapes continue to change over time and keep reflecting the socialcultural and economic processes of regions, countries and continents. As the final paragraph of the Landscapes -chapter in the Dobris Assessment puts it: "Landscape planning, management and protection is facing the challenge to embrace changes while at the same time understanding their implications and ensuring that they do not violate basic environmental and cultural values. All of the actions proposed should take into account the special dynamic aspects of landscape evolution over time." (Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995). Once perceived as an issue of slightly prosaic nature, meanwhile the EEA considers landscapes meanwhile as the key-dimension for an integrated environmental assessment on pressures, human activities and the way resources and ecological values are affected. A 1996 EEA project ( Landscape Monograph ) implemented by an expert network under the lead of ECNC is designed to advance on some of the above issues.

15 MN2.1 Report, page 15 While the inclusion of landscapes as an assessment criteria for biodiversity received the wide support of the expert network, there was at the same time awareness of the inherent conceptual difficulties that arise from attempting to approach the subject internationally.

16 MN2.1 Report, page 16 Genetic Diversity Other than landscapes, genetic diversity is explicitly mentioned in Article 2 of the CBD: " Biological resources includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for humanity. Wide ranging species consist of multiple breeding populations that display complex patterns of geographic variation in genetic polymorphism. Thus, even if an endangered species is saved from extinction, it may have lost much of its genetic diversity, requiring special efforts to restore the diversity. Especially the high level of fragmentation that characterises many European habitat types and the resulting increase of isolated patches have led to an artificial island syndrome for many species. An American study on 24 captive wildlife species that were extensively inbred found that in almost every case infant mortality was much higher than normal. Reduced sperm count, reduced sperm viability and vulnerability to disease through reduced genetic variation in the immune system were also common in these populations (Lewin, 1995). Although the genetic repercussions of population bottlenecks can vary from instance to instance, increasing isolation of habitat fragments is likely to have negative effects on Europe s biodiversity. Another aspect of genetic diversity is related to domestic plant and animal species. In many countries, gene banks have been established to preserve and document genetic variation in valuable material from agricultural and horticultural plants, and for zoological material. During the workshop at Wageningen (19/ ), the experts considered genetic diversity to be an important element, but, given the completely different methodological approach (in view of the European context), not of the same priority as the other assessment levels of biodiversity listed above. 2.2 Human impacts and loss of biodiversity The 5EAP comes to the conclusion that "in spite of measures taken by international agencies, the Community and individual Member States, major threats to nature conservation and the maintenance of biodiversity persist and in some areas are increasing" (CEC, 1992a). The EEAreport "Europe's Environment - The Dobris Assessment" (Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995) observes that these trends derive mainly from highly intensive, partially industrial forms of agricultural and silvicultural land use, and from infrastructure and urbanisation, from the exposure to mass tourism as well as from the impact of polluted waters. The intensity and dominance of these human impacts can vary from region to region and depend on the specific response mechanisms of each ecosystem. Even without taking into account the quality of different production modes, the large share of agricultural land use within most European countries (up to 70 and 80 per cent) makes farming a key factor for nature and wildlife. As pointed out under section 2.1 ( landscape diversity ), Europe's cultural landscapes are results of traditional agricultural practices, and with them the diversity of habitats and species which characterises them. Agriculture is thus an example of an human activity which can have both negative (today most noticeable) and positive influences on biodiversity. In some parts of Europe, e.g. in Finland, Sweden, Norway or in some mountain areas, agriculture accounts for less than 10% of land cover and is replaced by forestry as the dominating land use form. The characteristics of forest ecosystems (e.g. their long life spans, high biomass) are of an entirely different history and quality than the ones of agricultural

17 MN2.1 Report, page 17 systems, as is the impact of commercial forest management on biodiversity. Similar differences need to be considered when examining other ecosystem types such as wetlands, coasts, fresh and marine waters, rocks and natural grasslands. For each ecosystem type and for each ecotone, a different set of environmental conditions applies that determines its ecological state and functioning. In principle, the causes for environmental pressures can be differentiated along several levels of scale: global, continental, regional and local. A list with some of the most dominant pressures and impacts within the first three categories is presented in Annex 3. The role of human activities as causes for environmental pressures has also been recognised by the European Parliament, which in 1994 called the Commission to put forward as soon as possible practical proposals based on the results of the 'environmental pressure index project' (EP, 1994). The Environmental Pressure Indices (EPI) are currently developed by the European Statistical Office of the EU in Luxembourg (EUROSTAT, 1995) and starts from the premise that environmental damage resulting from human activities should guide the integration of environmental concerns into other policies. Because the evaluation of damage is "difficult, time consuming and resource intensive", EUROSTAT gives preference to a system that is based on the pressures that economic activities exert. The intention is to establish a European System of Environmental Pressure Indices" (ESEPI) within which "a set of pressure indices" is identified for each environmental problem area of the 5EAP. One of these problem areas is 'loss of biodiversity' and a tentative list of indicators includes: fertiliser use pesticide use crop variety protected areas fragmentation. The final list of pressure indicators is still under development. The key issue is that human activities affect the quality of the environment and also have direct and indirect influence on the state and trends of biodiversity. The knowledge about species, habitats and landscapes is hence inherently linked to information such as land use (land cover), population density, economic productivity, or levels of tourism, traffic and pollution. 2.3 Information Needs for a European Biodiversity Assessment The scientific and philosophical interpretations of the international policies and strategic programmes (see section 1.3) cited above, point out a need for the following technical and strategic actions: identification of properties related to the state of biodiversity in different biogeographic or ecological regions at the level of: species (richness, endemism, rarity), habitats (diversity, connectivity, naturalness), and landscapes (diversity, social values, protection); identification of correlation between the above properties and human activities as factors controlling biodiversity (= pressures and societal response): land use (population density, production processes, livestock density)

18 MN2.1 Report, page 18 pollution and other human impacts, protected area. These identified factors have the goal to: specify the objectives for a European biodiversity assessment along the lines of a feasibility study; determine possible information sources for a European biodiversity assessment at the international and national/regional level in the light of scale, resolution, degree of detail, biogeographic region, accessibility and future needs; develop criteria for the adequate frequency, temporal and spatial scale and sampling techniques of a long-term biodiversity monitoring procedure. As explained in section 1.5, the assessment methodology is considered to be an outcome of the implementation of both MN2.1 and MN2.2b. It is therefore important not to confuse the Pilot Study methodology itself or the information needs for the MN2 sub-projects with what is finally proposed as the modules for a biodiversity assessment methodology as well as the related data needs. Quite naturally, there will be a certain redundancy between the type of information gathered and interpreted for the purpose of this study and the future data needs. 2.4 Information Sources: actualness, accessibility and assessment qualities The present report draws mainly upon information resulting from: expert workshops within the implementation of the MN2.1/MN2.2b sub-projects (see Annex 2) scientific literature: existing international and national biodiversity assessment reports legal and strategic programmes of the EU and UNEP grey literature of conference minutes, concepts and drafts environmental data on European nature conservation and biodiversity: EUROSTAT CORINE land cover and CORINE biotopes projects and habitat classification species data bases by different data holders the MN2.2b Pilot Studies on biodiversity in 10 biogeographic and ecological regions, with information on: species, habitats, landscapes land cover and socio-economic factors state of national data management capacities. With only a few exceptions, large amounts of information on Europe s natural environment exist in various formats at different levels. Local, regional, national and international inventories of fauna and flora have been compiled over many decades and fill reports, books, private notes, museum collections, administrative records and computer files. All of this information must be considered of potential use for the assessment of biodiversity in any given region or country. However, their actualness, accessibility and assessment qualities can vary largely and need special consideration with regard to the objectives of the assessment. Evaluation of Species Data

19 MN2.1 Report, page 19 The species information on birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians is useful for initial assessments of species distribution and richness at a large scale. The results of such assessments are of scientific and conceptual nature but lack a conservation and management dimension. A detailed list as well as discussions of existing species information sources is presented in Annex 4. Evaluation of Habitat Data For the purpose of a European biodiversity assessment, the information deriving from CORINE land cover must be considered as the most obvious in terms of its resolution, accessibility, state of harmonisation and the investment that has already taken place. The generic quality of its existing typology point at the need of additional data collection activities. The MN2.2b Pilot Studies have been especially designed to test CORINE land cover classes for this purpose and to arrive at recommendations on how to use and how to improve the data in a future assessment procedure (see Annex 4). Evaluation of Landscapes Data Compared to species and habitats, the information on landscapes is even more restricted. The landscape typology developed for the EEA report Europe s Environment - The Dobris Assessment (Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995) has been the first public approach to identifying landscapes at the European level. The approach is currently under review with the goal to further differentiate and extend the typology on the base of bio-physical information and national/ regional classification systems (EEA Monograph on Landscapes, contracted to ECNC). Table 2.2: Landscape maps and data sources Landscapes holder coverage format resolution contents Dobris-Landscape Typology World Map of Present- Day Landscapes EEA Europe digital 1:15 mill 30 landscape types UNEP/ Moscow World / digital 1:15 mill. 200 units State Univ. Europe At present, landscapes are not sufficiently described within geo-referenced databases. The MN2.2b Pilot Studies had been designed to provide more information on the role of landscapes within a European biodiversity assessment. Evaluation of Protected Area Data Information on protected areas is being compiled at most regional and national levels - sometimes as part of general land surveys and regional planning procedures. At the international level, most nature conservation policies and conventions such as the EU s Birds Directive, Ramsar, UN s Man and Biosphere Programme, Council of Europe s Biogenetic Reserves and others have created computer-based inventories with geo-referenced information on protected areas. At the global level, WCMC s database on protected areas (PADU) has been the most comprehensive one, covering nature reserves, national parks and many other areas larger than 1000 hectares. The European part of the PADU-database has been merged with the EU-Designated Area database (CORINE) and is currently being updated as part of the EEA Work Programme to become the Common Database on Protected Areas in Europe (WCMC, EEA, CoE).

20 MN2.1 Report, page 20 Table 2.3: Data on protected areas protected areas holder coverage format resolut. contents PADU database WCMC EU-part digital long/lat sites Internationally protected areas CoE pan-eu digital long/lat sites CORINE designated areas EEA EU digital long/lat sites CORINE biotopes EEA EU&Phare digital long/lat records Information on protected areas is of relatively good quality. The problem of most protected area databases is that the entries are site-based (long/lat. co-ordinates) and without boundaries. This type of information allows only limited spatial analysis or habitat management oriented assessments. An improved boundary definition is currently under preparation at ETC/NC and WCMC. Evaluation of Land cover/land-use Data Land cover or land-use data deriving from remote sensing must be considered an essential prerequisite of any integrated assessment that takes into account human activities and spatial aspects of the natural environment. Besides the cartographic aspects, the data provides one of the inputs for the production of more complex information on other themes such as soil erosion, nitrate emission into the air by vegetation, identification of boundaries for designated areas (Natura 2000) and CORINE biotope sites, etc. GIS is indispensable for the management and exploitation of Land cover data as well as for other environmental data sets. The information system has the following characteristics: accurate vectoral data definition topological structure, including spatially neighbouring information integration of geographical data with relational data bases, system independent data base, with full flexibility for data interchange. Table 2.4: Data on land cover and land use Land cover/use holder coverage (per country) format resolut. state of completion CORINE landcover EEA- FI, IR, NL, BE, digital 1: classes with 3 level hierarchy -ETC/LC ES, PL, FR,... GR, DE... AT, IT %... 80%... 60% Euro-LUPOLY* 6 classes LBG- RIVM** Europe... digital 1:1-2.5 mill % * Land Use Polygons ** Soil and Groundwater Research unit of RIVM, Netherlands The CORINE land cover nomenclature (CEC, 1993) is especially designed to meet environmental policy needs. The nomenclature allows a number of land cover types to be identified which are of potential importance for nature and landscape protection. The MN2.2b project (Pilot Studies) has been specifically designed to test the possible future use of CORINE land cover for biodiversity assessment.

21 MN2.1 Report, page Review of existing initiatives, tools and methodologies for biodiversity assessment. Although biodiversity must be considered a relatively new concept, properties identified above such as species, habitats, and landscapes have been objects of biodiversity assessments since a long time. The reports on sub-projects MN2.3 (Nature Indicator Survey, ETC/NC 1995e) and MN2.6 (Site Monitoring Methodology, ETC/NC 1995f) observed that there is a long history of biodiversity assessments by most European states in the form of species or population counts, vegetation mapping, forest inventories, land-use surveys and interpretation of aerial photography or, later, remote sensing imagery. All of these activities lead to some kind of description of the presence, absence, change, correlation, distribution, quality or quantity of measurable units within the natural environment. In many cases these assessments were targeted at very specific aspects, e.g. an inventory of coastal wetlands for the preparation of future conservation plans, or the compilation of atlas data on one species group such as butterflies of a particular country for scientific reasons, or a faunistic and floristic inventory for a project requiring an environmental impact assessment. The type and methodology of existing assessment procedures at the national and international level reflect this variety of motives and objectives. Almost each of the numerous approaches that have been carried out so far, or which are still going on, is likely to provide valuable contributions to the type of multi-level biodiversity assessment as it has been defined in the policies and programmes cited above. However, having been designed for originally different (often narrower) purposes, hardly any of those inventories simply equals a biodiversity assessment. The most obvious gap concerns the issues of sustainable land use within the wider countryside. Until today, most assessment procedures are based upon traditional nature conservation strategies focusing primarily on selected (natural to semi-natural) ecosystems and endangered species. This has resulted in a patchwork of inventories giving priority to already protected or supposed to be protected components of nature. Consequently, the vast majority of human land use areas such as managed forests, farmland and most aquatic systems have been left outside of biodiversity assessments. The experience of the CORINE biotope programme helps to exemplify the problem. For this programme, the EU Member States were asked to select areas ('biotopes') according to a set of criteria and based on an annex list of European-wide threatened species of fauna and flora. The result is a list of about 7700 sites which correspond to these criteria and which cover about 13% of the EU territory (ETC/NC, 1995c). Since the Member States did not have to report all sites relevant for the species and habitats listed in the annex, the list is not exhaustive but covers in certain cases only a certain portion of the habitat types actually present in each country. In terms of Natura 2000 and the CBD, this has at least two implications: 1. Since Natura 2000 does not limit the protection of sites to the same selection criteria which were in place for the CORINE biotopes programme, the number and area size of 'Special Areas of Conservation' under Directive 92/43/EEC are likely to be different; 2. Since CBD does not limit the protection and maintenance of biodiversity to any specific list of habitats or species types, CORINE biotopes as well as NATURA 2000 are likely to be only a - though important - subset of Europe's biological and landscape diversity.