Report on Favourable Conservation Status



Favourable conservation status – to the heart of EU wildlife legislation

Rebecca Halahan & Rebecca May, WWF

31 January 2003

Contents

1. Summary

2. Background and introduction

3. Defining and interpreting favourable conservation status

4. Delivering favourable conservation status

5. The Way Forward

6. Notes and acknowledgements

7. Glossary of Terms

8. References

1. Summary

The purpose of this report is to contribute to the debate and provide recommendations on the interpretation and implementation of measures to achieve favourable conservation status by Member States and the European Commission. It has been drafted with input from a range of organisations and individuals, for use by non-governmental organisations, the European Commission and Member States.

The concept and delivery of favourable conservation status is central to the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive (Article 2(2)). As such, explicit references to, and provisions for, the delivery of favourable conservation status are made throughout the Directive.

A broad definition of the term favourable conservation status is given in the Habitats Directive (Article 1 of the Directive, see Annex I) but there remains a lack of clarity in the interpretation of this term or the means by which to implement it. There is a risk that, at the moment, it can be interpreted in many different ways, to suit different, and often conflicting, purposes. This ambiguity makes it challenging to implement, but it is vital that this central objective of the Directive can be translated into effective conservation action on the ground at the earliest opportunity, using the range of measures that the Directive describes.

Key recommendations:

• The European Commission and Member States must advance the definitions provided in the Directive and develop these to provide conservation objectives at all appropriate levels (local, national, biogeographical and European). These should be set within a conservation programme that identifies how these will be taken forward, perhaps within a framework of an action plan.

• The European Commission must put pressure on Member States to adequately implement the range of measures, set out in the Directive, for delivering favourable conservation status, while addressing obstacles to delivery at an EU level. The Commission should undertake legal proceedings against any Member State failing to comply with the Habitats Directive, and hence the delivery of favourable conservation status, and withhold Structural and Rural Development Funds for failure to do so.

• Member States must assess the sum of influences acting on a species or natural habitat listed in the Directive. This includes the immediate impacts, as well as the longer term impacts affecting abiotic and biotic conditions of a habitat or species. The positive and negative impacts of any decision, policy, incentive or activity also need to be assessed.

• The European Commission and Member States must endeavour to integrate the requirements of the Habitats Directive and, in particular the delivery of favourable conservation status, into sectoral policies at the earliest opportunity, endorsing habitat creation, restoration and management to encourage natural dispersal and re-colonisation.

• The European Commission and Member States must put in place a comprehensive programme of research, monitoring and reporting, in order to assess current status and then to assess whether it is favourable. This is also necessary to assess, report on and understand the contribution that various measures make to the achievement of favourable conservation status. Common standards of monitoring across the EU are crucial to enable accurate assessment of changes in species or habitat status. Assessment of conservation status needs to take account of the European, national and local status and the persistence of all populations throughout their natural range and should take account of genetic variation and the conservation of geographic races. The results of such research must be disseminated as widely as possible, amongst those who seek to rely on them. For example, conservationists, civil servants, planners, planning inspectors and the judiciary.

• Member States must implement the whole suite of measures set out in the Directive, as appropriate, to achieve favourable conservation status for species and habitats listed in the Directive – these will be needed at a site, regional, national and European level.

• The European Commission and Member States must ensure appropriate funding is made available to meet the objectives of the Directive. This should include diverting existing funds away from unsustainable policies and practices, such as certain elements of the CAP and CFP, to instead, support activities which contribute to the delivery of favourable conservation status.

• Member States must adopt the precautionary approach with respect to the cumulative impacts of any decision-making process or activity that may affect a species or natural habitat, including the range of activities undertaken to implement the Habitats Directive. For example, the identification and designation of special areas of conservation (SACs), as well as their subsequent protection, and for any derogation under Article 16 of the Directive.

2. Background and Introduction

The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) is one of the most important pieces of wildlife legislation to be passed in the EU in the last 20 years. It is the main vehicle through which the EU is endeavouring to safeguard it precious, but dwindling, natural heritage.

The Directive aims “to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies” (Article 2(1)).

To achieve this, Article 2(2) requires that “measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or to restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest”. It is therefore clear that the concept and delivery of favourable conservation status for species and natural habitats listed in the Annexes to the Directive, is central to the implementation of the Directive. Within this context, the Directive requires that economic, social and cultural requirements, and regional and local characteristics are taken into account (Article 2(3)). As one of the key pillars of sustainable development, the maintenance of a healthy environment and of the biodiversity that forms part of it must also be recognised for its socio-economic significance.

A broad definition of the term favourable conservation status is given in the Habitats Directive (Article 1 of the Directive, see Annex I) but there remains a lack of clarity in the interpretation of this term or the means by which to implement it. There is a risk that, at the moment, it can be interpreted in many different ways, to suit different, and often conflicting, purposes. This ambiguity makes it challenging to implement, but it is vital that this central objective of the Directive can be translated into effective conservation action on the ground at the earliest opportunity, using the range of measures that the Directive describes.

The Directive sets out a framework for enabling Member States to secure species and habitats of Community Interest at a favourable conservation status. Within this framework, the Directive recognises that certain species and habitats are conservation dependent whereas they may “require the maintenance, or indeed the encouragement, of human activities” to reach this goal (preamble to the Directive). Such measures include:

• the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (Article 3) and procedures for the management of economic development that may have a significant impact on these sites (Article 6);

• the provision of strict protection, outside SACs as appropriate, for species listed in Annex IV of the Directive (Article 12-16); and

• the management of features of the landscape outside designated sites (Article 10).

It is imperative that Member States implement the whole suite of measures set out in the Directive to achieve favourable conservation status for species and natural habitats listed in the Directive, while tackling the root causes of biodiversity loss, and embracing the opportunities available to secure a future for the EU’s threatened species and habitats.

The purpose of this report is to contribute to the debate and provide recommendations on the interpretation and implementation of measures to achieve favourable conservation status by Member States and the European Commission. It has been drafted with input from a range of organisations and individuals, for use by non-governmental organisations, the European Commission and Member States.

3. Defining and interpreting Favourable Conservation Status

A broad definition of the term favourable conservation status is given in the Habitats Directive (Article 1 of the Directive, see Annex I) but there remains a lack of clarity in the interpretation of this term or the means by which to implement it. There is a risk that, at the moment, it can be interpreted in many different ways, to suit different, and often conflicting, purposes. This section reviews and discusses the definition provided in Article 1(e)(i), and provides further options and recommendations for the interpretation and implementation of favourable conservation status.

3.1 The sum of influences

Article 1(e)(i) of the Directive (see Annex I) defines the “conservation status” of a species or natural habitat as the “sum of the influences” acting on them. In assessing the sum of influences, Member States should take account of biotic and abiotic factors that influence species and habitats listed on the Directive, and the positive and negative effects of any decision, policy, incentive or activity that may affect the conservation status of a species or habitat. Furthermore, Member States must take account of the interaction between these influences now and in the future. In particular, with regard to any effects on a habitat’s “long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species”; or on a species’ “long-term distribution and abundance”.

3.2 Favourable conservation status – Article 1(e)(i)

In order to determine whether a natural habitat can be taken as having favourable conservation status, Member States should have:

• up to date scientific data on the natural range of a habitat and the areas it covers within that range, gained through a comprehensive programme of research, monitoring and reporting, as required in the Directive;

• a thorough understanding of the species structure and functions which are necessary for the habitat’s long-term maintenance. In this respect, Member States must consider the interactions within and between plant and animal communities and their entire physico-chemical environment (the concept of the ecosystem). Taking into account biotic and abiotic factors, and considering the external influences acting on the structure and functions of a habitat.

• ensured the habitat’s typical species are at a favourable conservation status (see below). It is important to emphasise that the conservation status of a natural habitat and its typical species can only be taken as favourable if the species that typify that habitat are also at a favourable conservation status. The term “typical” should be interpreted as those species that are characteristic of a habitat and those that are typical of the habitat, which necessarily means to include species other than those listed in the Annexes to the Directive.

In order to determine whether a species’ status can be taken as favourable, Member States should have:

• up to date scientific data on the population dynamics of the species concerned, gained through a comprehensive programme of research, monitoring and reporting, as required in the Directive. Assessment of whether the species is maintaining itself as a viable component of its natural habitat on a long-term basis relies on an understanding of a number of variables. Taking account of the ecology (population structure, size and distribution) and behaviour of a species (organisation, interaction within and between species), as well as social and cultural indicators (level of protection and presence of conservation programmes). Member States should also take account of the varying ecological requirements from one species to another, but also the ecological requirements for the same species depending on the stage of its biological cycle. For example, the great crested newt Triturus cristatus (included in Annex II and IVa of the Directive) requires both aquatic and terrestrial habitats during its life-cycle. It relies on a variety of different features on land for food, shelter and hibernation, as well as certain features in its aquatic environment for breeding and for the development of its tadpoles. In addition, some species have variable life-cycles which must be considered in making any decisions affecting habitats and species. For example, the Marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia (listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive) is renowned for undergoing large fluctuations in population size.

• an understanding of the natural range of the species (past, present and potential), which relies on a comprehensive programme of research, monitoring and reporting, as required in the Directive. In order to ascertain whether the natural range of a species is being reduced, or likely to be reduced, it is important to consider the risks from latent extinction, and the need to model the long-term viability of populations, taking account of potential impacts of climate change. For example, maintaining and restoring wildlife corridors and stepping stones are essential for maintaining the potential for migration and colonisation in the future, which will be key to ensuring favourable conservation status in the long-term (see provisions of Article 10 of the Directive).

• conservation measures in place to ensure the availability of a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations. Member States should also consider the importance of isolation and habitat quality to the conservation status of a species. Two related theories, metapopulation dynamics and island biogeography predict the loss of species from smaller and or isolated habitat patches. Furthermore, current research highlights the importance of habitat quality in the maintenance of species on a long-term basis (1). Therefore, Member States should consider the degree of isolation and quality of habitats, as well as the size of habitats.

Species and natural habitats can only be taken as favourable when all the criteria set out in the broad definitions provided in Articles 1(e)(i) have been met.

3.3 Favourable conservation status – further options and recommendations

The Oxford English Dictionary defines favourable as “that concedes what is required or requested”. The conservation status of a species or habitat could, therefore, be taken as favourable when the requisite conditions of that species or habitat favour its maintenance or recovery. However, this still leaves open the interpretation of the level of occurrence or recovery that the Directive requires for any species or natural habitat – what is the minimum state and/or necessary conditions we wish to work towards?

Closer analysis of the definitions included in the Directive tells us that, in many cases, delivery of favourable conservation status requires the enhancement of current status - for many species and natural habitats listed on the Directive they were at an unfavourable conservation status to merit their inclusion in the Annexes. The definition in Article 1 states that it is only when a habitats "range, and the area it covers within that range is stable"; or when a species natural range is not "being reduced" that they can be taken as favourable. Therefore, to reach this point requires Member States to put in place conservation measures to enhance their status, which may include protection, management and restoration measures. Once their status has reached a favourable level, a "no net loss" management approach must be adopted, which will continue to rely on ongoing monitoring and appropriate measures to maintain favourable conservation status. As such, the European Commission must not allow the risk of species and habitats becoming unfavourable through, for example, removing them from the Annexes. The definition also includes a cautionary note that where species have reached a favourable status Member States must also ensure that the natural range of a species is not "likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future". In this regard, Member States should consider two key principles: the sum of influences acting on the species and the precautionary principle.

It is also worth considering two theories which could be related to the concept of favourable conservation status:

• carrying capacity which can be defined as the number of animals that a habitat can sustain in a healthy, vigorous condition; and

• minimum viable populations which can be defined as the estimated minimum number of plants and animals in a population needed for long-term survival (e.g. 100 years) with high probability (e.g. 95%)

Given the range of variables associated with the conservation status of a species or natural habitat, it is clear that the level at which they can be taken as favourable, will vary from species to species, and habitat to habitat.

Member States may consider developing Action Plans for listed species and habitats, providing a clear conservation programme that identifies how the species or habitat may reach, and be maintained at, a favourable conservation status. Action Plans should be formulated through wide engagement from experts from around the EU and accession countries and may include:

• numerical limits and a range of conditions, for what is widely agreed to be favourable at EU, biogeographical, national and local levels.

• an indication of the current status of the species or habitat, and a description of the work required to reach or maintain favourable conservation status at EU, biogeographical, national and local levels.

• The DSPIR (Driving Force; Pressure; State; Impact; Response) Framework for presenting causal links between environmental problems, to their impacts, and society’s responses to them.

• a list of key stakeholders who will be involved in the delivery or maintenance of favourable conservation status at EU, biogeographical, national and local levels.

• ongoing analysis of the sum of influences on the species or habitat at EU, biogeographical, national and local levels.

3.4 The precautionary principle

The definition of conservation status also includes a precautionary note, whereas Member States must take account of the sum of the influences that “may” affect a species or natural habitat on the Directive. As such Member States should be advised to adopt a precautionary approach with respect to the cumulative impacts of any decision-making process or activity that may affect a species or natural habitat, including the range of activities undertaken to implement the Habitats Directive. For example, the identification and designation of special areas of conservation (SACs) (to which Article 3 refers), as well as their subsequent protection (note the demonstration of the precautionary principle in Article 6). Accordingly, the absence of scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing measures to protect the species and habitats listed on the Directive, or indeed the wider environment or human health, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage. Any potential threats must be assessed against the criteria set out in the definitions included in Article 1 (e)(i).

The precautionary principle has gained prominence within a wide range of environmental issues (pollution, food standards, toxic chemicals and conservation), and its compelling logic has led to its progressive consolidation through international hard and soft law. For example, the precautionary principle was correctly applied in R v Cornwall County Council, ex parte Hardy (2001 Env LR 473) in which the judge found that the respondents (Cornwall County Council) had erred in granting planning permission for an extension of a landfill site for the disposal of waste, before information about the likely effects on bats (listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive) had been considered. In this instance, Harrison J was clear that information on the likely adverse effects must be contained within the environmental information (i.e. the “appropriate assessment”) and considered by the County Council before deciding whether to grant planning permission. In the absence of such information, the respondent could not rationally conclude that there were no significant nature conservation issues.

Even though the concept of the precautionary principle has been in use for many years, and was adopted in the UK, as governmental policy as long ago as 1990 in the White Paper “This Common Inheritance”, High Court judges have, to date, been largely dismissive of it. For example, in R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Duddridge & ORS (1997 Env LR 235) the judge held that Article 130 EC Treaty did not of itself place any obligation on any organ of a national government to adopt the precautionary principle. Similarly, in R v Derbyshire County Council, ex parte David Murray (2001 Env LR 494) the applicant contended that the respondent’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension in the use and duration of a landfill site in its area was unlawful for a number of reasons, including the fact that it failed to give effect to the precautionary principle contained within Article 174 (ex Article 130r) of the EC Treaty. In this instance, Justice Kay held that the precautionary principle did not have direct effect and was not a free-standing principle of inexorable application. By enshrining the precautionary principle in an EC Directive, it is hoped that the judiciary will not only recognise its existence, but will start to place due reliance on it.

|Precautionary principle: a case study - a toxic timebomb (2) |

| |

|Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are chlorinated organic compounds that are used, for example, in electrical equipment and as |

|ingredients in PVC plastics, paints, adhesives and lubricants. |

| |

|Commercial use of PCBs began in 1929. By the late 1930s Monsanto, the US producer of PCBs, were already aware of the adverse |

|health effects of exposure to PCBs after three workers died in 1936. Autopsies of two of the workers revealed severe liver |

|damage. |

| |

|The first warning that PCBs were becoming widespread in the environment and bioaccumulating along the food chain came in the |

|1960s, when Søren Jensen published his findings which showed high PCB concentrations in a large proportion of Baltic sea fauna. |

|It also became apparent that the fertility of all three seal species (including the grey seal Halichoerus grypus which is listed |

|in Annex II of the Habitats Directive) occurring in the Baltic Sea was in decline. By the 1970s nearly 80 per cent of the females|

|were infertile, with serious consequences for future generations. High levels of DDT (dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane) and PCBs |

|were recorded in all three species. Evidence of PCB contamination of human breast milk became apparent in the 1980s, along with |

|the first published studies on possible developmental effects in children. |

| |

|Some 100 years after the first serious adverse effects had been documented, new legislation was put in place in the EU which |

|called for the elimination of PCBs and PCTs (polychlorinated terphenols) and their phase out by 2010. The gravity of the |

|situation had at last been recognised, but the toxic legacy will remain for many decades. This is illustrative that had the |

|precautionary principle been applied early on, we might have prevented the costly legacy that now exists. |

3.5 Defining and interpreting favourable conservation status: key principles and recommendations:

• In many cases delivery of favourable conservation status requires the enhancement of current status. Many species and natural habitats listed on the Directive were at an unfavourable conservation status, certainly in need of conservation action, to merit their inclusion in the Annexes.

• Once species and natural habitats have reached a favourable level, a no-net-loss management approach must be adopted, which will continue to rely on monitoring and appropriate measures to maintain favourable conservation status.

• Species and natural habitats can only be taken as favourable when all the criteria set out in the broad definitions provided in Article 1(e)(i) of the Directive have been met.

• Favourable conservation status applies to all species and habitats on the Directive, but may be different for each according to their ecological requirements.

• The European Commission and Member States must advance the definitions provided in the Directive and develop these to provide conservation objectives at all appropriate levels (local, national, biogeographical and European). These should be set within a conservation programme that identifies how these will be taken forward, perhaps within a framework of an action plan. Such Action Plans may incorporate the DSPIR (Driving Force; Pressure; State; Impact; Response) Framework which is a useful tool for organising environmental information and for presenting causal links environmental problems to their impacts and society’s responses to them.

• Member States must assess the sum of influences acting on a species or natural habitat listed in the Directive. This includes the immediate impacts, as well as the longer term impacts affecting abiotic and biotic conditions of a habitat or species. Together with the positive and negative impacts of any decision, policy, incentive or activity.

• The European Commission and Member States must put in place a comprehensive programme of research, monitoring and reporting, in order to assess current status and then to assess whether it is favourable. Common standards of monitoring across the EU are crucial to enable accurate assessment of changes in species or habitat status. Assessment of conservation status needs to take account of the European, national and local status and the persistence of all populations throughout their natural range and should take account of genetic variation and the conservation of geographic races. The results of such research must be disseminated as widely as possible, amongst those who seek to rely on them. For example, conservationists, civil servants, planners, planning inspectors and the judiciary.

• Member States must adopt the precautionary approach with respect to the cumulative impacts of any decision-making process or activity that may affect a species or natural habitat, including the range of activities undertaken to implement the Habitats Directive. For example, the identification and designation of special areas of conservation (SACs), as well as their subsequent protection, and for any derogation under Article 16 of the Directive.

4. Delivering Favourable Conservation Status

The Directive recognises that in order to achieve favourable conservation status, conservation measures must respond to the ecological requirements of a natural habitat or species. It sets out a suite of measures to do this. Efforts will be needed at the site, regional, national and European level.

4.1 Site Designation

Article 3(1) requires Member States to designate a community wide network of SACs. These sites should significantly contribute to the maintenance and restoration of species and habitats listed in Annex I and II, at a favourable conservation status.

Article 6 plays a crucial role in the management of SACs. It sets out various measures and procedures needed to safeguard the natural habitats types in Annex I and the habitats of species in Annex II, contributing to the overall delivery of favourable conservation status. The Article has three main sets of provisions. The preamble of the Directive recognises the need for “the maintenance, or indeed the encouragement, of human activities”, while Article 6(1) focuses on positive and proactive interventions through, for example, establishing management plans for the sites. Article 6(2) emphasises the need for preventative action to avoid the deterioration of habitats as well as disturbance of species for which the area has been designated. Article 6(3) and (4) sets out a series of steps required to assess and minimise the impacts of any economic activity likely to have a significant impact on the site. In particular through appropriate assessment of its implications for the site and, where a plan or project must be carried out for “imperative reasons of overriding public interest”, compensatory measures shall be introduced to protect the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

Inherent in the requirements of Article 6 is the need to ensure the potential impact(s) on the conservation objectives of a Natura 200 site are fully assessed before a decision is made as to whether the plan or proposal can proceed. This demonstration of the precautionary principle allows for the use of caution when confronted with the threat of harm, despite an absence of scientific certainty as to the likelihood or magnitude of the threat. This is recognised in guidance issued by the European Commission Environment DG, wherein “Implicit in the Habitats Directive is the application of the precautionary principle, which requires that the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 should prevail where there is uncertainty” (3).

Article 6 applies to new activities which are foreseen outside a Natura 2000 site and its buffer zone, but are likely to affect the site itself, as well as pre-existing activities that are likely to be having an impact on the site.

Provisions in Article 8 provide co-financing for some of the measures necessary to meet the objectives of the Directive, in particular for SACs hosting priority natural habitats and for priority species. The European Commission and Member States must ensure the necessary funds are available to meet the objectives of the Directive. This could be achieved, for example, by diverting existing funds from unsustainable policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, to instead supporting activities which contribute to the delivery of favourable conservation status. In addition, a range of fiscal mechanisms exist to encourage positive management of species and habitats including voluntary payments provided through agri-environment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy and compensatory payments, which recompense landowners for loss of profit arising from management activities imposed in respect of designated sites.

However, the aims of the Directive extend beyond the scope of the Natura 2000 network, and recognise that protected areas are one tool among many. Maintaining biodiversity outside strictly protected areas is a critical test of sustainability and a considerable challenge for Member States and the European Commission to reach the objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 (Gothenberg European Council, June 2001).

4.2 Outside Designated Sites

In order to achieve favourable conservation status, site-based measures should be complemented by conservation action across the wider environment.

For example, Member States are urged to improve the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network, to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features act as important wildlife corridors and stepping stones for the dispersal of populations and to enable migration and colonisation in future (see provisions of Article 10). In relation to Annex II species, measures outside of designated sites may be especially important for those that are widespread or wide ranging, such as the stag beetle Lucanus cervus and great crested newt Triturus cristatus in the UK.

Article 12-16 of the Directive seek to protect species in the wider countryside. They impose a legal obligation on Member States to establish a “system of strict protection” for animal and plant species listed in Annex IV(a) and (b). This system shall (see Article 12(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)) protect all important breeding sites and resting places and “prohibit the keeping, transport and sale or exchange, and offering for sale or exchange” of animal species listed in Annex IV(a) and prohibit the “picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction” or the “keeping, transport and sale or exchange and offering for sale or exchange” of plant species listed in Annex IV(b) (Article 13(1)(a)(b)).

Article 16 makes explicit reference to the maintenance of favourable conservation status. Therefore a clear interpretation of favourable conservation status is needed to establish how Articles 12-16 will be implemented in practice - Action Plans may contribute to this, while providing a context for decision-making.

These provisions are crucial for those wide-ranging and migratory species listed in Annex IV(a) and (b), such as the great crested newt Triturus cristatus, harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena and loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, whose breeding sites and resting places may fall outside the Natura 2000 network. Where there is insufficient scientific data regarding the position of breeding sites or resting places, Member States should adopt the precautionary approach for protecting such species.

Derogation from the provisions of Article 12-15 is provided in Article 16. However any derogations are subject to a series of conditions:

• that there is “no satisfactory alternative”

• that derogation is “not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range

• subject to the list in Article 16(1)(a)-(e).

The precautionary principle must be applied to any derogation under Article 16. Furthermore, Member States should take account of the sum of the influences including, for example trade, affecting those species listed in Annex IV(a) and (b), and their habitats (including abiotic and biotic factors (Article 1(f)) and must not prejudice their progress towards favourable conservation status.

It should be emphasised that the “taking in the wild” or exploitation of species listed in Annex V should not compromise their maintenance or delivery at favourable conservation status (see provisions of Article 14).

A system of surveillance (see provisions of Article 11) is critical to 1) inform any decision-making process in respect of derogations under Article 16 and 2) measure the impact of these measures in achieving favourable conservation status. The system of surveillance should operate at all relevant levels – local, regional, national and international – to ensure that variations in the number or range of species can be considered in the EU context.

In addition, it is critical that Member States and the Commission address widespread human activities affecting species and habitats in the wider environment, such as those responsible for causing diffuse pollution. For example, a recent WWF report “Out of sight, out of mind” (4) highlights the detrimental impacts of eutrophication on coastal SACs. Integration of the requirements of the Habitats Directive and, in particular the delivery of favourable conservation status, into sectoral policies is critical to the success of the Directive.

These measures which are designed to protect the wider environment complement the principles of the ecosystem approach which appears in many global and regional frameworks, particularly for the marine environment. The ecosystem approach recognises the functional links between species or groups of species such as trophic hierarchy or food webs, and between organisms and their environment such as habitat requirements and climatic range, while managing human demands on the environment. An ecosystem approach is about integrating environmental social and economic objectives so that the needs of humans and those of wildlife can be met in both the short and long term.

4.3 Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation

Article 11 requires Member States to “undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2”. This will allow Member States to make objective assessments of trends and enable an evaluation of the efficacy of conservation and protection measures that have been put in place in the Natura 2000 network, and in the wider environment. It is vital that common monitoring standards, methods (5) and compatible systems are used across Member States to feed into an EU wide picture. A European Union level assessment of the conservation status of species and habitats listed in the Directive, “with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species”, is necessary to monitor the implementation of the Directive.

Article 17 requires Member States to “report on the implementation of the measures taken under the Directive”. Including, in particular, “information concerning the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(1) (ie conservation measures involving appropriate management plans for SACs or integrated into other development plans and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of Annex I and II habitats and species) as well as evaluation of the impact of those measures on the conservation status of the natural habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II and the main results of the surveillance referred to in Article 11”. The report shall include an “appropriate evaluation of the progress achieved and… of the contribution of Natura 2000 to the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 3”. The Directive therefore places an emphasis on reporting on the progress towards delivering favourable conservation status through measures associated with SACs. However, it is important to recognise that surveillance provisions included in Article 11 are broader than this, though it suggests “particular regard” to priority natural habitat types and species. It would therefore be useful if the European Commission also collated this data during the reporting round. Article 17 also includes provisions for making the report accessible to the public – this will be an important step towards raising awareness of the Habitats Directive’s aims, objectives and successes.

4.4 Re-introductions

Article 22(a) contains provisions for “re-introducing species in Annex IV, that are native to their territory where this might contribute to their conservation”. IUCN/Species Survival Commission (SSC) defines re-introduction as “an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct”. Article 22(a) requires Member States to study the desirability of using re-introductions, taking into account “experience of other Member States or elsewhere” and that such re-introduction will contribute “effectively to re-establishing these species at a favourable conservation status”, and “that it takes place only after proper consultation”. Member States should also consider IUCN/SSC guidelines on re-introductions.

|Re-introductions: a case study (6) |

| |

|WWF, in collaboration with the Council of Europe, has developed pan-European Species Action Plans for large carnivores in the |

|framework of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). The Bear Action Plan recommends conservation actions based on |

|regional and national large carnivore populations, including re-introductions where appropriate. Re-introducing bears to parts of|

|their former range is still an experimental process, but experience shows that it can only succeed with full co-operation of the |

|public. |

| |

|WWF-Austria was instrumental in reintroducing three brown bears into Austria's eastern Alps between 1989 and 1993. By 1998, ten |

|cubs had been born. This project has shown that, given adequate protection and undisturbed habitat, bear populations will recover|

|slowly from a small founder group of re-introduced individuals, as well as through natural migration from core refuge areas. |

| |

|Lessons must be drawn and disseminated from past experience to ensure the success of re-introduction programmes in the long-term.|

4.5 Obstacles and opportunities

It is important to identify those human activities which threaten the delivery of species and habitats to a favourable conservation status including over-fishing, intensification or abandonment of agriculture, pollution, transport infrastructure, aquaculture, urbanisation, land drainage and introduction of non-native species. The following list identifies some of the driving land and sea use policies that threaten species and habitats across the EU, thus conflicting with the objectives of the Habitats Directive and Articles 2 and 6 of the EC Treaty, as well as some opportunities for addressing them (this is not an exhaustive list).

4.5.1 Obstacles

A number of EU and national policies are adversely affecting the conservation status of species and habitats.

• The Common Agricultural Policy provides a system of support for farmers which encourages them to adopt intensive farming practices, and in some areas, the abandonment of extensive farming practices, resulting in the loss and degradation of wildlife habitats. About 80 per cent of the Common Agricultural Policy budget is currently spent on production related subsidies, with just 20 per cent (approx.) supporting sustainable rural development, of which a tiny proportion goes to agri-environment schemes.

• The Common Fisheries Policy is the EU’s instrument for the management of fisheries and aquaculture. However, there are insufficient measures in this policy to minimise effects of these industries on the marine environment. With inappropriate subsidies and unsustainable fisheries agreements, a growing number of fish stocks are declining, and facing collapse, due to too many fishing fleets fishing the seas. Fishing also involves catching large numbers of unwanted species, leading to the indiscriminate killing of other marine species such as turtles, harbour porpoises and sea birds, which are protected under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives.

• Planning systems vary enormously in their ability to conserve and protect species and habitats, and to contribute to their restoration, and hence the achievement of favourable conservation status. Even where planning systems exist, they can lead to developments that threaten protected species and habitats. Designated areas must receive strict protection, adhering to the measures set out in Article 6. Planning systems, and consequently local planning authorities, planning inspectors and the judiciary for example, must also recognise the importance of protecting areas that support habitats and species listed on the Directive outside the Natura 2000 network, and the contribution such areas make to achieving favourable conservation status. In practice, however, there is little evidence that such an approach is being adopted. In the marine environment, the situation is complex, and the planning of activities in the sea are un-coordinated.

• The EU Structural Funds aim to provide economic assistance designed to help Europe’s poorer regions. These resources often support large-scale development projects, such as irrigation and highway construction. However, many of the areas receiving funding, support rich wildlife habitats that are vulnerable to development of this nature. Of utmost concern is when Structural Funds are used for projects which have serious impacts on wildlife that are already threatened and protected under the Habitats Directive or the Birds Directive. Such projects include the construction of reservoirs, irrigation projects, river dredging, canalisation, road networks, and afforestation. For example, Structural Fund money is used for the development of some components of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, such as dams and hydro-infrastructure. In addition the Spanish Government intends to apply for further funds for the transfer of huge quantities of water from the Ebro Delta in the north, to the south of Spain. This project will have serious consequences for species and habitats protected under both the Habitats and Birds Directives, including the world’s most endangered wild cat - the Iberian lynx Lynx pardina.

• Lack of reliable historical data, and inadequate monitoring and reporting systems In order to achieve favourable conservation status, it is vital that these obstacles are overcome to allow objective assessments of trends and allow the efficacy of conservation and protection measures to be evaluated. Incompatible data sources across the EU is a further impediment to the delivery of favourable conservation status. To achieve this, appropriate funds must be made available at EU and national levels.

• Lack of buffer zones and zones around Natura 2000 network designations Different approaches to the designation of Natura 2000 sites have been adopted across Member States. Recognising that activities outside protected sites can affect the species and habitats within them, and therefore their conservation status, buffer zones and restoration zones are important tools for the conservation and restoration of species and habitats. In addition, the Habitats Directive does not intend for Natura 2000 sites to become isolated wildlife rich pockets. Rather, it seeks to contribute to the overall objective of sustainable development (preamble) and encourages the management of landscape features, such as rivers and small woodlands, to act as wildlife corridors and stepping stones, to improve the overall coherence of the network (Article 10).

It is important to re-emphasise that Member States should consider the sum of the influences acting on a species or natural habitat, and to adopt the precautionary approach. It is therefore critical that the threats outlined above are addressed as quickly as possible.

4.5.2 Opportunities

There are a number of frameworks, strategies and policies which provide potential opportunities in terms of their contribution to the achievement of favourable conservation status, and which need further consideration and application.

• The Common Agricultural Policy and Structural Funds are reviewed in 2003 (this is the mid-term review) and 2006. The EC should use the earliest opportunity to introduce significant reform of these instruments to ensure they contribute to the favourable conservation status of species and habitats of community interest across the EU.

• The Common Fisheries Policy is currently being reviewed for the first time in 10 years. WWF has been campaigning for reform of this policy to secure a sustainable fishing sector. To achieve the long-term viability of marine habitats and species and the delivery of favourable conservation status, WWF is seeking significant reform through: the elimination of over-capacity in the EU within the next 10 years; the reform and reduction of harmful subsidies and transition to a long-term sustainable fishing sector; fair and sustainable access agreements; and the protection of the marine environment through an ecosystem-based management framework.

• The OSPAR Convention provides a framework for the management of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic, through which members of the Convention meet every 5 years (2003 being the next meeting). The protection of biodiversity and ecosystems is one part of this framework, with strategies to address biodiversity protection, marine pollution reduction and offshore developments. Parties are required to "protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities, so as to safeguard health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected." This also recognises the need for an ecosystem approach, which will contribute to the delivery of favourable conservation status. There should be clear links between favourable conservation status, ecosystem management approaches and Environment Quality Objectives (EQOs). Indicators of healthy ecosystems should include those for favourable conservation status and EQOs. The OSPAR Convention requires the application of the Precautionary Principle, the Polluter Pays Principle, Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practice and establishes the right of access to information.

• The EU Strategy Towards a Strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment (COM (2002) 539 final) incorporates the concepts of favourable conservation status (Habitats Directive) and good ecological status (Water Framework Directive) to protect the marine environment through an ecosystem approach. The implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment has been extremely slow, in which time, continuing damage has occurred. The Marine Strategy could place extra impetus on implementing the Habitats Directive for the marine environment. There may also be an opportunity to adapt the Annexes to the Habitats Directive, to include additional marine and coastal habitats and species (according to Article 1(g) of the Directive), so increasing representivity in the marine environment. Furthermore, the strategy recognises the need to manage activities with damaging impacts on Natura 2000 sites, and the need for integration between policies to achieve this.

• The Water Framework Directive promotes the integrated management of water resources to support environmentally sound development and reduce problems associated with excessive water abstraction, pollution, floods and droughts. It will require the integration of industrial, agricultural, rural development, nature conservation and forestry programmes etc. at the river basin scale, which in many cases, will need transboundary collaboration to deliver good ecological status of aquatic species and the aquatic environment. In fact, one of the purposes is the prevention of deterioration of the status of aquatic ecosystems and the ecosystems directly dependent on them. When river basin management plans are drawn up, there will be an opportunity to integrate Natura 2000 management plans and species conservation objectives within these. This could result in a more holistic approach to water and habitat management. There will also be links between indicators of favourable conservation status and ecological quality of water. The actions under the Water Framework Directive could help to achieve favourable conservation status for species and habitats, and help to improve the ecological function of rivers.

• The EU Chemicals Strategy There are around 30,000 different chemicals traded in quantities above one tonne today in the European Union, the vast majority have never had proper safety assessments. The European Union has taken a big step forward - by proposing a new system to register, evaluate and authorise chemicals (REACH). The European Commission published its plan for a future EU chemicals policy (White Paper) in February 2001. WWF are calling for EU Member States to develop this plan into workable regulations, incorporating the precautionary principle to 1) phase out the use of very persistent and very bioaccumulative chemicals; 2) phase out endocrine disrupting chemicals and 3) require all hazardous chemicals to be substituted with safer alternatives wherever they exist. This strategy will help to address the threat to species and habitats, such as those listed on the Habitats Directive, from both diffuse and point sources of chemical contamination.

• The Kyoto Protocol aims to address the causes of climate change. The causes of climate change cannot be addressed in isolation from the rest of the world. This global commitment, if implemented, will help to reduce the long-term impacts of change on species and habitats. Climate change will influence the distribution of species and habitats, and therefore how the Habitats Directive is implemented, and any strategy for achieving favourable conservation status must consider climate change impacts.

• Large-scale habitat or landscape restoration initiatives are underway in many countries. Following the principles of the marine ecosystem approach, it recognises the interactions between human activities, habitats and species. These initiatives should be used to provide models for managing landscapes to benefit species and habitats (and contributing to the requirements of Article 10) and to benefit people within the landscape. Best practice should be shared across Member States to secure sustainable management of landscapes.

• Information technology should be used to enable improved information sharing and best practice. It is critical that conservation status of species and habitats can be monitored, to assess whether they are at a favourable level, and to identify appropriate conservation and protection measures. This will be a challenging, and costly data management task, however. Information technology, Geographical Information Systems, and a move to standardised systems can help to take up the challenge more effectively.

• Planning There are some developments which actually restore areas for wildlife, or which consider wildlife within their design. However, in many cases, development activities are having a detrimental impact. Land use planning can help to restore species and habitats and ensure that they do not become further degraded and / or fragmented. For the marine environment it is important to note the importance of Maurice Kay’s judgement in R v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry & ORS, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (2000 Env LR 221) in which it was held that the Habitats Directive applied to the UK Continental Shelf and to the superjacent waters up to a limit of 200 nautical miles. This judgement has forced the UK Government to prepare Regulations relating to the marine environment and will result in the designation of the first marine SAC which will include important Lophelia reefs, including the Darwin Mounds, in the Atlantic Frontier. The UK Government and the European Commission are aware that the impact of ongoing activities, such as deep sea trawling, will need to be addressed in order to prevent the continued erosion of these important marine habitats. The judiciary’s confirmation that the Directive applies beyond 12 nautical miles presents an important opportunity for regulating and planning such activities.

• Action plans Some Member States have introduced Species and Habitat Action Plans. However, they are not explicitly linked to achieving favourable conservation status. This science based process and partnership approach could be a good basis on which to develop our interpretation of favourable conservation status for each species and habitat, identifying actions that are needed to achieve this goal. Member States should consider using the DSPIR framework (Drivers, State, Pressure, Impact, Response) when drawing up action plans.

• European Commission Working Groups are set up to help to clarify certain aspects of European Directives. Favourable conservation status is a key element of the Habitats Directive which needs further discussion in order to help interpret this in practical terms. WWF recommends that the European Commission establish such a group to help clarify this issue and to provide guidance on interpreting, implementing and monitoring favourable conservation status.

• Socio-economic benefits of functioning habitats It is important to emphasise the wider socio-economic benefits associated with naturally functioning habitats. For example, functioning wetland habitats act as both a sponge, soaking up excess water which might otherwise flood more developed areas further downstream; and as a natural purifier, absorbing pollution and nutrients from the water, generating savings for water companies in the costs of water treatment. Furthermore, as one of the key pillars of sustainable development, the maintenance of a healthy environment and of the biodiversity that forms part of it must also be recognised for its socio-economic significance.

4.6 Delivering favourable conservation status: key principles and recommendations:

• Sustainable management and use of natural resources are necessary, to restore and maintain the biological and ecological functioning of ecosystems. Taking into account the interactions within and between species populations and the entire ecosystem must be taken into account, including biotic and abiotic factors.

• Decisions affecting the conservation status of species and habitats should be made against clear guidelines based around the precautionary principle.

• NGOs, academic and research institutes, business and industry, planners, the judiciary, Member States, the European Commission and the general public must work together to succeed in delivering favourable conservation status.

• The European Commission must put pressure on Member States to adequately implement the range of measures, set out in the Directive, for delivering favourable conservation status, while addressing obstacles to delivery at an EU level. The Commission should undertake legal proceedings against any Member State failing to comply with the Habitats Directive, and hence the delivery of favourable conservation status, and withhold Structural and Rural Development Funds for failure to do so.

• The European Commission and Member States must endeavour to integrate the requirements of the Habitats Directive and, in particular the delivery of favourable conservation status, into sectoral policies at the earliest opportunity, endorsing habitat creation, restoration and management to encourage natural dispersal and re-colonisation.

• Member States must implement the whole suite of measures set out in the Directive, as appropriate, to achieve favourable conservation status for species and habitats listed in the Directive – these will be needed at a site, regional, national and European level.

• The European Commission and Member States must ensure appropriate funding is made available to meet the objectives of the Directive. This should include diverting existing funds away from unsustainable policies and practices, such as the CAP and CFP, to instead, support activities which contribute to the delivery of favourable conservation status.

5. the way forward

It is likely that demands made by humans on the environment will grow. Favourable conservation status lies at the heart of the EU Habitats Directive and is a critical objective for ensuring sustainable development across the EU and achieving the objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 (Gothenberg European Council, June 2001). As such, the concept and delivery of favourable conservation status could be used as a powerful tool for managing human activities.

Delivery of favourable conservation status will be achieved through a variety of conservation and protection measures, and should incorporate a number of overarching principles:

• In many cases delivery of favourable conservation status requires the enhancement of current status. Many species and natural habitats listed on the Directive were at an unfavourable conservation status to merit their inclusion in the Annexes, and need conservation to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status.

• Once species and natural habitats have reached a favourable level, a no-net-loss management approach must be adopted, which will continue to rely on monitoring and appropriate measures to maintain favourable conservation status.

• Species and natural habitats can only be taken as favourable when all the criteria set out in the broad definitions provided in Article 1(e)(i) of the Directive have been met.

• Sustainable management and use of natural resources are necessary, to restore and maintain the biological and ecological functioning of ecosystems. Interactions within and between species populations and the entire ecosystem must be taken into account, including biotic and abiotic factors.

• Decisions affecting the conservation status of species and habitats should be made against clear guidelines based around the precautionary principle.

• Favourable conservation status applies to all species and habitats on the Directive, but may be different for each according to their ecological requirements.

• NGOs, academic and research institutes, business and industry, planners, the judiciary, Member States, the European Commission and the general public must work together to succeed in delivering favourable conservation status.

5.1 Recommendations:

• The European Commission and Member States must advance the definitions provided in the Directive and develop these to provide conservation objectives at all appropriate levels (local, national, biogeographical and European). These should be set within a conservation programme that identifies how these will be taken forward, perhaps within a framework of an action plan. Such Action Plans may incorporate the DSPIR (Driving Force; Pressure; State; Impact; Response) Framework which is a useful tool for organising environmental information and for presenting causal links environmental problems to their impacts and society’s responses to them.

• The European Commission must put pressure on Member States to adequately implement the range of measures, set out in the Directive, for delivering favourable conservation status, while addressing obstacles to delivery at an EU level. The Commission should undertake legal proceedings against any Member State failing to comply with the Habitats Directive, and hence the delivery of favourable conservation status, and withhold Structural and Rural Development Funds for failure to do so.

• Member States must assess the sum of influences acting on a species or natural habitat listed in the Directive. This includes the immediate impacts, as well as the longer term impacts affecting abiotic and biotic conditions of a habitat or species. The positive and negative impacts of any decision, policy, incentive or activity also need to be assessed.

• The European Commission and Member States must endeavour to integrate the requirements of the Habitats Directive and, in particular the delivery of favourable conservation status, into sectoral policies at the earliest opportunity, endorsing habitat creation, restoration and management to encourage natural dispersal and re-colonisation.

• The European Commission and Member States must put in place a comprehensive programme of research, monitoring and reporting, in order to assess current status and then to assess whether it is favourable. This is also necessary to assess, report on and understand the contribution that various measures make to the achievement of favourable conservation status. Common standards of monitoring across the EU are crucial to enable accurate assessment of changes in species or habitat status. Assessment of conservation status needs to take account of the European, national and local status and the persistence of all populations throughout their natural range and should take account of genetic variation and the conservation of geographic races. The results of such research must be disseminated as widely as possible, amongst those who seek to rely on them. For example, conservationists, civil servants, planners, planning inspectors and the judiciary.

• Member States must implement the whole suite of measures set out in the Directive, as appropriate, to achieve favourable conservation status for species and habitats listed in the Directive – these will be needed at a site, regional, national and European level.

• The European Commission and Member States must ensure appropriate funding is made available to meet the objectives of the Directive. This should include diverting existing funds away from unsustainable policies and practices, such as certain elements of the CAP and CFP, to instead, support activities which contribute to the delivery of favourable conservation status.

• Member States must adopt the precautionary approach with respect to the cumulative impacts of any decision-making process or activity that may affect a species or natural habitat, including the range of activities undertaken to implement the Habitats Directive. For example, the identification and designation of special areas of conservation (SACs), as well as their subsequent protection, and for any derogation under Article 16 of the Directive.

6. notes and Acknowledgements

The mission of WWF, the global environment network, is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by:

• conserving the world's biological diversity

• ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable

• promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

WWF has been very active in the implementation of the Habitats Directive across the EU, engaging, in particular, in the Natura 2000 designation process at national and European levels.

This paper has been drafted with input from a range of organisations and individuals. However, WWF would like to give special thanks to Tony Gent (Herpetological Conservation Trust), Sandra Jen (WWF-European Policy Office), Matt Shardlow (Buglife), Derek Ratcliffe, Carol Hatton (WWF-UK), Emily Lewis-Brown (WWF-UK), Malachy Campbell (WWF-Northern Ireland) for their valuable contributions to this report.

For future contact:

Sandra Jen, WWF European Policy Office

sjen@

7. Glossary of terms

|Agri-environment Schemes |Support available to farmers who undertake agri-environmental commitments for a minimum period |

| |of five years. Aid is granted annually and calculated according to the income loss and |

| |additional costs resulting from the undertakings, as well as the need to provide a financial |

| |incentive. |

|Biodiversity |Assemblage of living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic |

| |ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. (EEA) |

|Carrying Capacity |The number of animals that a habitat can sustain in a healthy, vigorous condition. |

|Common Agricultural Policy |The set of policy principles, regulations and subsidy mechanisms adopted by the Member States of|

| |the European Community that consolidates efforts in promoting or ensuring reasonable pricing of |

| |food products, fair standards of living for farmers, stable agricultural markets, increased farm|

| |productivity and methods for dealing with food supply or surplus. (EEA) |

|Cumulative Impacts |The impacts (positive or negative, direct and indirect, long-term and short-term impacts) |

| |arising from a range of activities throughout an area or region, where each individual effect |

| |may not be significant if taken in isolation. Such impacts can arise from the growing volume of |

| |traffic, the combined effect of a number of agriculture measures leading to more intensive |

| |production and use of chemicals, etc. Cumulative impacts include a time dimension, since they |

| |should calculate the impact on environmental resources resulting from changes brought about by |

| |past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (EEA). |

|Latent Extinction |This recognises that extinction of populations on surviving habitat patches takes time, so |

| |current levels of diversity or current population levels on habitat remnants may be |

| |unsustainable in the long run. Many species, in Dan Janzen’s graphic phrase are the “living |

| |dead”. |

|Minimum Viable Population |The estimated minimum number of plants and animals in a population needed for long-term survival|

| |(e.g. 100 years) with high probability (e.g. 95%). |

|Precautionary Approach |A decision to take action, based on the possibility of significant environmental damage, even |

| |before there is conclusive, scientific evidence, that the damage will occur. (EEA) |

8. References

1) Bourn, N. Thomas, J. Stewart, K. Clarke, R. 2002 Importance of habitat quality and isolation Implications for the management of butterflies in fragmented landscapes. British Wildlife, pp. 398-403

2) European Environment Agency. 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental issue report No 22.

3) European Commission. 2001. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3)and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

4) MacGarvin, M. 2001. Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Marine Eutrophication in the United Kingdom. Modus vivendi for WWF-UK, Glenlivet

5) WWF. 2001. WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation Methodology for protected area systems.

6) Kemf, E. Wilson, A. Servheen, C. 1999 Bears in the Wild. WWF Species Status Report

Annex I

|Article 1 |

|Conservation status of a natural habitat means the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that|

|may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species |

|within the territory referred to Article 2. |

| |

|The conservation status of a natural habitat will be taken as ‘favourable’ when: |

| |

|Its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and |

|The species structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist |

|for the foreseeable future, and |

|The conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in (i) |

| |

|Conservation status of a species means the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term |

|distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory referred to in Article 2. |

| |

|The conservation status of a species will be taken as ‘favourable’ when: |

| |

|Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable |

|component of its natural habitats, and |

|The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and |

|There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis. |

Annex II

Implementing a system of strict protection through Article 12 and achieving favourable conservation status for Annex IV(A) Species. Paper for Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats & Species Directive) Article 12 Working Group. Submitted by Tony Gent, Rebecca Halahan and Rebecca May on behalf of the European Habitats Forum.

See attachment.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download