Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 198, June 2016, Pages 1-8
Biological Conservation

Weak agreement between the species conservation status assessments of the European Habitats Directive and Red Lists

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.024Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We compared species' Red List and Habitat's Directive conservation status.

  • European Habitat Directive Reports and Red Lists show only weak correlations.

  • Red Lists are more pessimistic about the conservation status of species.

  • Results call for revision of divergent assessments.

Abstract

Public acceptance of conservation measures and measuring the effectiveness of conservation efforts essentially depends on the agreement among experts on the conservation status of species. Here we provide the first European Union-wide comparison of assessments of conservation status of species using two independent frameworks, reports under the European Habitats Directive (HD) and Red Lists. We compared the national and EU-wide conservation status of species assessed for the two last HD reports (2001–2006, 2007–12) with national (27 EU member states) and European Union Red Lists. Discrepancies in species' conservation status assessments of Red Lists and the HD were substantial: the average Spearman correlation coefficient was 0.49 for the first and 0.47 for the second HD report for countries and 0.39 for the first and 0.45 for the second HD report for the whole EU. In addition, correlations differed widely between different EU Member States, with the national assessments of several European countries showing no relationship at all. Surprisingly, many presumably well-known species were assessed very differently. Moreover, there was no evidence of any convergence between the Red Lists and HD reports over time. On average, Red Lists were more pessimistic about the conservation status of species than the HD reports. These low agreements between the two methods raise doubts about the reliability and validity of these assessments and certainly call for a careful revision of the many divergent assessments.

Introduction

The human domination of the Earth (Rockstrom et al., 2009, Steffen et al., 2011) has reduced many species ranges and populations to such low levels that their medium- to long-term survival is at risk (Butchart et al., 2004, Butchart et al., 2010). Accordingly, the most recent global Red List of Threatened Species shows that of the 77,340 plant and animal species evaluated, 22,783 (29%) are threatened, and an increasing number of species are facing immediate extinction (IUCN, 2015). The deficient conservation status of many biota has led to initiatives aiming to halt the loss of biodiversity (e.g. the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity — CBD, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora — CITES). Since the early 1990s, the European Union (EU) has established the Natura 2000-network, the largest continent-wide network of protected areas worldwide (Hochkirch et al., 2013). Natura 2000 is based on the Habitats Directive (HD; Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) and includes more than 27,000 sites covering about 18% of the terrestrial surface of the EU and significant areas of Europe's seas (European Commission, 2015). Article 17 of the HD obliges the EU member states to report the conservation status of the habitats and species listed in annexes of that directive every six years following an agreed, standardized methodology. The HD assessments are not restricted to conservation areas such as Natura 2000, and are based on quantitative indicators such as size and trends in the area of occurrence, population size and trends (European Commission, 2011, Evans and Arvela, 2011), which correspond to similar threat indicators in the IUCN Red Lists (IUCN, 2012b). While Red Lists are the most important instrument for evaluating the extinction risk of species worldwide (Lamoreux et al., 2003, Rodrigues et al., 2006), conservation policies in the EU are largely focused on the HD. The first HD report (1994–2000) focused on implementation but the second (2001–2006) and third reports (2007–2012) included assessments of conservation status (EEA, 2015a, EEA, 2015b, EEA, 2015c). At the same time, Europe is the continent with by far the largest number of national Red Lists and there are also continent-wide Red Lists available for several species groups (Bilz et al., 2011, Cox and Temple, 2009, Temple and Cox, 2009, Temple and Terry, 2007). Thus, two different, but generally comparable schemes for classifying the threat to species and habitats exist in parallel. This parallelism provides a unique opportunity for a continent-wide comparison to explore the uncertainties involved in such assessments. The issue is not only of theoretical interest but also relevant for conservation policies. Setting priorities in species conservation, acceptance of conservation actions and measuring the effectiveness of conservation efforts depends in large parts on the agreement among experts on the conservation status of species (Helfman, 2013). In fact, it has already been claimed that conservation measures often do not sufficiently take into account scientific results (Winter et al., 2014) and several authors have claimed that the HD species list is unbalanced (Cardoso, 2012, Hochkirch et al., 2013; but see Maes et al., 2013). Such disagreement may delay or undermine conservation actions.

Here, we analyse the agreement between the conservation status assessments of species of the European HD and Red Lists for several taxonomic groups: (1) plants (i.e. vascular plants and bryophytes), (2) mammals, (3) amphibians and (4) reptiles. In particular, we ask the following questions: (1) Do HD conservation status assessments and Red Lists show a close correlation at the national and the European scale? (2) Do the correlations converge over time, i.e. does the correlation increase between the two reporting periods of the HD (2001–06, 2007–12)? (3) Do HD conservation status assessments and Red Lists agree in their overall conservation status assessments, i.e. the level of threat reported?

Section snippets

Habitats Directive conservation assessment data

Assessments under the HD are based on the definition of ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ given in the directive and differentiate between ‘Favourable’ (FV), ‘Unfavourable-inadequate’ (U1), ‘Unfavourable-bad’ (U2) or ‘Unknown’ (European Commission, 2011, Evans and Arvela, 2011; see Fig. A.6). ‘Favourable Conservation Status' describes the situation where the habitat or species can be expected to prosper without any change to existing management or policies. ‘Unfavourable-Inadequate’

Correlations of the national conservation status assessments of the Habitats Directive and national Red Lists

On average, the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of species' conservation status of the first HD report (2001–06) with the corresponding national Red Lists was 0.49 across all countries, but with large differences between countries (Fig. 1). Correlation coefficients were low and not significant for four member states (Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Latvia), and moderate (≤ 0.45) but significant for further six member states (France, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain). The highest

Discussion

The Red List status is an assessment of the risk of extinction a species faces and the IUCN has published guidelines for global and regional assessment using a quantitative system to enhance objectivity and comparability (Brito et al., 2010, IUCN, 2012a, IUCN, 2012b, Mace et al., 2008, Miller et al., 2007). Conservation status assessments according to the HD are based on the concept of “favourable conservation status” and assess the degree of deviation from such a status. Although the HD

Conclusion

We found that discrepancies in species' conservation status assessments of Red Lists and the HD are substantial and that correlations differ widely between different EU Member States, with the national assessments of several European countries showing no relationship at all. In addition, comparing the outcomes of the first and second HD assessment period we found that the accordance with Red Lists has not increased, i.e. there is no evidence of any convergence in the outcomes over time.

Author contributions

DM, FE and TE designed the study. MA compiled the Red List data. DM analysed the data. DM and FE led paper writhing. DE, SD, MA and KPZ further discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This work was partly financed by the European Environment Agency (3333/B2014/EEA.55655) by its support to the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity. The contents and views contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the EEA, the ETC/BD, or the Austrian Environment Agency. We appreciate the comments of two anonymous reviewers.

References (43)

  • G. Chapron

    Challenge the abuse of science in setting policy

    Nature

    (2014)
  • A.D. Cuaron

    Extinction rate estimates

    Nature

    (1993)
  • EEA

    Online report on Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Conservation Status of Habitats and Species of Community Interest (2001–2006)

    (2015)
  • EEA

    Reporting Under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (Period 2007–2012) Outcomes From the Article17 Reports

    (2015)
  • EEA

    State of nature in the EU — results from the reporting under the Nature Directives 2007–2012

  • European Commission

    Assessment and Reporting Under Article 17 Reporting Formats for the Period 2007–2012 of the Habitats Directive

    (2011)
  • European Commission

    Natura 2000 Barometer European Comission, Brussels

  • D. Evans et al.

    Assessment and Reporting Under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive — Explanatory Notes & Guidelines for the Period 2007–2012

    (2011)
  • D. Evans et al.

    Article 17 reporting — assessments of conservation status at the EU biogeographical level — public consultation

  • R. Frankham

    Quantitative genetics in conservation biology

    Genet. Res.

    (1999)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Assessing Natura 2000 coverage of river fish species in Greece: What do field surveys show?

      2021, Journal for Nature Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      A negative side effect of strict adherence to the listed species has been the diversion of scientific effort and conservation investments away from species in most need for management and protection. Indeed, comparisons of the Habitats Directive's species lists with the IUCN Red Lists have shown substantial disagreements and, according to some studies, non-threatened species are receiving more funding than threatened species through certain EU LIFE-funded conservation projects (Cardoso, 2012; Hermoso, Clavero, Villero, & Brotons, 2017; Hermoso, Morán-Ordóñez, & Brotons, 2019; Hermoso, Morán-Ordóñez, Canessa, et al., 2019; Mammides, 2019; Mammola, et al., 2020; Moser, et al., 2016). In Greece, a remarkably few fish species listed as threatened in IUCN have received EU support for conservation or restoration through EU LIFE project funding (Zogaris, Skoulikidis, & Dimitriou, 2017).

    • Is the Natura 2000 network of the European Union the key land use policy tool for preserving Europe's biodiversity heritage?

      2017, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The figures were better for bird species in the European territory of the EU with more than half of them being reported as “secure” (Fig. 2). However, Moser et al. (2016) found substantial discrepancies in the Red Data status of species of Community interest and the official Article 17 EU Habitats Directive reporting on their conservation status by the EU Member States. The current reporting by the EU Member States is only descriptive of the conservation status or population status.

    • Recipe for success: A network perspective of partnership in nature conservation

      2017, Journal for Nature Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Proposed approaches for achieving this goal are: establishing an extensive protected areas network (Natura 2000 network), providing funding for implementing conservation measures in Natura 2000, improving law enforcement, and involving citizens in conservation initiatives (European Union, 2011). Of these, setting up the Natura 2000 protected areas network surpassed the 17% Aichi target, with 18% of EU in Natura 2000 sites; less overall progress has been made towards better enforcement, improving financial support for conservation, and integrating citizens and stakeholders in conservation actions (Kati et al., 2015; Milieu Ltd, 2016; Moser et al., 2016). While adequate enforcement and citizen involvement in conservation are difficult to evaluate, conservation funding is a straightforward measure of success for achieving the European Union Biodiversity Strategy 2020 targets.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text