View in EDS

Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Call for new criteria for monitoring and registering Natura 2000 species data.
Authors: Genovart, Meritxell1 (AUTHOR) m.genovart@csic.es, Salguero‐Gomez, Roberto2 (AUTHOR), Colchero, Fernando3,4 (AUTHOR), Guil, Francisco5 (AUTHOR), Rabassa‐Juvanteny, Joan1 (AUTHOR), Uriach‐Dasca, Julia1 (AUTHOR), Conde, Dalia Amor6 (AUTHOR), Gaillard, Jean Michel7 (AUTHOR), Coulson, Tim2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Conservation Biology. Oct2025, Vol. 39 Issue 5, p1-6. 6p.
Subject Terms: *Biodiversity, *Wildlife conservation, *Wildlife monitoring, *Habitat conservation, Documentation standards, European Union law
Company/Entity: Natura 2000 (Network) , European Commission , European Union
Abstract (English): The European Union's Birds and Habitats Directives are intended to guarantee the persistence of species and natural habitats across member states. To achieve this laudable aim, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas was established in 1992. Since then, member states are required to regularly monitor species and habitats and report findings to the European Commission, which requires substantial investment from all countries. The Natura 2000 network is an invaluable example of a large‐scale coordinated network developed to address major conservation issues. Based on our analysis of the 2020 Species Natura 2000 database and on expert opinions by Natura 2000 executives, we found that the network is failing to adequately show biodiversity status and guide conservation because it does not allow cross‐border comparisons of species' and populations' conservation status. The main contributing factor to this failure is that member states frequently fail to follow reporting EU guidelines, resulting in heterogeneity in criteria for monitoring and registering species among Natura 2000 areas. We advocate developing new unified and realistic criteria for monitoring and reporting species data that correctly allow cross‐border comparisons and conservation diagnosis. We propose that monitoring protocols and current criteria be modified slightly by considering species' life‐history strategies, distribution, and conservation status. We do not suggest a major overhaul of the directives; rather, we propose debate on how relatively small changes in guidelines could improve the utility of the huge amount of data collected from the Natura 2000 network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Abstract (Spanish): Nuevos criterios para el monitoreo y registro de especies en Natura 2000 Resumen: Las Directivas de Aves y Hábitats de la Unión Europea pretenden garantizar la persistencia de especies y hábitats naturales en todos los Estados miembros. Para lograr este loable objetivo, en 1992 se creó la red de áreas protegidas Natura 2000. Desde entonces, se exige a los Estados miembros que controlen periódicamente las especies y los hábitats y comuniquen los resultados a la Comisión Europea, lo que requiere una inversión considerable por parte de todos los países. La red Natura 2000 es un ejemplo invaluable de una red coordinada a gran escala desarrollada para abordar grandes problemas de conservación. A partir de nuestro análisis de la Base de Datos Natura 2000 de Especies 2020 y de las opiniones de expertos de los directivos de Natura 2000, descubrimos que la red no muestra adecuadamente el estado de la biodiversidad ni orienta la conservación porque no permite hacer comparaciones transfronterizas del estado de conservación de especies y poblaciones. El principal factor que contribuye a este fracaso es que, con frecuencia, los Estados miembros no siguen las directrices de la UE en materia de presentación de informes, lo que da lugar a una heterogeneidad en los criterios de seguimiento y registro de especies entre las áreas Natura 2000. Recomendamos desarrollar nuevos criterios unificados y realistas de seguimiento y notificación de datos sobre especies que permitan que las comparaciones transfronterizas y el diagnóstico de conservación sean correctas. Proponemos que los protocolos de seguimiento y los criterios actuales se modifiquen ligeramente teniendo en cuenta las estrategias de vida, la distribución y el estado de conservación de las especies. No sugerimos una revisión a fondo de las directrices, sino que proponemos un debate sobre cómo unos cambios relativamente pequeños podrían mejorar la utilidad de la enorme cantidad de datos recogidos en la red Natura 2000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: GreenFILE
Description
Abstract:The European Union's Birds and Habitats Directives are intended to guarantee the persistence of species and natural habitats across member states. To achieve this laudable aim, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas was established in 1992. Since then, member states are required to regularly monitor species and habitats and report findings to the European Commission, which requires substantial investment from all countries. The Natura 2000 network is an invaluable example of a large‐scale coordinated network developed to address major conservation issues. Based on our analysis of the 2020 Species Natura 2000 database and on expert opinions by Natura 2000 executives, we found that the network is failing to adequately show biodiversity status and guide conservation because it does not allow cross‐border comparisons of species' and populations' conservation status. The main contributing factor to this failure is that member states frequently fail to follow reporting EU guidelines, resulting in heterogeneity in criteria for monitoring and registering species among Natura 2000 areas. We advocate developing new unified and realistic criteria for monitoring and reporting species data that correctly allow cross‐border comparisons and conservation diagnosis. We propose that monitoring protocols and current criteria be modified slightly by considering species' life‐history strategies, distribution, and conservation status. We do not suggest a major overhaul of the directives; rather, we propose debate on how relatively small changes in guidelines could improve the utility of the huge amount of data collected from the Natura 2000 network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08888892
DOI:10.1111/cobi.70064