Conservation status of freshwater species under the EU habitats directive
Summary
Approximately two-thirds of the conservation status assessments for freshwater species in Finland under the EU Habitats Directive are favorable. Conversely, about one-fifth of the assessments indicate an inadequate conservation status, with the remaining assessments indicating a poor status. Although a significant portion of the assessments suggests inadequate or poor conservation status, the overall conservation status of freshwater species under the Habitats Directive is better than in most other habitat types. There has been little change in the level of conservation between reporting periods, although the proportion of assessments indicating poor conservation status has slightly increased.
Status
The status of the indicator is poor. This status is determined based on the most recent reporting relative to the goal that all assessments for freshwater species listed in the annexes of the Habitats Directive should have a favorable conservation status (see “nformation about the service” and “Indicator calculation”).
In the boreal zone, out of 27 freshwater species, 16 had a favorable conservation status according to the most recent directive report (see “Information about the service” and “Indicator calculation”), six had an inadequate status, and four had a poor status. Five of these species were also assessed in the alpine zone, where four were found to have a favorable status and one a poor conservation status.
Trend
The indicator does not show an overall change between different reporting periods, although the proportion of assessments indicating poor conservation status has slightly increased between the reporting periods. A small portion of this fluctuation can be explained by the fact that in different reporting periods, there have been variations in the number of species for which sufficient data was available for assessment.
Significance
The indicator includes 27 species belonging to different biological groups (mammals, fish, dragonflies, mollusks, crustaceans, vascular plants, and mosses), which are found in both lakes and ponds as well as in flowing waters. More than half of the species are vertebrates. The invertebrates include six insects, two mollusks, and one crustacean. In addition to animals, the species listed under the Habitats Directive also include two freshwater plant species and four mosses.
The indicator reflects the trends in the populations, distribution areas, and habitat quality of species considered particularly significant for conservation. It indicates whether conservation measures and more sustainable use of natural resources are sufficient to ensure a favorable conservation status for these species. The conservation status is considered favorable if the species is viable in its natural habitats and remains so in the long term. The EU’s biodiversity strategy aims for at least 30 percent of species that currently do not have a favorable conservation status to achieve such a status by 2030.
References
Data used
The indicator is based on the country-specific reports from Finland under the European Union’s Habitats Directive, covering three different reporting periods (2001-2006, 2007-2012, and 2013-2018). These reports assess the favorable conservation status of various species based on the extent of their distribution, estimated population size, habitat quantity, and future prospects. A single species may have its conservation status assessed for multiple zones (boreal, alpine, and Baltic).
The species assessed in the reports are listed in Annexes II, IV, and V of the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Annex II lists animal and plant species, subspecies, or groups considered important by the community, for which specific conservation areas must be designated (Natura 2000 network). Annex IV describes species considered important by the community that require strict protection. Annex V lists species that the community considers important, whose extraction from the wild and exploitation may require regulation to ensure that their conservation status is not jeopardized.
For this indicator, only species whose primary habitat has been identified as an inland water habitat in the latest threat assessment have been selected from the species listed in the Habitats Directive.
The species included in the indicator from the EU Habitats Directive annexes (with their conservation status by assessment area in parentheses):
Eurasian beaver – Castor fiber (boreal: favorable)
Saimaa ringed seal – Pusa hispida saimensis (boreal: unfavorable, poor)
Otter – Lutra lutra (boreal: favorable; alpine: favorable)
Grayling – Thymallus thymallus (boreal: not assessed, alpine: favorable)
Bullhead – Cottus gobio (boreal: favorable)
Atlantic salmon – Salmo salar (boreal: favorable; alpine: favorable)
Knife – Pelecus cultratus (boreal: favorable)
Vendace – Coregonus albula (boreal: favorable)
River lamprey – Lampetra fluviatilis (boreal: favorable)
Brook lamprey – Lampetra planeri (boreal: favorable)
Whitefish – Coregonus lavaretus (boreal: favorable; alpine: favorable)
Asp – Aspius aspius (boreal: favorable)
Siberian winterdamselfly – Sympecma paedisca (boreal: favorable)
Green snaketail – Ophiogomphus cecilia (boreal: favorable)
Lilypad whiteface – Leucorrhinia caudalis (boreal: favorable)
Small whiteface – Leucorrhinia albifrons (boreal: favorable)
Large whiteface – Leucorrhinia pectoralis (boreal: favorable)
Green hawker – Aeshna viridis (boreal: unfavorable, inadequate)
Noble crayfish – Astacus astacus (boreal: unfavorable, inadequate)
Freshwater pearl mussel – Margaritifera margaritifera (boreal: unfavorable, poor; alpine: unfavorable, poor)
Thick shelled river mussel – Unio crassus (boreal: favorable)
Slender naiad – Najas tenuissima (boreal: unfavorable, inadequate)
Flexible naiad – Najas flexilis (boreal: unfavorable, inadequate)
Hairlike claw moss – Dichelyma capillaceum (boreal: unfavorable, inadequate)
Carinthian earwort – Scapania carinthiaca (boreal: unfavorable, poor)
Lapland hamatocaulis moss – Hamatocaulis lapponicus (boreal: unfavorable, inadequate)
Mountain hygrohypnum moss – Hygrohypnum montanum (boreal: unfavorable, poor)
Indicator calculation
The proportions of different conservation statuses in the indicator are directly based on the results from the reporting periods of the European Union’s Habitats Directive. In the Habitats Directive reporting, assessments are conducted separately for the alpine, boreal, and Baltic zones according to the EU’s biogeographical division. For the indicator focusing on freshwater species, the results from both the boreal and alpine zone assessments have been used.
Only freshwater species from Annexes II, IV, and V of the Habitats Directive have been included (see “Data used”). Freshwater species from mountain tundra areas have been excluded from this analysis, as they are included in the indicator for tundra species under the Habitats Directive. The primary habitats used by species were determined based on the most recent threat assessment, which identified primary habitats for over 20,000 species.
For the indicator, the proportion of assessments with a favorable conservation status was calculated for each of the three reporting periods. These assessments may include multiple evaluations for the same species if it was assessed separately for the boreal and alpine zones. Therefore, the proportion does not represent the share of species with a favorable conservation status among all species, but rather the share of assessments with a favorable status.
The proportion of assessments with a favorable conservation status in the most recent reporting period (2013-2018) directly determines the status of the indicator relative to the scenario where all assessments would have a favorable conservation status. Thus, any deviation from the scenario where all assessments are in a favorable status lowers the indicator’s status assessment (see “Information about the service”).
The trend of the indicator is calculated based on how the proportion of species with a favorable conservation status has changed across the different reporting periods. The trend assessment is carried out using a generalized linear model based on a binomial distribution.
Ask for more information
Ulla-Maija Liukko
Senior coordinator, group manager (Syke), Red List Assessment, EU directives reporting
Jari Ilmonen
Project coordinator (Metsähallitus), freshwater species