Red List of Threatened Habitat Types
Traditional forest pasture
The Red List of Threatened Habitat Types (Rote Liste der gefährdeten Biotoptypen) has a relatively short history (Riecken 2005). It differs from the red lists of species in its greater focus on habitat conservation planning and practice. It has a correspondingly wider area of application. The 
second edition was published in 2006 (Riecken et al. 2006).
NEW: English version (summary list) available for download
German Red Data Book on Endangered Habitats
An English version (summary list) is now available for download: 
German Red Data Book on Endangered Habitats.
Also available is a brief overview of the column headings used in the list.
The Red List of Habitat Types and nature conservation in practice
The threatened status of habitats is a key parameter alongside degree of naturalness in evaluating the nature conservation needs of habitats. Lists of threatened habitats parallel and complement the red lists of threatened species and have the added benefit of full spatial coverage. The list contains all habitat types, including unthreatened ones. This means the German Red List of Threatened Habitat Types can be used as an evaluation tool for all habitats. A special section provides information of relevance to planning. This includes definitions featuring key locational and structural features. Likewise included are characteristic plant associations; in combination with the definitions, these allow clear identification in the field. The information is supplemented with references to the corresponding specially protected habitats under Section 30 of Germany’s Federal Nature Conservation Act and to the habitats of Community interest under Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. Finally, information is provided on habitat regenerability; this can give a valuable indication as to the sustainability of planned intrusions on the natural environment or the potential for mitigating such intrusions. By bringing together all this information, the German Red List of Threatened Habitat Types comprises a broad source of reference for spatial planning.
Threatened status
The current edition of the Red List distinguishes 690 habitat types (other than ‘technical’ habitats) (1994: 490).
Over two thirds (72.5 percent) of all habitat types found in Germany are classified as threatened. The proportion of habitats that have been completely destroyed has increased to 0.3 percent. In 1994, only one habitat type – European oyster beds in shallow waters of the North Sea, type 03.02.03.04 – had to be classified as Category 0. The current edition shows a further habitat type – near-natural autochthonous spruce-fir forest of the planar and colline zone, type 44.03.06.01 – as having been destroyed. As this already extremely rare habitat type was not included in the 1994 edition, the change does not constitute a deterioration in the situation and merely serves to close a gap in the data. Only the degraded subtype (44.03.06.02) is found today.
The proportion of habitat types classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ (Category 1 and 1-2) has dropped to 13.8 percent. This shows that protection measures taken for these habitats have already had some success. Increases are to be observed, however, in connection with Endangered and Vulnerable habitat types (from 32.7 to 34.6 percent for Category 2 and 2-3, and from 20.8 to 23.8 percent for Category 3). Some habitats types classified as not endangered (least concern) in 1994 have thus since become endangered.
There has also been a marginal increase in the number of rare habitats that are not currently endangered (Category R in 2006, Category p in 1994), from 1.2 percent to 1.7 percent.
Current trends
Current trends in habitat numbers can deviate from historical trends, which are determined using the same Red List criteria and categories for threat assessment based on an analysis of trends over the past 50 to 150 years. Assessing the current trend based on developments over the last 10 years allows a prognosis to be made for the near future (up to a maximum of another 10 years). However, consideration must be given to the fact that short-term changes in extraneous conditions such as EU farming subsidies, and longer-term events whose impacts are not yet sufficiently known, can lead to a more negative outcome than the prognosis indicates. Conversely, it is also possible that in certain areas, nature conservation efforts and legal requirements such as the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive will effect a more positive trend.
An analysis of the current situation (covering the last ten years and the prognosis for the next decade) shows that overall, a little less than half of all endangered habitat types (44.9 percent, excluding ‘technical’ habitat types 51-54) are considered stable in their present status. About the same number (43.9 percent) currently still indicate a negative trend, while 5.4 percent show a positive trend.
As regards terrestrial habitat types, the increases largely involve wastelands and certain habitats dominated by trees and shrubs. This corresponds to the decrease in habitats considered more important in conservation terms. From a nature conservation standpoint, the increase consequently does not indicate a positive trend.
Regenerability
The level of threat to a habitat type partly also depends on the feasibility of restoring its unique characteristics – its regenerability – and on its resilience. Regenerability is defined for these purposes as a habitat’s inherent capacity to regenerate of its own accord once negative impacts cease, plus the scope for regeneration through active human intervention (habitat rehabilitation, restoration, re-creation etc.).
Regenerability generally depends on the amount of time (or historical continuity) needed and the feasibility of creating suitable local and general abiotic conditions. Local conditions include factors such as wetness, nutrient supply and the specific overall cultural and historical situation involved in the creation of a given habitat type. Regenerability is also affected by a set of interrelated factors at landscape level, including the accessibility of sites for recolonisation by characteristic species.
Some 25.7 percent of threatened habitat types are classified as not regenerable or having minimal regenerability (N or K). Neither natural processes nor active conservation work can be expected to make good any losses of such habitats in the foreseeable future. Much the same applies for the 28.4 percent classified as being of very limited regenerability (S). On current knowledge, only 20.7 percent of threatened habitat types are capable of limited regeneration (B) in the foreseeable future (in about the next 15 years). This information is mainly useful in impact assessment, when it is necessary to determine whether impacts are capable of mitigation.
