Harvesting "lowhanging

Transcription

1 Harvesting "lowhanging fruits" Improving conservation status of habitats and species together in the biogeographic context Ad-hoc WG on Natura 2000 and Forests Angelika Rubin, DG ENV.D3

2 Background (1) Following 2015 State of Nature report: discussions on how to achieve measurable improvement re. favourable conservation status (& make progress towards Target 1 of Biodiversity Strategy) Proposal: cooperation among MS in biogeographic regions on species/habitats for which improvements could be reached comparatively easier than for others - hence the image of a low hanging fruits (LHF).

3 Background (2) Development of a methodology by EEA's Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (May 2016) Based on Article 17 reporting data underpinning the conservation status assessments Where can progress be made that will result in biogeographic improvements 'quicker'? First application to Boreal & Atlantic regions (habitats only), in preparation of Natura 2000 seminars in October Boreal habitats, 19 Atlantic habitats

4 Quick reminder how conservation status is assessed (habitat - simplified) Parameter Favourable (FV) Inadequate (U1) Bad (U2) 1) Range Stable AND not smaller than FRV Any other combination Large decrease OR more than 10% below FRV 2) Area covered Stable or increasing AND not smaller than FRV' AND without significant changes in distribution pattern 3) Specific structure and functions Structures and functions in good condition and no significant deteriorations / pressures Any other combination Any other combination Large decrease in surface area OR major losses in distribution pattern OR More than 10% below favourable reference area More than 25% of the area is unfavourable 4) Future prospects The habitats prospects for its future are excellent / good; longterm viability assured Overall assessment All 'green' OR three 'green' and one 'unknown' Any other combination One or more 'amber' but no 'red' The habitats prospects are bad, severe impact from threats expected; long-term viability not assured. One or more 'red'

5 What are "Low Hanging Fruits"? Definition: Features for which an improved conservation status on biogeographical level could be reached with the least possible effort (e.g. by improving only few parameters in one or two MS). What improvements count? Jump in conservation status (from U2- U1, U1-FV) A positive trend in conservation status of U1 & U2 features U2 Bad + - = U1 Inadequate + - = FV Favourable + - =

6 Low Hanging Fruits assumptions Easier to reach favourable status or to improve status in a biogeographic region if 1. N of parameters (range, area, etc.) responsible for poor conservation status is low 2. The proportion of the habitat covered by Natura 2000 sites is high Expert opinion looking at threats & pressures to identify true Low hanging fruits is always needed!!! Simple index built & draft list of LHF made Note: other considerations, eg. geographic distribution are not taken into account

7 Example: LHF 91J0 * Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles (Atlantic) From Art.17 report 2015 (online tool)

8 Example: LHF 91J0 * Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles (Atlantic) Hab Code 91J0 U2 = CS n MS R A S&F Area (km²) Area (N2K) N2K cover (%) Need for improvement 2 FV FV U Structure & Functions in UK - improve quality in UK Important threats ( high only) F03 - Hunting and collection of wild animals (terrestrial); H04 - Air pollution, air-borne pollutants Conservation status is now U2= and U2+ is the target condition UK has 94% of the area covered therefore S&F in UK is the decisive parameter 'Risk of wrong message' to IE and in general for smaller MS (or MS with small proportion of a habitat / species)

9 Atlantic suggested LHF forest types (out of 19 habitats overall) Habitat Name NEEDED FOR IMPROVE Critical parameters and MS to reach improvement 1) 9150 Medio-European limestone beech forests of the Cephalanthero-Fagion Structure & Functions in ES and FR - improve quality in ES and FR 2) 9110 Luzulo-Fagetum beech forests Structure & Functions in DE - improve quality in DE 3) 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Structure & Functions in FR - improve quality in FR 4) 9260 Castanea sativa woods Range in ES - stop decrease in range in ES 5) 91J0 * Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles Structure & Functions in UK - improve quality in UK 6) 91C0 * Caledonian forest Structure & Functions in UK - improve quality in UK 7) 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles Structure & Functions in UK - improve quality in UK

10 Boreal suggested LHF forest types (out of 18 habitats overall) Habitat Name 1) 9040 Nordic subalpine/subarctic forests with Betula pubescens ssp. czerepanovii NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT Critical parameters and MS to reach improvement Structure & Functions in FI - positive trend needed for quality in FI 2) 91D0 * Bog woodland Structure & Functions in FI - stop the decrease in quality in FI 3) 9060 Coniferous forests on, or connected to, glaciofluvial eskers 4) 91T0 91T0 Central European lichen Scots pine forests Structure & Functions in FI - stop decrease in quality in FI Area in LT - stop decrease in Area in LT

11 What the work on LHFs wants to achieve Be an element in a discussion on how to work together in the biogeographic context on improving conservation status Raise awareness on the EU-level picture Give input to national priority setting initiatives, PAFs, restoration frameworks, etc. and what it does not want to achieve Replace or undermine other priorities (e.g.. priority habitats 'Top 20' as defined in the first round of biogeographic seminars or national priorities) Undervalue the contribution of small MS

12 What next? The method can be adapted contributions are welcome! Are suggested LHF as identified so far real LHFs? Only MS can judge that (feasibility of measures, financial consequences, etc.) - are there better proposals Should similar LHF input as for Boreal and Atlantic seminars should be made for other regions? Further debates in the biogeographic context to set priorities are needed Next Art.17 (2020) report will allow a better (quantitative) view on habitat quality

13 Thank you for your attention! Let's pick some fruits together!

14 Setting priorities in the biogeographic process ("Top20" habitats) Criteria used for setting priorities in the first round of biogeographical process (index based): A: Number of MS where species/habitat occurs B: Species/habitats in U1, U2 & XX C: Trend information (focus on neg. trend) Technical basis for the focus of the debate in the process ("top 20 list")

15 LHF Method (1) Step 1: sort & group all habitats according to their conservation status and trend in conservation status Step 2: calculate index score C= A/B A = the sum of the parameter (Range, Area, structure & Function for habitats) scores for all MS in a biogeographic region where the habitat occurs B = Representation in Natura 2000 (percent) C = Low Hanging Fruit (LHF) score

16 LHF Method (2) Step 3: The features are sorted within each group by their score Step 4: For each feature the need for improvement in order to contribute to Target 1 is identified and the threats reported in Article 17 are taken into account. Step 5: The features are checked one by one to identify true Low Hanging Fruits, i.e. where improvement is realistic in a limited period of time.