Approaches to identifying Important Plant Areas in Europe

Elizabeth Radford - Plantlife International

European Crop Wild Relative Diversity

Assessment and Conservation Forum Workshop, Korsør, Denmark

April 2005

Overview

1. About the IPA programme2. How IPAs are selected

3. IPAs in Europe4. Possible links between

work of CWR Forum and IPA programme

Important Plant Areas are ……..

… the most important places in the world for wild plant diversity, that can be protected and managed as specific sites

‘Wild plant’ in this context includes: vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens, fungi, algae

Aim of the IPA programme:

To identify & protect a network of the best sites for plants throughout the World using consistent criteria

The Three Phases of the IPA programme

1. Identification: • sound science • private, unprotected or already protected land

2. Protection: • adequate protection • policy and legislative tools • working with authorities

3. Management: • good, sustainable management of IPAs, • using transfer of best practise: funded

schemes, sustainable harvesting etc • working with land managers

Identification principles

• Use scientific criteria • Expert judgement• Plants and fungi• Recognise botanical richness aswell as

threat• Identify specific sites • Not a designation

The Political framework: The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation

GSPC Target 5 aims: “Ensure the protection of 50% of the worlds most important areas for plants by 2010”

Three basic principles of IPA identification(global application)

• A: The site holds significant populations of species of global or regional concern

• B: The site has exceptionally rich flora in a regional context in relation to its biogeographic zone

• C: The site is an outstanding example of a habitat or vegetation type of global or regional importance

Three basic criteria

• Criterion A - Presence of threatened species • Criterion B – Botanical Richness • Criterion C – Presence of threatened habitats

Criterion A - Threatened Species

• A(i) Globally threatened species• A(ii) Regional threatened species• A(iii) Threatened Endemics• A(iv) Threatened Near Endemics

Helianthemum caput-felis (Aii)-

In Europe threatened species are defined as:

Species that have a status of

CR/EN/VU(new IUCN criteria) or Ex/E/E/V (old IUCN criteria) on the following official lists…

For Aii REGIONALLY THREATENED• Habitats Directive Annexes IIb & Ivb

• Bern Convention Appendix I • European Bryophytes 1995

• Fungi species proposed for the Bern Convention 2001

• European Macrolichens 1989

Criterion A - Threatened Species

For Ai GLOBALLY THREATENED • IUCN Global Red Lists (inc. World List of trees 1998)• Global Red List for vascular plants 1997

For Aii and Aiv NATIONALLY THREATENED• Endemics/Near Endemics from National Red Lists

• All sites containing 5% or more of the national population of these threatened species

• Or the 5 ‘best’ sites

• Exceptionally 10 sites

Criterion A -Threshold in Europe

Criterion B - Botanical Richness

The sites which have the greatest number of species diversity (within one habitat or vegetation type)

Criterion B – Botanical Richness

• Species diversity is compared using EUNIS level 2 habitat types. There are about 50.

• A species list is created for each habitat type

– Species characteristic to a habitat– Endemic species (for that habitat)– Nationally rare (for that habitat)

It is possible to include data on lower plants and fungi

• Up to 10% of the national resource of a level 2 habitat

• Or the 5 ‘best’ sites, whichever is most appropriate

• Exceptionally 10 sites

Criterion B – thresholds in Europe

IPA Criterion C - Threatened habitats/ vegetation

C(i) Priority Threatened Habitats - Annex I of the Habitats Directive & corresponding on the Bern Convention

C (ii) Other Threatened Habitats –Annex I Habitats Directive & on the Bern Convention

Karstic calcareous grassland

• C(i) – all sites containing 5% or more of the of the habitat or

• 20-60% of the national resource

• C(ii) – all sites containing 5% of the national resource or the 5 ‘best’ sites, whichever is most appropriate

• Exceptionally 10 sites

IPA Criterion C - threshold in Europe

IPA methodology for Europe

French

Spanish

English

Russian

See publications at www.plantlife.org.uk

The IPA Project in Central and East Europe 2001-2004:

Belarus

Czech Republic

Estonia

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Pilot work in South East Europe & Russia

A few results

• c. 800 IPAs identified in 7 countries • Species: presence, distribution and

population data• Habitats: presence, distribution, extent • Land use• Threats • Site protection • Entered on to the IPA database • Will be published: Regional & national

publications with recommendations

RomaniaPietrosul Brostenilor

• Only site for Andryala levitomentosa

• Not a protected area• 98 IPAs contain globally

threatened plants

• Marine IPA: drifting red algae communities

• Threatened by algae extraction

• Lower plants feature in Estonian IPAs

EstoniaKassari Bay

IPAs & Grasslands

• 56% of IPAs contain threatened grassland habitats

• Deliblatska Sands in Serbia

• Forest steppe – threatened by afforestation & invasive tree species

IPAs & Forests

• 57% of IPAs contain threatened forest habitats

• Danube flood plain forest

• Inappropriate forestry management threatens 44 % of IPAs

Threats to IPAs

• Forestry mismanagement 44% of IPAs• Tourism 38% of IPAs• Agricultural Intensification 29% of IPAs• Land abandonment 27% of IPAs• Development 25% of IPAs• Water mismanagement 21% of IPAs• Invasive species 17% of IPAs• Eutrophication 15% of IPAs

Protection & Management

• 170 IPAs have no protection• 626 IPAs have some form of protection• Of the 510 IPAs in 5 new EU member

states 399 IPAs are Natura 2000 SACs• Management planning varied or absent

The challenge now is to ensure IPAs are protected and managed

successfully• adequate protection • policy and legislative tools • working with authorities• good, sustainable management of

IPAs, • using transfer of best practise:

funded schemes, sustainable harvesting etc

• working with land managersNo small task !

Protecting wild crop relatives in IPAs

• Red Listed wild crop relatives will fall within IPAs (criterion A)

• Some CWRs will have been included through richness (Criterion B)

• Threatened wild crop relatives can be used to locate IPAs - similar projects planned with medicinal plants

• Opportunities for data sharing • Existing projects now at the stage of protection

and management – PGR Forum lobbying possible !

Thank you