Mora Aronsson ETCBDSLU 2016 10 57 Vilnius Low

Mora Aronsson – ETC-BD/SLU 2016 -10 -5/7 Vilnius Low Hanging Fruits (Limassol 2017 -11 -14/16) Mora Aronsson ETC-BD/SLU

Low Hanging Fruits Old priority index ”Worst first”

Old priority index (”worst first”) - update • Same habitats, but in different order • 10 Unknown is U 1 or U 2 • Highest rank – forest galleries

Low Hanging Fruits Background LHF

Low Hanging Fruits approach • Can we identify habitats where we can make quick progress? • Clear link to reaching Target 1 of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy • May provide some ‘good news’ for next State of nature in the EU report

Low Hanging Fruits TARGET 1: FULLY IMPLEMENT THE BIRDS AND HABITATS DIRECTIVES To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020, compared to current assessments: → 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show a favourable or improved conservation status; and → 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.

Low Hanging Fruits Method

Low Hanging Fruits Step 1: sort & group all features (habitats) according to their conservation status and trend in conservation status: • Group 1 – Features that already are in FV • Group 2 – U 1+ could change to FV • Group 3 – U 1= could change to U 1+ • Group 4 – U 1 x could change to U 1+ • Group 5 – U 1 - could change to U 1= • Group 6 – U 2+ could change to U 1 • Group 7 – U 2= could change to U 2+ • Group 8 – U 2 x could change to U 2+ • Group 9 – U 2 - could change to U 2= • Group 10 – XX could change to U 1+ or U 2+

• Step 2: • The following index is used: • Where parameters are scored as: U 2 = 2 points, U 1 = 1 point, XX = 1 point, FV = 0 point

Low Hanging Fruits Step 3: The features are sorted within each LHF Group 1 - 10 after their score from lowest to highest. Step 4: For each feature the need for improvement in order to contribute to Target 1 is identified (as far as possible, sometimes there are too many unknowns) and the threats reported in Article 17 (only ‘High’) are taken into account. Step 5: The features are checked by an expert one by one to sort out which of these habitats are true ‘Low Hanging Fruits”, i. e. could reach improvement in a limited period of time.

Low Hanging Fruits Result

Low Hanging Fruits – Step 1 • • • Step 1 gives the following results after grouping the habitats: Group 1 – Habitats that already are FV – 29 habitats Group 2 – U 1+ could change to FV – 1 habitat Group 3 – U 1= could change to U 1+ – 16 habitats Group 4 – U 1 x could change to U 1+ – 21 habitats Group 5 – U 1 - could change to U 1= – 25 habitats Group 6 – U 2+ could change to U 1 – no habitats Group 7 – U 2= could change to U 2+ – 7 habitats Group 8 – U 2 x could change to U 2+ – 4 habitats Group 9 – U 2 - could change to U 2= – 24 habitats Group 10 – XX could change to U 1+ or U 2+ – 16 habitats

Low Hanging Fruits – Step 2 -4

Low Hanging Fruits – Step 5 Overlap with worst situation approach yellow

Distribution of potential LHF by habitat group Habitat group Number of potential LHF Forest 6 Heath & scrub 6 Freshwater 5 Grassland 3 Other 3

Whats next

Whats next Low Hanging Fruits – Next step? • Finnish approach • Next step on Zonation • Including costs in the priority

Whats next

Questions? • • Low Hanging Fruits – Next step? Is the selection of habitats OK? Is the proposed actions OK? What does it cost to reach the target for the habitat? How to prioritize between “worst first” and LHF?

Low Hanging Fruits Thank you

Low Hanging Fruits • • • Step 2: Summing up the conservation status parameters reported for each habitat in each Member State that shares the feature in a particular biogeographic region and divide it with the representation (coverage) of the feature in Natura 2000 (in percent) The following algorithm is proposed: C = A/B then multiplied by 100 A = the sum of the parameters Range, Area and Structure & Function for all Member States in the region where the habitat or the species occurs. B = Coverage of the feature by the Natura 2000 network (in percent) C = Low Hanging Fruit (LHF) score for the habitat For each parameter, the following rules are applied: U 2 = 2 points, U 1 = 1 point, XX = 1 point, FV = 0 point

Low Hanging Fruits • • • A short history Background LHF Method Result Further work

First round of seminars Identify habitats in poor conservation status which occur in several MS where action required and promote cooperation between MS at the same time But for most of these habitats progress will be slow

Old priority index (worst first) • Criteria for prioritisation (Criterion A, B and C) Criterion A. Number of MS where habitat types are present. Criterion B. Species and habitat types at unfavourable conservation status 2 points for each Member State in which it has been assessed as Unfavourable-Bad ( U 2) 1 point if Unfavourable-Inadequate (U 1) or Unknown (XX) Criterion C. Trend information 1 point if Unfavourable-Inadequate (U 1) or Unknown (XX) Index used (D) – A(B+C) = D

• Easier to reach Favourable Conservation Status or to improve Conservation Status if • N° of parameters responsible for poor Conservation Status is low • The proportion of the habitat covered by Natura 2000 sites is high Expert opinion to identify true ‘Low hanging fruits’

Low Hanging Fruits Progress according to Target 1 from A 17 Change in conservation status between reporting periods FV CS in 2001 2006 U 1 U 2 XX CS in 2007 -2012 FV U 1 + A (=) C (-) A (+) U 1 - U 2 + C (-) B (+) D (=) C (-) A (+) B (+) A (=) B (+) D (=) U 2 - XX C (-) E (x) C (-) E (x) B (+) D (=) C (-) E (x) C (-) B (+) D (=) C (-) D (=) FV = Favourable, U 1 = Unfavourable – inadequate, U 2 = Unfavourable – bad, XX = Unknown The signs between brackets indicate the type of change in the conservation status between reporting periods: (=) no change, (+) improvement, (-) deterioration, (x) not known. ‘A’ indicates ‘favourable’ assessments, ‘B’ ‘improved’ assessments, ‘C’ ‘deteriorated’ assessments, ‘D’ unfavourable and unknown assessments that did not change, and ‘E’ assessments that became ‘unknown’.