Ad hoc group on Structure & Functions and Future Prospects 25 February 2016

Two major points discussed Reporting habitat condition (habitats only) Reporting Future prospects (habitats & species)

Reporting habitat condition Agreed at last meeting of the Expert Group to report on habitat condition Ad hoc group asked to propose format & wording

6.1 Habitat condition a) good a) Minimum Percentage in good condition b) Maximum   b) not-good Percentage in not- good condition c) unknown Percentage where condition is not known If percentage where condition is unknown is not zero, please indicate if a) Due to lack of information in one part of the distribution (e.g. an administrative region) YES/NO b) A more general lack of information YES/NO UK propose to add “where a precise estimate is known, report same value for both min & max”

Short term trend of area which is ‘good’ Trend direction of area considered in ‘good’ condition 0 = stable + = increasing  = decreasing x = unknown

‘good’ equates to ‘favourable’ in the matrix used to assess conservation status

Percentage ‘good’ Area 50% 33% Not -good 50% 33% Using percentage can result in habitat creation leading to an apparent decline

Preferred option is to use the future trends approach Future prospects Ad hoc group asked to discuss & decide between two alternative approaches – based on predicted future trends and predicted future conservation status Preferred option is to use the future trends approach

Future trends approach For each of the other three parameters estimate likely future trend based on reported trend, pressures and conservation measures Simplest method, more sensitive as does not need a change in conservation status or favourable reference values

Future prospects (next 12 years) Current Conservation Status  considerations Future prospects (next 12 years) FV Balance in threats (mostly Low and/or Medium) and conservation measures, no real change expected good U1 poor U2 bad Threats expected to have negative influence (e.g. many High or Medium threats) No/only Low threats and/or effective measures taken: positive outcome expected

Proposal from the UK Current Conservation Status Considerations Future Trend direction Future Prospects (over next 12 years) FV Balance in threats (mostly Low and/or Medium) and conservation measures, no real change expected overall stable = good U1 poor U2 Bad Threats expected to have negative influence (e.g. many High or Medium threats) -/-- poor /bad poor/bad    bad No/only Low threats and/or effective measures taken: positive outcome expected +/++ poor/good  poor /good

Combine the three prospects   Favourable Unfavourable-Inadequate Unfavourable-Bad Unknown Future prospects All parameters have good prospects OR prospects of one parameter unknown, the other prospects good Other combination One or more parameters have bad prospects Two or more x and no parameter with bad prospects

Replaces ‘qualifiers’ for individual parameters Future prospects Future prospects of other parameters a) Range Good/poor/bad b) Area c) Structure & functions Replaces ‘qualifiers’ for individual parameters

Re-ordering the reporting format 1 General information 2 Maps 3. Biogeographical regions and marine regions 4 Range 5 Area covered by habitat 6 Structures and functions 7 Main pressures and threats 8 Complementary information 9 Conclusions 10. Natura 2000 coverage & conservation measures 6 Structures and functions 7 Main pressures and threats 8 Conservation measures 9 Future prospects 10 Complementary information 11 Conclusions 12 Natura 2000 coverage

Existing guidelines need revising to take into account these changes Should the Ad hoc group meet to discuss this or work by circulating drafts ?