Typical Species Included in the definition of ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ No definition given in the Directive For Article 17 assessments treated as a component of the parameter ‘Structure & function’

Clear that each Member State treated ‘typical species’ differently in 2001-2006 report For 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco Brometalia) N° of typical species reported per Member State for the Continental region varied from 0 (DK) to 108 (CZ) 252 spp reported Bromus erectus reported by 7 Member States 164 spp reported by only 1 Member State

Propose to strengthen the link between ‘typical species’ and ‘structure & function’ by choosing species clearly linked to elements of structure and function For example Structure – dominant grasses in grasslands; Sphagnum in acidic bogs Function – pollinators, herbivores, spp linked to mineral cycling (insects, fungi)

Sub-parameter Possible ‘typical species’ (based on habitat 9150) Structure canopy dominants Fagus sylvatica understory Buxus sempervirens groundlayer Cephalanthera spp epiphytes ? deadwood Rosalia alpina age structure n/a Function regeneration Fagus sylvatica (seedlings) nutrient cycling fungi pollination List of sub-parameters per habitat group ?

The following criteria may be found useful in the selection of typical species The species should indicate favourable conservation status (FCS), i.e. they are positive indicators of favourable status. Monitoring of the species must be non-destructive and there must be a documented methodology. The species should be easy to identify, ideally by non-experts. Geographical aspect - A typical species does not need to be useful throughout the entire range of a habitat type. Typical species are likely to be relatively uncommon, but still common enough to occur on most sites hosting the habitat in question. Choice of ‘typical species’ should not be restricted to plants.

Habitat for a species For the 2001-2006 report : Values rarely reported 17 Member States reported no value for 50% or more of their reports Italy reported no values

Definition “- there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long term basis” (Art1i)

Comments from MS: difficult exercise, especially for wide ranging species which not associated with a specific habitat “impossible” “Should be deleted” parameters similar to FRV should be developed

Proposal : Generalists:  Automatically “Favourable” Species dependent on specific habitat(s):  use existing guidelines (modified if necessary) Would require an agreed list of generalists/ specialists

Some species clearly linked to a habitat or group of habitats e. g Some species clearly linked to a habitat or group of habitats e.g. Lutra lutra to wetlands) Many species have specific & known requirements but this do not correspond to habitats as descibed by most classifications e.g. saproxylic insects are dependent on old trees but these may occur in many situations (woodlands, parks, hedgerows) In some cases trend is known even if the area is unknown e.g. in the United Kingdom the habitat used by the beetle Limoniscus violaceus is described as decaying cavities in old trees occurring in woods or wood-pasture but the actual area is unknown. However it is known that the number of such trees is in decline

Range of methods required, e. g Range of methods required, e.g. Belgium has developed 4 different approaches Clear link between species and habitat Modelling Expert opinion (including ‘range = habitat” for marine spp) Intensive monitoring An example to follow ?

Work underway at ETC/BD to develop a list linking species to habitats Planned to be available during 2010 Contributions from Member States welcomed

Suitable habitat for a species” But suitable habitat covers a wider area, e.g. to North-East But for many species habitat requirements poorly known Present day distribution of Lutra lutra in France