New Biogeographic process Natura 2000 seminars To help MS meet target 1 of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy “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: (i) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show an improved conservation status; and (ii) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.” To encourage greater cooperation between MS at a biogeographical level A voluntary process

Jones-Walters, L. (2012) Natura 2000 Seminars Jones-Walters, L. (2012) Natura 2000 Seminars. Introduction to the New Biogeographic Process. ECNC, ARCADIS Belgium, Aspen International, CEH, ILE SAS.

Communication platform

Some lessons learnt from terrestrial More emphasis on the outcomes and benefits so more focus on the strategic targets and objectives of the exercise Avoid time spent discussing general issues and collecting information already generally know. A more strategic focus e.g. on 3-4 key issues Retain emphasis on practical management issues Link to the Art. 17 reporting process Steering groups have played a useful role in ensuring focus on priority issues Care with shifting emphasis and workload towards stakeholder networks

A new marine biogeographic process? Link to 2020 Biodiversity Strategy - Target 1 Must have clear EU added value & be beneficial to MS Objectives need to be set Strategic Focused

A new marine biogeographic process? Key question: how best to achieve FCS? Issue-specific as well as habitat/species-specific basis Consideration across all four marine regions Cross-cutting issues and problems Recommendations & joint action points

Themes – some possibilities Setting clear conservation objectives Conservation/management approaches for marine habitats/species Understanding natural change compared to anthropogenic change Understanding the pressure/activity – state relationship Recognise knowledge gaps Managing fisheries in Natura 2000 sites Assessing financing and resources Integration with other policies Identifying subjects for EU level research

Structure - some possibilities Regional meetings Workshops Seminars Collaborative working papers Guidance/handbooks Joint agreements Joint projects

Structure – practical considerations Who takes the lead Links with Regional Seas Conventions Links with existing networks Timescales …

Structure - some options   A similar process to that which has been initiated for terrestrial biogeographic regions A one-off seminar with regional themes, to explore how best to tackle marine biogeographical issues in the management of the Natura 2000 network. Refocusing the role of the Marine Experts Group to give greater consideration of biogeographical considerations Extend the series of technical habitat management models (that were produced in 2006) to cover management and actions for marine habitat types, each of which could include region specific considerations Continue with existing arrangements for sharing expertise and developing ideas on achieving favourable conservation status for marine habitats and species. Combinations possible

Structure - some options Potential Opportunities Potential Constraints A As terrestrial * Targeted support for biogeographic work * Focus on issues of regional importance * Helping to build regional networks * Opportunity to contribute national information to a regional understanding of issues * Agree joint actions/roadmap for implementation * Limited capacity to participate in the process (time, personnel etc.) * Lessons learnt mostly communicated within the region * Potential replication of the work of existing networks * No exploration of cross-cutting issues across all marine regions * No agreement on joint actions across all marine regions * Less scope to contribute national information to an EU wide understanding of FCS for marine habitats and species B One-off seminar with regional themes * Testing demand and scope for a biogeographic focus to Natura 2000 work * Possible within existing capacity? * Complimentary to existing networks * Opportunity to contribute national information to a regional understanding of issues * Agree joint actions/roadmap for implementation * Additional to the existing work of the MEG * Insufficient time for detailed consideration of regional issues * Potential overlap with other MPA regional seminars/ conferences C Habitat management technical reports * Focus on habitats of concern * Bringing together best practice from all relevant biogeographic regions * Opportunity to contribute national information to a regional and EU wide understanding of issues * Documented output * Limited opportunity to build networks and exchange experience * Habitat focus may not pick up or give sufficient emphasis to more general themes which could assist implementation (data requirements, enforcement methods etc.) * need more time to cover a number of habitats unless done in parallel? D Refocus MEG * Uses existing structure * Uses existing networks * Opportunity to contribute national information to a regional and EU wide understanding of issues * Agree joint actions/roadmap for implementation * Other issues currently considered by MEG would be given less attention * Still insufficient time for consideration of regional issues as only one meeting a year E No change * Work within existing structures (MEG, liaison with regional conventions and networks etc.) * No additional capacity issues * Uses existing networks * Insufficient time for consideration of regional issues * Working through existing regional networks that have different priorities * lost opportunity for new momentum to deliver FCS