1. RECOMMENDATIONS: Red Listing  Compile all Red List assessments for European CWRs (national, European, global)  Contact Plantlife re data from IPA, etc.  Encourage collection of distribution data at finer scales (not just 10x10 km grids)  Will not list neophytes (introduced since 1500 AD) Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

2. RECOMMENDATIONS: Red Listing  Must consider exclusion of ‘vagrants’ or ‘casuals’ very carefully  CORINE landcover is most useful habitat classification, but care needed (CWR habitat)  Encourage collection of information on breeding and dispersal systems  Cannot infer population information from related species or trade/utilization data, but host-parasite data is useful Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

3. RECOMMENDATIONS: Red Listing  Cannot measure genetic decline easily, but there are a range of proxy biological and non-biological parameters that can be used  Need to promote monitoring of CWRs in PAs, and in national schemes (e.g. better liaison with Plantlife on UK Common Plants Survey).  Designate specific no of CWR reserves in each country (areas with high numbers of CWRs) Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Broader Conservation Planning  Compare CWR Catalogue with taxa covered by other initiatives (population, species, habitat, site)  Raise awareness of CWR taxa, especially those priority taxa not covered by other initiatives  Encourage incorporation of CWRs in broader planning initiatives wherever relevant/possible (specific CWR management issues) Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

5. RECOMMENDATIONS: Other Data to Consider  Spatial data on threats (need to find out what is available)  Find out who has protected area coverage data – single source or multiple national sources  Any consideration of using genetic data should first include a cost analysis  Legislative information should feed into prioritisation process – how? Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

6. RECOMMENDATIONS: Priority Setting  Take European priority list (a ranked selection of the CWR list) - based on economic value (broken down and ranked by groups) and threat. Subsets of this can be taken for each country  Prioritise the list  For each country extract highest-ranking species - number based on % species-richness of CWRs in that country. Need to agree a % - need to test the system and see how many species would be involved for the most species-rich countries Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

7. RECOMMENDATIONS: Priority Setting  Based on the country-level species lists, countries would look at sites to protect that list. There should be a ranking of number of sites per country based on species-richness. E.g., at least 5 sites per country, 10 for those with greater species-richness, 15 for highest species-rich countries  Not resolved – single priority list or multiple priority lists?  Emphasis on multiple species reserves, not single species reserves Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

8. RECOMMENDATIONS: Distribution Data  Collate and update what distribution data is available – sources and scale (WP3)  Modelling of distributions may be useful/possible in some cases, but need to find out more about models  Encourage additional field collecting, especially for infra-taxa  Gap analyses need to take into account sampling biases and data quality issues (historic records)  Compile list of studies on distribution of genetic diversity Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

9. RECOMMENDATIONS: In Situ Conservation Planning  Conduct a gap analysis of European CWR (there may be adequate distribution data, landcover data, and PA data to enable MARXAN to be used (with clump approach). But need to reach agreement on some aspects – clump distance, targets, etc.  Use area of habitat as surrogate for MVP  No of sites: outbreeding = 5, inbreeding = >5  Targets need to be reviewed regularly – adaptive management Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

10. RECOMMENDATIONS: Ex Situ Conservation Planning  Use EURISCO data to conduct a gap analysis of European CWRs in ex situ collections  Compare CWR Catlogue to RBG Kew ‘recalcitrants list’  Good standards/procedures to follow are in literature – encourage continued use of these  New thematic network – need to link to this Workshop 2: Threat & Conservation Assessment

12. End of Workshop 2 Threat and Conservation Assessment THANK YOU TO ALL SPEAKERS, INVITED GUESTS, PGR PARTNERS HOTEL STAFF & KELL KRISTIANSEN