Planta Europa is the network of organisations working to conserve the wild plants, both higher and lower, of Europe and their habitats

VISION A world in which plants are valued - now and for the future GOAL

To halt the loss of plant diversity by 2007

THE PLANTA EUROPA SECRETARIAT

C/o Plantlife International 14 Rollestone Street Salisbury Wiltshire SP1 1DX, UK Tel: +44(0) 1722 342730 Fax:+44 (0)1722 329035 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.plantaeuropa.org

© Planta Europa and Plantlife International 2007

Plantlife International – The Wild Plant Conservation Charity is a charitable organisation limited by guarantee. Registered charity number: 1059559 Registered Company Number: 3166339. Registered in England

Citation: Planta Europa, 2007, Review of the European Plant Conservation Strategy: Progress and Challenges 2007, Plantlife International

Publication, text and background information prepared by: Seona Anderson, Melanie Blitz, Meike Kretschmar, Eutiquio Martinez, Ainhoa Mendizabal, Beth Newman, Jonathan Rudge

Planta Europa would like to thank the following organisations for their financial support for activities surrounding this publication: Plantlife International, Joint Nature Committee for Conservation (JNCC), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of the Netherlands, The Earnest Kleinwort Charitable Trust Executive Summary

The European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS) is the regional component of the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). The EPCS was developed in 2001 by the Planta Europa network and is due to come to an end in 2007 This report highlights the strengths and weaknesses of EPCS implementation and prospects for the future, through a review of the targets, an assessment of the enabling environment in Europe and examples of good practice. The EPCS has provided a coherent framework for a range of plant conservation stakeholders from different organisations and countries in Europe to work together. There have been many successes in implementing the targets particularly in relation to checklists, fungi red-listing, ex- situ protocols, the micro-reserves and IPA programmes and in many other targets. However work on sustainable use of wild plants, communication and awareness raising, and increasing the number of trained specialists requires more targeted effort. Obstacles to the implementation of targets are the lack of strong lead organisations, lack of base-line data for some of the targets, and lack of funding or governmental commitment. The EPCS has great potential to contribute to existing European conservation strategies and in its own right, by providing expertise, a network of stakeholders and improved data and methodologies. The profile of the EPCS among the European Commission, regional conservation organisations and national agencies needs to be raised significantly. Implementation has been hampered by the lack of direct funding sources, either national or regional, and the varying commitment and capacities of national GSPC focal points. Government focal points and agencies need to make a greater effort to fulfil their CBD obligations by developing implementing and funding strategies in consultation with plant conservation stakeholders. This document will be used to inform a strategic review of the future of the EPCS at the Fifth Planta Europe Conference in Romania in September 2007. The review process so far has highlighted the need for a new EPCS but with fewer targets, more aligned with the GSPC targets, a revision of the role of lead organisations, the inclusion of more actions on climate change, ecological corridors, the ecosystem approach and sustainable management, and clearer information on national implementation strategies. The review has also illustrated the urgent need for an effective on-line clearing house mechanism to report and monitor progress with targets and highlight good practice or methodologies. Coordination of the EPCS, currently carried out by Planta Europa, needs to be significantly strengthened and key alliances with other conservation organisations maintained and strengthened. Key Recommendations for Implementing the EPCS • Develop a new European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS) with fewer targets more closely aligned to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, with information to facilitate national implementation of the targets. • Review the role of lead organisations and change the system if necessary. • The new EPCS should include more emphasis on the ecosystem approach and more actions related to mitigating the effects of climate change and developing ecological corridors. • An on-line clearing house facility to monitor progress with targets, promote good practise, disseminate key data, and raise awareness of the EPCS and GSPC in Europe should be developed as a matter of urgency. • Increased and targeted awareness raising of the EPCS/GSPC and plant conservation issues in general, particularly aimed at the EU, national government agencies, the scientific community in Europe and the general public. • The commitment of national governments and the role of national GSPC focal points must be strengthened to implement the EPCS/GSPC, which should include improved reporting on progress, and the development of national implementation and funding strategies • Planta Europa’s role in providing advice on fund-raising or assisting members to fund- raise for implementing the EPCS should be increased • Planta Europa and its members need to maintain and develop alliances with other scientific, conservation and policy organisations in Europe to increase effectiveness of the EPCS • Planta Europa’s role as a key coordinator of the EPCS needs to be strengthened significantly or replaced if another more suitable organisation can be found.

1 2 Introduction: What do we have to lose and what do we have to gain What would our children and grandchildren miss most about a European landscape with fewer wild plants and wild places? Would it simply be the chance to walk through an old deciduous forest rich with life or a flower-filled mountain meadow? Would it be the sounds of the birds and animals that rely on those plants and habitats? Would it be the lack of variety in a landscape of Sitka spruce plantations and hectares of sterile earth under a handful of commercial plants? Or would it be a darker future where there are no wild plant relatives to provide a genetic reserve of food and medicinal plants to provide for our needs? The European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS), the regional strategy of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC), is the response of botanists and specialists across Europe to try and prevent the type of diminished future described above. The loss of wild plants and wild places is a complex issue which touches many parts of our lives from the production of our food and materials, our access to water, to the way we travel, and to the places we chose to build our houses and businesses. However, there are many practical solutions to the problems of losing our wild plants and the EPCS provides a framework for botanists and specialists to carry out targeted conservation work, to involve a range of stakeholders and to highlight the results of their work to the public and decision makers. Like all good ideas the EPCS needs good people and adequate support to make it happen in practice. This report outlines the progress so far and the potential and challenges of implementing the EPCS in the current legal and funding environment for conservation. There are undoubtedly many challenges still ahead but the numerous cases where botanists, specialists and local people have created a better environment for plants to flourish and a more sustainable future should be highlighted as an example of what can be achieved. This report provides a series of case studies of good practice. The governments of Europe have committed to delivering the sixteen targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) by 2010. This report provides information on progress, examples of good practice and details of the support that they need to provide in order to meet their obligations. Planta Europa provides a network of botanical and mycological experts, academic, NGO and governmental, working across Europe to conserve plants and to implement the European Strategy for Plant Conservation. We have much to lose by giving up our wild plants and wild places through ignorance or indifference but we have so much more to gain by trying to stop the loss of wild plants, fungi, the places where they live and the livelihoods, which they support.

Development of the European Plant Conservation Strategy 2001-2007

June 2001 • 250 members of the Planta Europa network develop the European Plant Conservation Strategy with concrete, achievable targets at the 3rd Planta Europa Conference in Pruhonice, Czech Republic • The strategy contains 42 clear, measurable targets to be achieved by 2007 • These targets are grouped under the five objectives shared with the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, and organisations were assigned to lead on their implementation

April 2002 • The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC – Decision VI/9) • The GSPC was endorsed by 180 countries across the globe. These national governments have committed to delivering the GSPC targets by 2010 • The CBD Decision VI/10 also recognised the EPCS as a important regional contribution to the GSPC • The EPCS endorsed by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention as a valuable contribution to the GSPC (Recommendation No.87, 2001)

September 2004 • The participants of the 4th Planta Europa Conference in Valencia, Spain undertook a mid- term review of the EPCS, to identify obstacles and assess progress • The outcome of this review was promising: more than 50% of the 42 targets of the EPCS were progressing well and 2 had already been achieved by 2004 • The Conference also identified a set of seven critical targets that were felt to be a priority for Planta Europa members to achieve by 2007

3 Part I: Review of EPCS Implementation

1 THE EPCS AND THE REVIEW PROCESS Planta Europa has reviewed the implementation of the European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS), which is due to come to a Anticipated outputs from the Planta Europa conclusion in 2007. This is in Conference, Romania, September 2007 preparation for a fuller discussion and development of a new strategy • An action plan for European implementation of for beyond 2007 at the Planta the GSPC (a revised EPCS) up to and beyond 2010 Europa Conference to be held in • Guidance/best practice document to assist Romania in September 2007. This national implementation report provides as assessment of • An exemplar to the CBD of a regional the progress to date and an analysis implementation of the GSPC to be presented at of the enabling environment for the CBD COP 9 in 2008 implementing the strategy in Europe. The EPCS has provided a regional bridge between the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) and national implementation in Europe. It translates the global targets in the GSPC into a European framework of existing biodiversity policies and plant conservation capacity and has assisted national parties in developing adequate mechanisms for implementing the GSPC on a national scale. The participative approach in developing the EPCS has led to a strong ownership in all sectors, including governmental, non-governmental and scientific research. In essence the strategy is a pragmatic document for nature conservation practitioners, both within the Planta Europa Network and the wider family of conservation bodies and governments in Europe. Its ultimate aim is facilitating the targeting of resources in order to deliver more effective plant conservation in pan-Europe. In preparation for the in-depth review of the GSPC at COP 9, the CBD has recognised that regional elaboration of targets may be a more practical approach to fostering national implementation of the global strategy. In particular it recognises that the regional approach as articulated in the European Regional Strategy can provide a pragmatic option to enhancing achievement of the GSPC targets. As the EPCS paralleled the GSPC development process rather than as a response to it, the EPCS review process is an opportunity to produce a new European Strategy that is even more closely aligned to the GSPC. A key aspect of this review is the assessment of the regional enabling environment for the GSPC, which has involved an evaluation of key European Union and Pan European environmental regulatory and financial instruments in the context of delivering the GSPC. The Fourth Planta Europa Conference in Valencia (2004) identified a set of targets that were felt to be a priority for Planta Europa members to achieve by 2007. The resulting seven Critical Targets (outside back cover) are the main indicators of success for the Planta Europa Network for this period and fall into three broad areas of focus: 1) Strengthening Planta Europa’s capacity and its membership 2) Promoting and enabling plant conservation in Europe 3) Contributing to key plant conservation programmes. Each Critical Target broadly corresponds to a target of the European Plant Conservation Strategy. However, some Critical Targets cross cut more than one target of the EPCS. The Critical Targets and associated Action Plan describe what Planta Europa and its members see as their most crucial (and minimum) contribution to the delivery of plant conservation in Europe over the next 3 years, and where capacity must be built to achieve this cooperation and set out a clear framework for activities of both governments and conservationists.

2 REVIEW OF EPCS TARGETS The GSPC and EPCS have made significant contributions and enhanced progress in plant conservation, as well as encouraged the cooperation and involvement of all key sectors in Europe. These strategies should be viewed as successes in that they have motivated action, enabled effective multinational cooperation and set out a clear framework for activities of both governments and conservationists. There have been 3 significant initiatives to review the

4 implementation of the EPCS, and wider GSPC implementation in Europe prior to the final review detailed in this report.

2.1 Mid Term Review (2004) In 2004, conservationists from across Europe undertook an extensive mid-term review of the EPCS. Results were encouraging: more than 50% of the initial 42 targets of the EPCS were progressing well and two had already been achieved. The 250 plant experts involved in the review at the fourth Planta Europa conference in Valencia in 2004 identified constraints in the implementation of nine targets of the EPCS. In recognition that the targets were still highly relevant, new, more realistic milestones were given to these nine and will help facilitating their achievement. The conference recommended adding two new targets and a further four were substantially amended to reflect new developments in plant conservation since 2001 (available on-line at www.plantaeuropa.org/pe-publications-Mid_term_review.htm).

Objective Number of Number of Number of targets Number of new Number targets targets in where there is no or substantially of completed progress progress, but that changed targets targets are still relevant deleted 1. Understanding 0 6 3 1 0 and Documenting 2. Conserving 1 14 5 1 1 3. Using Sustainably 0 1 0 0 0 4. Promoting 0 1 0 4 0 Awareness 5. Building Capacity 1 4 1 1 1

Table 1: Summary of EPCS mid-term review results (2004), progress of EPCS targets per objective.

The conference delegates recognised, however, a number of key constraints and issues, which resulted in lack of progress in some of the targets and have implications for the successful implementation of the GSPC in Europe.

1.1.1 Key constraints for implementing the EPCS in Europe (mid-term review 2004) Reporting/Monitoring: A clear monitoring and evaluation process for reviewing the implementation of the EPCS needs to be established. This must be closely interlinked with GSPC monitoring and reporting. The role of lead organisations: The coordination of and communication between different lead organisations should be enhanced, and all key players in regular contact with the CBD secretariat and each other. Lead organisations and conservation networks must be provided with additional support and guidance, and their role and obligations need to be more clearly defined. Governmental commitment: Although Planta Europa is making every effort to fulfil its commitments to implement the GSPC in Europe; many of the actions required for achieving the targets are outside the responsibility of Planta Europa. The links between Planta Europa, as an expert Network, and the national governments as well as lead organisations must be enhanced. There is a clear need for governments in Europe to make a greater commitment to the strategy’s implementation. Links between GSPC and EPCS: GSPC and EPCS, although closely interlinked, are not in perfect harmony. The role of the EPCS as an instrument to translate the GSPC on the regional scale must be enhanced, links between longer-term targets in both strategies made more obvious. The shorter implementation period of the first set of European targets (by 2007) will give valuable information on key constraints for implementing the GSPC, as well as a unique chance to streamline targets and milestones in both strategies in a more effective way in the future. National focal points: The national GSPC focal points could play a significant role in harmonisation between EPCS, GSPC and other obligations in European countries, such as mandatory implementation of Natura 2000 in EU Member States, the EU Biodiversity Strategy and Bern Convention obligations.

2.2 Review of the implementation of the GSPC in Europe (2006) This was a less comprehensive review prepared at the request of the CBD secretariat in preparation for the CBD SBSTTA 12 meeting. The report was largely based on the mid-term review of EPCS implementation, updated through key stakeholder consultation. This had a greater focus on reviewing the GSPC implementation in Europe rather than a review of the EPCS

5 per se. The overall conclusion was that there had been significant progress in plant conservation in Europe, which was largely attributed to the political weight and focus provided by the GSPC and EPCS. In addition to Planta Europa, European Botanic Gardens were identified as one group of organisations that are working, both within the Planta Europa network and outside it, towards the implementation of the GSPC in Europe. As well as being designated lead organisation within the EPCS, they also contribute to the achievement of many other EPCS and GSPC targets and national implementation.

2.3 Review of 3rd National Reports to the CBD (2006) National Reports were received by the CBD from thirty-one (31) the current forty-seven (47) members of the Council of Europe, representing 66% of the countries. Among Council of Europe members, 32 (68%) countries are involved in the Planta Europa network. Status and trends: In general most countries have not developed specific national and/or regional responses but rather have interpreted the implementation of the GSPC targets in the context of pre-existing national and/or regional initiatives, plans, policies, legal and institutional frameworks. Countries whose national institutions are actively involved in regional and international initiatives related to the GSPC targets have reported progress. Planta Europa’s Important Plant Areas Project in Central and Eastern Europe, the European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS), and the Natura 2000 Project (Birds and Habitats Directives) of the EU, were identified as directly contributing to the national implementation of the GSPC. Other international initiatives cited as contributing to national GSPC implementation include various international and regional networks such as Botanic Gardens Conservation International, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, the IUCN Species Survival Commission, the Food and Agriculture (FAO) International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and cooperation in the EU ENSCONET project. Delivery of the targets was affected by a serious lack of human resources and financial support. Insufficient or non-existent policy, national baseline frameworks, milestones, and appropriate indicator systems were also emphasised as constraints. This is compounded by a lack of awareness of the GSPC at national level. Whilst national institutions and various agencies are contributing to the implementation of various facets of the GSPC, some countries reported insufficient data and knowledge for planning and decision-making when developing their own national strategies. In general the GSPC currently does not play an independent role but is largely compatible with existing biodiversity strategies. Most countries reported that actions aimed at conservation of plant biological diversity have been conducted for some years within national environmental policies for nature conservation, i.e. some targets are already covered within the overall framework of other national strategies. Few countries indicated that they did not have specific plans for plant conservation or that there were no opportunities to carry out actions to implement the GSPC.

2.4 Online Review of the EPCS (2007) An online survey at a pan European scale was undertaken by Planta Europa to review the EPCS and the development of a new set of targets. The online questionnaire was launched through the Planta Europa website on December 2006 and was available up to mid March 2007. The online review was promoted to over 1,000 individuals and organisations across Europe. Responses varied from 20 to 30 across the different parts of the questionnaire. An overwhelming majority of respondents belonged to institutions strongly involved with the EPCS, mainly Planta Europa members; many were Lead Organisations for one or more of the targets. This provided much concrete information on implementation to date, and the constraints and needs for the future. The on-line questionnaire had four different sections, which could be completed in their entirety or in part, enabling respondents to focus on their particular area of expertise and experience. 1. ‘SWOT’ (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis 2. Progress with the 42 EPCS targets

6 3. Feedback on the implementation process 4. Recommendations for a new EPCS 2.4.1 ‘SWOT’ Analysis The aims of the analysis were to provide an overview of the current and future status of the strategy and its implementation. Although the analysis is not very specific in detail it has great value as a guidance framework for the rest of the review, capturing the constraints in the EPCS’s implementation to date and expectations for the future.

Strengths Weaknesses

The wide diversity of the Planta Europa members Lack of legislative authority of EPCS at both national working towards the Strategy Implementation. and European level.

The Planta Europa network’s role in Bipolar focus on in-situ and ex-situ conservation communication, coordination, and providing activities misses opportunities to incorporate more facility for sharing expertise within a pan comprehensive conservation tools such as bio corridors, European framework ecosystem approach, and sustainable management.

Clear and specific targets The low profile and inconsistent commitment of some lead organisations.

Failure to communicate and promote the EPCS adequately among the general public and some of the scientific community. The development of partnerships and synergies with other major international bodies has not been fully carried out. Opportunities missed to establish national and European databases of plant conservation

Absence of monitoring mechanisms and baseline information has inhibited effective implementation. Some Lead Organisations are not the most appropriate

Opportunities Threats

Opportunity for plant conservation in Europe in Global warming, particularly the uncertainty about its the future is the integration of the different extent, “climatic” impacts, and geographical European projects and institutions into continent implications (Climate change was not considered in the wide strategies. current EPCS six years ago but in this short period of time it has turned into a matter of the biggest European Union and Council of Europe policies concern.) perceived as a great opportunity to establish a comprehensive framework for Plant Conservation. Changes in land use, particularly intensive agriculture and its promotion through the implementation of the Enlargement of the EU to the east of Europe is CAP in the new EU countries is seen as a major threat opportunity for significant improvement in for non-farming ecosystems. conservation status, primarily due to new funding opportunities and the obligatory implementation Infrastructure development in Eastern Europe of environmental legislation (specially Habitats directive and its associated Natura2000 network) Lack of a proper holistic approach may lead to possibility of future conservation initiatives being The increasing flow of information amongst poorly directed. conservationists and the possibility of synergies and integration of different programmes.

2.4.2 Progress with the 42 targets of the EPCS The second section of the online survey of EPCS implementation required respondents to consider each of the 42 targets of the EPCS and identify specific actions they were aware of on a national and European level. They were also asked to provide where possible a percentage

7 guestimate of the progress made. As this was a very wide field involving very diverse objectives and activities throughout Europe, it has provided a good indication of the most successful initiatives and best aimed projects that have been able to deliver real plant conservation gains on the ground. Illustrative case studies of progress in implementation of the EPCS & GSPC targets are presented in Part 2 of this report.

Objective 1: Understanding and Documenting Plant Diversity There has been considerable progress in implementing EPCS targets under Objective 1 throughout the region, on both national and pan-European scale. There are checklists of vascular plants and other groups in many European countries and most countries have national red lists of vascular plants. Tried and tested protocols for conserving and monitoring plants exist in many countries, however an effective on-line clearing house mechanism would make it easier to disseminate and use this information. Examples of progress: • European checklist of mosses and liverworts produced by the European Council for the Conservation of Bryophytes (ECCB) • Red list for European fungi being compiled in 27 countries by the European Council for the Conservation of Fungi (ECCF) • The European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum (ECWRDAC) established an on-line information system • Information on national and regional red lists are available at the website of the European Topic Centre on Biodiversity (http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/activities/products/redbooks) Challenges: • A major challenge remains to integrate all ongoing initiatives and information into a European red list of threatened plant species, particularly for widely distributed but rapidly declining species • There is very little information on models for using wild plant resources sustainably Objective 2: Conserving plant diversity It has been a major challenge to collate information to analyse progress under this objective. There have been a significant number of activities for each of the EPCS/GSPC targets, in particular at a national and sub-national level. There is, however, no mechanism in place to monitor these developments systematically on a European scale, which has hindered a cooperative approach to the development of European wide projects and activities. Only through this can Europe monitor and communicate its leading role in plant conservation, developing tools and protocols and stimulating activities beyond the region. Examples of progress: • Natura 2000 national and regional databases contain information on species, habitats and sites of European concern for plant conservation protected by EU law. • Micro reserves, a concept developed in Spain, has been established in several regions in Europe and technical guidance is being developed • Important Plant Area (IPA) identification projects have been carried out or are being carried out in more than fifteen counties in Europe. Maps, factsheets and threat statistics are available on-line for Important Plant Areas (IPAs) in several European countries (www.plantlifeipa.org/reports.asp) • The Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation, Veen Ecology (www.veenecology.nl) and national partner organisations have carried out a series of grassland and virgin forest assessments in 14 European countries. In Slovakia, the Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology is using the results of the grassland survey to assess farmland for agri- environment funding. • The European Native Seed Conservation Network (ENSCONET) holds a combined list of seed banks in the EU (8114 species), the Millennium Seed Bank at Kew holds 7066 European species, and Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) is currently assessing information on seed banks in Europe, available through the PlantSearch website (www.bgci.org/plant_search.php/)

8 • European Strategy on Invasive Aliens by the Council of Europe, the extension of NEOBIOTA (the European Group on Biological Invasions) to all Europe, the EU funded DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe) project to provide inventories, expertise and early warning systems for invasive species and many national projects Challenges: • Base-line data for assessing current status and changes • An effective on-line clearing house mechanism to collate and disseminate information • Incorporating important plant sites within ecological networks and ‘green corridors’ to mitigate the effects of fragmented landscapes and the new threats from climate change Objective 3: Using plant diversity sustainably Activities under Objective 3 currently focus on the sustainable use of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (MAP). European and global activities are closely linked, as Europe is not only a key consumption area for globally traded MAP harvested from the wild, but some European countries are also among the world’s most important trade centres (e.g. Germany and France). Europe also serves as a supply area; in particular in the Balkans where over harvesting is a severe problem. Examples of progress: • An International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP) has been developed in a joint initiative with WWF, TRAFFIC, BfN and IUCN-MPSG and is currently being piloted to stakeholders • WWF and TRAFFIC have carried out research into the trade and utilisation of medicinal plants in several key locations and review of existing initiatives on sustainable use • The MAP in the Balkans project implemented by WWF Germany and TRAFFIC has provided information on the collection of MAPs, relevant legislation and the potential for MAPs to provide finances for nature conservation and protected areas. Challenges: • Lack of information on tried and tested methods for sustainable use of wild plant resources • Engagement with local people who use wild plants for all or part of their livelihoods Objective 4: Promoting education and awareness about plant diversity The development of the EPCS has made a significant impact on promoting plant conservation especially among the scientific and specialist communities. The 700 botanic gardens in Europe all have education and communication programmes and are contributing significantly to these targets. However, there are many areas where more effort and projects would have great benefits for plant conservation. The EPCS, and plant conservation in general, need a higher profile among national and EU decision makers. Examples of progress: • EPCS translated into 8 European languages and available on-line • There are nearly 700 botanic gardens in Europe and all are active in education and awareness raising to some extent; the PlasciGarden Programme funded by the EU Sixth Framework Research Programme aims to increase awareness of plant conservation at the primary level in schools • The British Lichen Society has developed a series of teaching materials and information for teachers available on-line (www.thebls.org.uk/content/proj.html) • A wake up call for plants in Europe is being undertaken by Planta Europa in 2007, and several countries have launched public awareness projects for plants • Volunteer plant recorders are active in several countries in Europe, for example the UK, the Netherlands, Turkey Challenges: • Raising the profile of the EPCS/GSPC among national and EU decision makers • Including plant conservation information in national school curricula • Increasing the awareness of the importance of wild plants among the general public • Funds for awareness raising work

9 Objective 5: Building capacity for the conservation of plant diversity Effective cooperation is impossible in a highly complex conservation arena such as Europe without the focussed cooperation of networks and working groups. Planta Europa, European Council for the Conservation of Fungi (ECCF), The European Native Seed Conservation Network (ENSCONET), European Committee for Conservation of Bryophytes (ECCB) and the newly established European Mycologists Association (EMA) are just a few examples of cooperation for plant conservation in Europe. European Botanic gardens are linked through the European Botanic Gardens Consortium. EU botanic gardens meet every three years at the EuroGard conference to exchange experiences on issues related to plant conservation. The triennial Planta Europa Conferences are proven key events for bringing together players from all sectors and countries to discuss a joint vision and strategy for the Protection of Europe’s wild plants. One of the weaker points of the implementation of the GSPC and governmental input into the EPCS is the lack of a formal network for lead organisations and national focal points and the lack of communication between the CBD Secretariat and the regional and national focal points. The second part of this target calls for an increase in the number and capacity of trained specialists who are essential to implement the EPCS. The number of trained taxonomists is rapidly declining and there is a lack of clear information on the progress of this target and very few examples of ongoing projects. Examples of progress: • The ECCB have used their network to complete a Europe wide checklist of bryophytes and liverworts, and the ECCF are working on a European red list for fungi • Planta Europa membership currently stands at 73 members in 37 countries • The fifth Planta Europa Conference in Romania in September 2007 will focus on the role of networks in enhancing plant conservation in Europe • EDIT, a project funded by the Sixth Framework Research Funding of the EU to create a European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy • From 2004-2006 Scottish Natural Heritage funded the British Lichen Society to train 7 apprentices as lichen recorders. After completing their training the recorders now carry out surveys, established a Churchyard lichen group and set up a travelling lichen exhibition. Challenges: • Lack of funding for either network building or taxonomy and specialised training • Lack of a clear strategy on a national or European level for increasing the number of trained taxonomists and other specialists 2.4.3 Implementation mechanisms of the EPCS/GSPC The third section provided an opportunity for respondents to provide feedback on the implementation of both the GSPC and EPCS at national level. The objective was to obtain a general overview of the status of the strategies’ implementation. GSPC implementation Only a small number of countries have taken actions specifically aimed at the implementation of the GSPC. In 2003 the UK produced a formal programme in response to the GSPC, “Plant Diversity Challenge”, which was reviewed in 2006. A national Biodiversity Strategy has been develop in Finland while the Spanish government is currently working on a similar initiative for delivering the main objectives of the GSPC. Some of the targets have been delivered or considered at a national level in national Biodiversity Strategies, and especially through the implementation of the Habitats Directive, this latter most apparent in the new EU countries. EPCS implementation Apart from the exception of the UK, where the “plant diversity challenge” has adopted the targets of the EPCS on its way to implement the GSPC, no specific actions appear to have been taken elsewhere in Europe as a result of the EPCS. Some isolated actions and programmes have received significant support from national governments, but mostly within the framework of other legal or strategic documents.

10 Role of lead organisations During the development of the EPCS, it was agreed that each target should have a lead organisation to act as a focal point for activities on a European level. The lead organisation, through its own expertise, should also be able to substantially contribute to the delivery of the target. The main issues identified were lack of financial resources and political and lobbying power of the lead organisations. A further constraint was the narrow field of interest of some of the lead organisations, while others were limited by having a very specific geographical interest. Many respondents felt that lead organisations should be nationally oriented, have a high political profile, and preferably strongly linked to the national Ministry of Environment, when not the Ministry itself [cf GSPC use of national focal points]. 2.4.4 Recommendations for the future of the EPCS The fourth section of the questionnaire provided respondents with an opportunity to highlight their views on how to address plant conservation in Europe beyond 2007. A significant majority of respondents believed that a new European strategy, which retained and enhanced linkages with the GSPC was important as a means of facilitating national level implementation of the GSPC in Europe. It was felt that the new strategy to guide plant conservation forward in Europe after 2007 and beyond 2010 should have a longer timeframe (7-10 years) and be ‘simpler’; with fewer but focused targets relevant to European plant conservation needs and easier to monitor. Principal Recommendations • Implementing the GSPC targets at a national level • Developing or implementing a network of small organisations and national/thematic focal points for small scale actions • Publication of implementation manuals and case studies of successful projects • Increased engagement with EU conservation and financial policies • The need for strong institutional engagement to strengthen Planta Europa and implement the EPCS. Over 60% of respondents indicated that a new EPCS required a stronger institutional home than the current Planta Europa network, and if Planta Europa was to remain as a key driver to deliver the EPCS it needed to establish a closer partnership with ‘key’ institutions on a national and European level • The targets for a new EPCS need to be simpler with concrete milestones and practical guidelines at the national level which are more focussed on ‘real conservation’ issues and achievable by the Planta Europa network and its members, rather than relying on external lead organisations

3 EPCS Enabling Environment This section focuses on the opportunities and challenges of implementing the EPCS and GSPC within the current policy, funding, and institutional environment in Europe. The on-line survey results highlighted a need for greater emphasis and awareness of the alignment of the strategies with existing conservation initiatives, and a need for a clear assessment of the funding potential to implement them.

3.1 Policy and Strategic Environment for Plant Conservation in Europe Plant conservation in Europe is covered to varying degrees by a series of international, Pan- European, European Union and national strategies and legal frameworks in addition to the EPCS and the GSPC. All signatory governments of the CBD have committed to delivering the targets of the GSPC by 2010. However the targets of the GSPC and its regional component the EPCS are also aligned with many other national, regional and international conservation strategies. The main challenges for Planta Europa and the implementing organisations of the EPCS is to highlight to decision makers the many areas where these conservation strategies overlap, and also to identify the gaps where plant conservation is being failed by existing strategy and policies.

11 Policy and Strategy Environment for Plant Conservation in Europe

International • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) o Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) o Global Taxonomic Initiative (GTI) • World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) • UN Millennium Development Goals • Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) • Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

Pan-European • Bern Convention and the Emerald Network • Pan-European Biological & Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) and the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) • Environment for Europe Process (particularly the Kyiv Declaration) • Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe • European Landscape Convention • European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species • Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators 2010 (SEBI-2010)

European Union • EU Biodiversity Strategy • EU Sustainable Development Strategy • EU Habitats & Birds Directives & the Natura 2000 network • EU Common Agricultural Policy & Rural Development Programme • EU Water Framework Directive • EU Forestry Policy • Seventh Research Framework Programme • Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental decision making

Annex 2 highlights the potential and challenges of aligning the EPCS and GSPC targets with existing conservation strategies and policies at global and European levels. Many national strategies already implement parts of the EPCS within existing national conservation legislation, scientific and research priorities, etc. However it is not in the scope of this report to review these. However, Planta Europa does have a role to ensure that relevant national information and best practice examples are channelled through to European plant conservation stakeholders 3.1.1 International The GSPC of the CBD has the clearest targets of all the international strategies that concern plant conservation, and signatory governments have committed to achieving the targets by 2010. The UN Millennium Goals and the objectives of the World Summit on Sustainable Development have a clearly stated objective of reducing the loss of biodiversity through sustainable development and the GSPC/EPCS have a direct contribution to make to these goals. 3.1.2 Pan-European Many of the existing Pan-European initiatives focus on identifying and protecting special sites and on developing corridors between them. The EPCS is ideally suited to delivering specific plant based data to these programmes and there are many potentially productive overlaps with these programmes. 3.1.3 European Union The conservation directives of the European Union provide a strong legal framework for protecting plants and plant sites, however there is large shortfall in the funding available to implement those policies on the ground and to provide effective monitoring of the successes or failures. In particularly the provision for the conservation of the Natura 2000 network and for biodiversity conservation within the agri-environment schemes of the Rural Development Programme of the Common Agricultural Policy is insufficient and relies on the interests of the national governments. There is much potential in ensuring that EPCS/GPCS are included in the planning of the Seventh Research Framework Programme.

12 3.1.4 National level In many countries of Europe implementation of some of the targets of the EPCS/GSPC will already be carried out through existing conservation or research projects. However, very few national focal points of the GSPC in Europe have made explicit their current implementation measures or future strategy for achieving the targets. There are several examples where countries have developed national strategies for delivering the GSPC, such as the UK (www.plantlife.org.uk/Plant-diversity-challenge/pdc-index.html) and Ireland (www.botanicgardens.ie/gspc/inspc.htm), or where initial stakeholder meetings have been held such as Germany, Spain, Croatia, and Belarus. To date no national GSPC focal points have published a complete funding strategy for implementation.

3.2 Funding Environment for Plant Conservation In Europe The continued implementation of the EPCS will be dependent to a large degree on accessing appropriate funding at the national, European and international level. There is no specific direct funding source either through the CBD, the EU or individual countries for implementing the EPSC/GSPC. This report focuses on the potentials and challenges of the global and Pan-European statutory funding sources. 3.2.1 National Funding Mechanisms Signatory governments of the CBD are responsible for ensuring that they report on and achieve the targets of the GSPC. In practice implementation is carried out by a variety of government agencies, academic institutions and NGOs, each with their own sources of funding. It is not within the scope of this report to assess the potentially huge number of national funding sources available in the 40 plus countries covered by the EPCS. However, it is recognised that in the long term it will be increasingly important for national governments to both recognise their responsibilities for implementing the GSPC nationally, and allocate sufficient resources appropriately. The need to encourage governments to take this line has been strengthened by the new EU budget for the environment, which places great emphasis on the need for members states to set their own priorities for allocating part of the LIFE+ funds and much of the Rural Development and Regional Development funds for nature conservation. If plant specialist and conservationist do not engage at the national level, then these resources will be channelled into competing areas. Equally the increasingly important role of national focal points for the GSPC /EPCS needs to be strengthened. 3.2.2 Regional funding mechanisms The principle regional mechanisms for funding nature conservation across Europe are primarily EU in origin. Elements of these also direct funding for neighbouring countries. Most relevant for implementation for plant conservation in Europe are the specific EU funding streams, LIFE+, the Rural Development Programme, the Seventh Framework Research Programme, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) which replaces TACIS and MEDA in 2007. In addition there are several other regional funding mechanisms that are not administered by the EU, such as The Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the CBD, the DARWIN initiative of the UK Department of Food and Rural Affair, the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanism, and the BBI-MATRA funds of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. The table below summarises the potential and challenges of current regional funding opportunities. 3.2.3 Summary of funding potential and challenges • There are currently no direct national or regional funding source to implement the EPCS/GSPC • Most of the potential regional funds cover the Objective 2 Targets (Conserving Plant Diversity) rather than other parts of the strategy • Most of the EU funds (Rural Development, Regional Development and a large part of LIFE+) are allocated according to national plans and priorities. This requires strong national focal points to prioritise plant conservation issues • In the absence of national or regional budgets for implementing the EPCS/GSPC the burden of fund-raising will rest on a variety of organisations with a variety of fund- raising capacities

13 • In the absence of strong government commitment and national plant conservation NGOs, the burden of fund-raising may fall too heavily on specialists and scientists • Plant conservation specialists can make a significant contribution to implementing the EPCS/GSPC at the national level by contributing, where possible, project proposals and costs for delivering the EPCS to the national GSPC focal points or relevant government agencies • Planta Europa has a role in providing information on regional funding opportunities to implement the EPCS/GSPC

Fund GSPC Challenges/ obstacles target LIFE + 4, 5, 6, Potentially very influential for nature conservation but (1.9 Billion Euros, 2007-2013) 7, 14 accessing the funding is highly competitive and will only cover a sub-set of the species and habitats of concern to the EPCS/GSPC The European Agricultural Rural 4, 5, 6, Potentially useful for wild plant conservation, however Development Fund (EAFRD) 7 the funds are allocated mainly through nationally (77.66 Billion Euros defined programmes, with nature conservation only one 2007-13) of several possible priorities. The targeting of projects Axis 2 (land management) towards actual conservation of species and habitats and Axis 3 (wider rural development) the monitoring of their progress has been lacking in past Axis 4 (LEADER) agri-environment schemes Seventh Framework Programme of 1, 2, 3, Highly competitive and lengthy application and Research (FP7) 8, 9, reporting requirements which may be beyond the 2007-2013 10, 15 capacity of smaller conservation or research Environmental Research (1.8 organisations Billion Euros) Agriculture Research (1.9 Billion Euros) The European Regional 4, 5, 6, Nature conservation is only one small part of this fund, Development Fund (ERDF) 7, 9, 12, although it could be very useful for any projects on (336.1 Billion Euros 13 sustainable use of plants and habitats or sustainable 2007-2013) livelihoods related to wild plants.This fund will be allocated mainly through nationally defined programmes, which all have own priorities. Instrument for Pre-Accession 4, 5, 6, There is potential for using this fund to implement the Assistance (IPA) 7, 12, EPCS/GSPC at the national level but nature (11.468 Million Euros 13, 14 conservation will only be possible part of the funding 2007-2013) priorities and will focus on those species and habitats associated with the Natura 2000 network The European Neighbourhood and 4, 5, 6, Potential for using this fund to implement the Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 7, 12, EPCS/GSPC at the national level but nature 5.6 Billion Euros 13, 14 conservation will only be possible part of the funding 2007-2010 priorities. Non-EU funding sources Global Environment Facility All The CBD does not have a direct funding stream for the (GEF) targets GSPC Not all countries in Europe are eligible for GEF funding GEF grants have a complicated application and reporting procedure, a long run-in time and often require a high level of match funding which is not suitable for many smaller implementing organisations. DARWIN (UK) All Only part of the budget is allocated for work in Europe. Annual budget: £7 Million targets All projects must have a UK partner The EEA and Norwegian 4, 5, 6, 7, Environment is only part of the funding allocation. Much Financial Mechanism 14, of the funding is allocated through national focal points (1.17 Billion Euros 16 and depends on national priorities 2004-2009) BBI-MATRA & MATRA KNIP (The 4, 5, 6, 7 Only certain countries are eligible for MATRA funding. Netherlands) All BBI-MATRA projects must have a Dutch partner

14 Advice on applying for EU funds for the environment can be found in a variety of websites and publications: European Environment funding http://ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/intro_en.htm CORDIS – information on the 6th and 7th Research Framework Programmes www.cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html IUCN funding information for Europe (www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/rofe_funding/funding.htm) Welcome Europe (www.welcomeurope.com) 2005 EU Funding for the Environment: A handbook for the 2007-2013 programming period (WWF) (www.panda.org) 2006 Handbook for Environmental Project Funding, European Commission (www.ec.europa.eu/environment/funding/pdf/handbook_funding.pdf)

Further details can be found in Annex 3

3.3 Institutional Environment for Implementing the EPCS & GSPC In Europe Delivery of the EPCS/GSPC targets can only be effective through the concerted efforts of individuals, local communities, NGOs, academic institutions, government agencies and regional institutions such as the EU and the Council of Europe. Much of the funding to implement the targets will come from national and EU sources and the EPCS/GSPC needs a far higher profile among the relevant institutions of Europe. 3.3.1 National Governments National signatory governments of the CBD are responsible for achieving and reporting on the targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). Each government has a designated focal point and is required to submit national reports on progress to the CBD (see www.biodiv.org/doc/lists/nfp-cbd-GSPC.pdf for national focal points). The implementation of the EPCS/GSPC targets requires a high degree of commitment from different national government agencies particularly those engaged with environment, agriculture, water management, forestry, education and research. In the UK and Ireland, lead organisations have been assigned to facilitate different targets, and these lead organisations are made up of government agencies, academic institutions and NGOs. The profile of the GSPC/EPCS needs to be raised considerably at the level of national implementing and funding agencies and also among the general public if progress is to be made. 3.3.2 European Union The European Union is the most significant and influential institutional structure in Europe – both within the EU and outside, both in terms of funding but also in setting, and monitoring, regional polices and strategies. Of the three main institutions that develop EU policy – the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission – the European Commission (EC) is the institution which implements policy and administers the EU budget. The EC has 25 Commissioners (minister), one for each of the current member states, and an EC office in each member country. Effective awareness raising of plant conservation issues in general and the EPCS and GSPC in particular needs to be targeted more directly towards the EC and its different Directorates. The EU Directorates most directly related to the implementation of the EPCS & GSPC are: DG Environment (www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/index_en.htm) DG Agriculture and Rural Development (www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/agriculture/index_en.htm) DG Regional Policy (www.ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm) DG Research (www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/index_en.html) Also for marine plant habitats and algae DG Fisheries and Marine Affairs (www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/fisheries/index_en.htm) And with the increasing focus on climate change in relation to plant conservation DG Tren (Transport and Energy) (www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/index_en.html) Lobbying for plant conservation issues within an institution as large as the EC is complex and time consuming, however there are several routes:

15 • Targeted representation to the different Directorates, particularly if this can be related to the annual work programme • Providing targeted data and information to organisations such as the European Environment Agency and the European Topic Centres • Responding to open consultations, ‘Your Voice in Europe’ www.ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm • Forming alliances with other conservation organisations for greater lobbying power • Contacting a member of the NGO forum – the European Habitats Forum (EHF) – which has twice yearly meetings in Brussels with the Head of the EC Nature Conservation Unit • In cases where problems with national implementation and funding strategies cannot be resolved with the national government agency, representations can be made to the national office of the European Commission, the relevant Directorate in Brussels, through national Members of the European Parliament and also through Planta Europa which has a place on the EHF NGO forum

Key regional organisations working for nature conservation in Europe (not including the Directorates of the European Commission)

BGCI: Botanic Gardens Conservation International (www.bgci.org) Birdlife Europe: (www.birdlife.org/regional/europe/index.html) Biodiversity International (formerly IPGRI): (www.bioversityinternational.org/Regions/Europe/index.asp) Butterfly Conservation Europe: (www.bc-europe.org) CEEWEB: Central and East European Working Group for the Enhancement of Biodiversity (www.ceeweb.org) ECCB: the European Committee for the Conservation of Bryophytes ECCF & AEM: The European Committee for the Conservation of Fungi and Association of European Mycologists ECNC: European Centre for Nature Conservation (www.ecnc.nl) EEA & EIONET: European Environment Agency (www.eea.europa.eu) and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (www.eionet.europa.eu) EEB: European Environment Bureau (www.eeb.org) EHF: European Habitats Forum (www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/rofe_at_work/ehf.htm) ENSCONET: The European Native Seed Conservation Network (www.ensconet.com) ESCONET: The European Science Communication Network (www.esconet.org) ETC: European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (www.biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu) The EUROPARC Federation: (www.europarc.org) European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum: (www.pgrforum.org) Eurosite: (www.eurosite-nature.org) FERN: (www.fern.org) FOE: Friends of the Earth Europe (www.foeeurope.org) IMCG: International Mire Conservation Group (www.imcg.net) IUCN-Regional Office for Europe (www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/index.html) IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation (www.iucn.org/places/medoffice/en/index.html) KNNV: Royal Dutch Society for Nature Conservation (www.knnv.nl) REC: Regional Environmental Centre (www.rec.org) SEH: Societas Europea Herpetologica (www.gli.cas.cz/SHE) TRAFFIC Europe: (www.traffic.org/network/network4.htm) UNEP-WCMC: United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (www.unep-wcmc.org) Wetlands International: (www.wetlands.org) WWF European Policy Office: (www.panda.org/epo)

3.3.3 Council of Europe The Council of Europe (COE) currently has 46 member states within Europe and has a Pan- European remit which includes human rights, social cohesion, legal affairs, education, culture, heritage, environment, youth and sport. The main frameworks, which deliver the environmental objectives of the COE are the Bern Convention and the Emerald network, the Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS) and the Pan-European Ecological Network. The Bern Convention and the Emerald network promote the extension of European ecological networks outside of the EU area and prepare pre-accession states for inclusion of their sites

16 within the EU Natura 2000 network. The Bern Convention and the other environmental projects of the COE, such as the Invasive Alien Expert Group are developed through expert groups and the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention is the organisation that approves the species and habitats to be included on the appendices of the Convention and oversees its implementation. The Council of Europe is a member of the Planta Europa network and was instrumental in the development of the EPCS. 3.3.4 Convention on Biological Diversity CBD The CBD currently has 168 signatory governments around the world. The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) of the CBD, of which the European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS) is a regional component, is designed to be implemented by a series of national GSPC focal points and a series of lead partners assigned to facilitate different targets. To date there have been three national reports on the progress of the CBD (the 3rd National Report was the first opportunity for national governments to report on progress in implementation of the GSPC), a stakeholder analysis of each target carried out by the lead partners, and a series of reviews of the implementation of each target (www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross- cutting/plant/default.asp). The fourth national report due in March 2009 will provide an important opportunity to assess progress towards the 2010 target, drawing upon an analysis of the current status and trends in biodiversity and actions taken to implement the Convention at the national level, as well as to consider what further efforts are needed. The commitment and capacities of national focal points, national governments and lead organisations have varied significantly, and the effective implementation of the GSPC/EPCS in Europe will require a more coordinated and consistent approach from the focal points, national governments, the lead organisations and the many different organisations which contribute to the strategy. 3.3.5 Planta Europa Planta Europa is a network of organisations working to conserve the wild plants, both higher and lower, of Europe and their habitats. The network is administered by a Secretariat and run by a Steering Committee drawn from experts throughout Europe. The Planta Europa Network was established by like-minded organisations, wishing to work together in a co-ordinated fashion to find and implement permanent solutions to these problems. It works by sharing expertise and information on plant conservation and facilitating opportunities for the development of Pan- European projects and partnerships. Planta Europa’s Objectives are to: • Implement the European Plant Conservation Strategy and through that the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation • Build a constituency in Europe that will provide the mandate for the work of Planta Europa, and thus have positive influence in decisions taken at a European level on nature conservation issues • Provide an effective way of spreading the plant conservation message – practise and theory • Raise awareness of plant conservation in Europe. • Provide a focus for the Planta Europa Secretariat effort for example in relation to responding to casework or searching for partners for projects • Foster plant conservation skills, knowledge, and experience exchange in Europe The network, with its increasing membership and their wider interests, is seen to be the principal (de facto) agency for monitoring the implementation of the EPCS. In addition to the significant development of the EPCS, Plant Europa and its members have also been responsible for developing and supporting two other major plant conservation initiatives across Europe - the Important Planta Area and Micro-reserves Programmes – and engaging in European policy fora. As well as emphasising the key role of the EPCS and GSPC in delivering a range of conservation strategies, the Planta Europa network needs to maintain and develop more structured alliances with key networks and Pan-European organisations in order to maximise the potential for implementing the EPCS on the ground. 3.3.6 Enabling Environment Potential and Challenges Opportunities • The EPSC/GSPC in Europe has the potential to make a direct contribution to nature conservation across a range of existing plant conservation strategies and in its own

17 right. This contribution is all the more relevant given that plant data, especially fungi and lower plants, are often under-used in conservation planning due to their perceived complexity and lack of data. • This potential of the EPCS/GSPC in Europe needs to be brought to the attention of decision makers, funding agencies, and research groups especially in the European Commission and national governments, who are obliged to report on their progress in implementing the GSPC. • Many of the targets of the EPCS/GSPC in Europe are eligible for funding under regional, particularly EU, sources, and Planta Europa, its members, and lead organisations should attempt to make greater use of these regional funds to implement the strategy at the national and regional level. • One of the most effective ways of raising the profile of the strategy is by improving the EPCS internet communication strategy, the use of effective EPSC clearing house mechanisms, and by contributing data and information more effectively to existing initiatives. • Planta Europa has the opportunity to use the framework of the EPCS to strengthen key alliances with other conservation organisations in Europe Challenges • Very few countries have developed an implementation or funding strategy for implementing the GSPC and EPCS at a national level. National governments need to be made aware of their obligations under the CBD and implement effective plans for meeting the targets. • The role of national GSPC focal points needs to be strengthened significantly • Increasing the profile of the EPSC and GSPC will require greater lobbying, particularly within the European Commission from, among others, the Planta Europa Secretariat and members and national GSPC focal points. • The Secretariats and implementing agencies associated with the conservation strategies outlined in section 3.1 above need to be informed and engaged with the objectives of the ESCP/GSPC and incorporate them into their work programmes as far as is possible. • Many of the regional funding sources outlined in section 3.2 above are highly competitive and require high levels of fund-raising capacity, which is often missing in smaller research or conservation organisations. National focal points and regional organisations need to assist where possible.

18 Part II

Case studies which contribute towards the targets of the GSPC and EPCS in Europe

Ethnobotany in Northern Albania (Photo credit: Andrea Pieroni)

19 GSPC Target 1 (EPCS Target 1.1): A widely accessible working list of known plant species as a step towards a complete world flora

Project: The European Checklist for Bryophytes (Liverworts and Mosses) Checklists are an essential step in assessing the overall distribution and also the threat to particular species. The Checklist for European liverworts was published in 2002. The list covers all the countries of Europe including the European part of Russia (west of the Urals and including Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land in the Russian Artic), the European parts of Turkey and Kazakhstan, and the northern Macaronesian Islands. Over 500 taxa are included on the list, including their national conservation status in the countries involved, and the authors also report on those taxa just outside of the study region. In addition to the checklists of bryophtes the ECCB are also coordinating an update of the 1995 Red List of European Bryophytes.

Publications: Söderstöm, Urmi and Váňa, 2002, Distribution of Hepaticae and Anthocerotae in Europe and

Macronesia, LINDBERGIA 27, 3-47, Lund 2002 (available on the ECCB website see below) Coordinating Organisation: The European Committee for the Conservation of Bryophytes (ECCB) Website: www.bio.ntnu.no/ECCB/index.php

Project: Bryological Association of South Eastern Europe (BASEE) This association has been set up to provide information for a better understanding of bryophytes, to revive bryology in South East Europe and to act as a focus for cooperation among bryologist within this region and beyond. The six main projects planned for the association are: 1. Multi-lingual bryological glossary of South East Europe 2. Distribution of SE European bryophytes 3. Bryophyte checklist of SE Europe 4. Bryophyte Flora of SE Europe and adjoining regions 5. Bryophyte red list of SE Europe 6. Bryological bibliography of SE Europe

Contact: Dr. Marko Sabovljevic ([email protected] or [email protected]) Website: www.bryo-see.org.yu

GSPC Target 2 (EPCS target: 1.2): A preliminary assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species at national, regional and international levels. Project RapidList Target 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) exists because there are very few plants on the IUCN Red List, and because the colossal amount of knowledge on plant species’ conservation status could be drawn together to create a preliminary list. IUCN committed to lead the work to achieve Target 2 of the GSPC and other parties were asked to support IUCN’s initiative. IUCN has already contributed substantively to implementing Target 2; in 2002-3 it carried out a stakeholder consultation on Target 2 which highlighted the large number of national red lists which have been completed. What is it? RapidList is an online tool to undertake preliminary assessments of the conservation status of plants. It asks the user a series of questions based on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria) and quickly classifies the species into three groups: likely threatened, likely not threatened, or likely data deficient. Within just a few minutes, and with minimal data, an assessor obtains a preliminary assessment of the conservation status of any plant. Why preliminary assessments? Plant experts in the Species Survival Commission (SSC) are unable to cope with the increasingly data and resource intensive process of Red Listing, and as a result, very few assessments for

20 plants exist. Since the Categories and Criteria were upgraded in 2001, only 12,906 plants have been assessed and of those, only 1000 have full documentation. (The Red List contains 40,000+ assessments in total.) RapidList does not intend to replace full assessments, but to help prioritise the species which should be fully assessed, and in some cases may provide a practical alternative to Red Listing. How is it useful? Preliminary assessments can be used to prioritize species for full assessments, to directly inform further conservation work, such as identification of important plant areas (Target 5 of the GSPC), or to mobilize resources for conservation. Because they are based on the well-respected Red List Categories and Criteria, preliminary assessments are credible in the first instance, but can also be fairly easily turned into full assessments (with adequate data). What next? RapidList will be launched online shortly and tested by plant experts in the SSC. Following any necessary revisions, it will be distributed to any plant expert interested in using it. It will be piloted in the Plants for Prosperity Initiative and through several smaller projects with plant specialist groups (Mediterranean Island Plants, Bryophytes and Cuban plants).

Contact: IUCN Species Survival Commission ([email protected]) Website: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/index.htm, www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/rapidlist.htm

Project: A European Red List for Macro-fungi Fungi species are not currently represented or targeted for legal protection on the annexes of the EU Habitats Directive or the Council of Europe Bern Convention, which makes an assessment of their European conservation status all the more urgent. At the XIV Congress of European Mycologists in Katsiveli (Yalta, Ukraine) in September 2003 a project to establish a red list was agreed by all the delegates. About 30 European countries are participating in the current project. The first step was to compile into one list all the official, unofficial and preliminary red lists from every European country. In 2005 the newly formed European Mycological Association (EMA – formerly ECCF), held a workshop on red-listing at the Cordoba Conference which was attended by 28 mycologists from 19 countries. From 2005 to 2007 the long list of threatened or potentially endangered species (6500) was ‘cleaned’, i.e. synonyms or taxa considered irrelevant for further evaluation were removed. A list of 3000 species is undergoing further evaluation by experts and a final list will be forwarded to a larger group throughout Europe in 2007 with a questionnaire in order to assess the species using IUCN red listing criteria. The project is being coordinated by the mycologists Anders Dahlberg and Hjalmar Croneborg at the Swedish Species Information Centre, and ArtDatabank have provide finance for a mycologist, Jacob Heilmann-Clausen, to work on this project. The future aims are to: • Publish the revised red list, sanctioned by IUCN, and to make it available on the web by 2010 • To enlarge the project to make red lists of other fungi • To ensure that fungi are included on the Bern Convention and other conservation legislation • To finish the European mapping of selected species

Coordinating organisation: The European Mycological Association (EMA) (formerly ECCF)

Contact: Dr. Anders Dahlberg ([email protected]) or Dr. Claudia Perini ([email protected])

Funders: ArtDataBank (Sweden)

21

GSPC Target 3 (EPCS targets 1.3, 1.6, 2.7-8, 5.3): Development of models with protocols for conservation and sustainable use, based on research and practical experience EPCS target 1.3: Manual of tried and tested (species and habitats) monitoring protocols for scientists and naturalists made available on the web Project: Manuals for Making Inventories and Monitoring Species and Habitats The State Institute for Nature Conservation in Croatia has produced a manual for monitoring plant species which is available for on-line download and is aimed at naturalists and amateur botanists. The information collected using these manuals is intended to be used in the context of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Programme. The manual is essentially a field aid which comes in two parts, a part which describes the methodology for monitoring and collecting inventories, and a part with descriptions of individual taxa and habitats including standard forms for recording field data. Currently taxon sheets are available for vascular plant species found in Annexes II, IV and V of the EU Habitats Directive and for the rare and endangered habitats of Croatia. Details of more plant species will be prepared in 2007 and manuals on animals and marine habitats are in preparation. Workshops, which included practical fieldwork, were held for target groups to explain how to use the manual and several projects are underway which are using the methodology outlined in the manuals. For example the Biological Students Association are currently working on a project at the Bijele and Samarske Stijene Strict Reserves, including collection and identification of plant material and an inventory of the flora at these sites. In another project all of the primary and secondary school children in Medumurska and Krapinsko-zagorska were invited to take part in monitoring of the chequered fritillary (Fritillaria meleagris), status of Vulnerable in the national red list. In addition to the Monitoring Manuals, a checklist and red list of lichen species of Croatia (c. 1000 species), a red list of fungi (314 species) and a database of invasive species are being completed.

Publications: Nikolić T. (2006): Flora. Biodiversity of Croatia – Manuals for Inventory and Monitoring. State Institut

for Nature Protection, Zagreb. Topić J., Ilijanić Lj., Tvrtković N., Nikolić T. (2006): Habitats. Biodiversity of Croatia – Manuals for Inventory and Monitoring. State Institut for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (available for download at www.dzzp.hr/publikacije_knjige.htm#prirucnici) Coordinating Organisation: The State Institute for Nature Conservation (Croatia) Website: www.dzzp.hr Funders: EC CARDS Programme: Capacity Building of the State Institute for Nature Conservation

GSPC Target 4 (EPCS targets 1.7, 2.12-2.19): At least 10% of each of the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved. Project: IPANET, Establishment of a volunteer network for the Important Plant Areas in Turkey. The Important Plant Areas project in Turkey cuts across many of the targets of the EPCS and GSPC, including targets 4, 5, 7 and 15. Turkey contains 5 eco-regions as defined by WWF including Mediterranean forests, woodland and scrub. Turkey is one of the most important regions of floristic diversity in Europe. There are c.10,000 species with 35% endemism, with habitats ranging from semi-desert, to temperate rainforest, to grassland and wetland. The country falls across three floristic regions and contains two of Vavilov’s eight Centres of Crop Plant Diversity. However only a tiny portion, less than 1% of Turkey’s land area receives protection for nature conservation and only 12 of the 87 Bern Convention species receive any protection, usually only one site per species. In addition Turkey has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe and pressures on nature are increasing. The IPA Identification Project in Turkey was coordinated by three organisations: Doğal Hayatõ Koruma Derneği (DHKD), The University of Istanbul, and Flora & Fauna International (FFI). 122 IPAs, covering 12% of the total land area of Turkey were identified from 1994 to 2002; the abridged results published in 2003, full results published in 2005. Among the greatest threats to

22 the IPAs is a lack of conservation measures on the ground and the lack of participation of civil society in the conservation process. The IPANet Project aims to create and train a strong civil network working at community level with various stakeholders (Government offices, local NGOs, universities, private sector organisations and individuals) to allow effective participatory processes to influence political decisions on resource management. Training and capacity building of local IPA networks will be targeted at: Lobbying – influencing local decision making; community development related to conservation/sustainable use; formal and non-formal education; educational materials and programmes; citizen science (i.e. inventories and monitoring). The project will be piloted at 9 IPAs located across 7 geographical regions in Turkey: Ergene Basin IPA (Edirne and Kirklareli); Omerli Basin IPA (Istanbul); Uludağ IPA (Bursa); Coruh Valley IPA (Erzurum and Artvin); Baba Mountain IPA (Mugla); Lara-Perakende Sand Dunes IPA (Antalya); Ahõr Mountain IPA (Kahramanmaras); Erciyes Mountain IPA (Kayseri).

Coordinating organisation: Stichting Rubicon (The Netherlands) Implementing organisation in Turkey: Doğal Hayatõ Koruma Derneği (DHKD) Partner organisations: FLORON, INV (The Netherlands) Contact: Sema Atay ([email protected]) Website: www.dhkd.org Funding: BBI-MATRA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands)

GSPC Target 5 (EPCS targets 1.4-5; 2.1-3; 2.14): Protection of 50% of the most important areas for plant diversity assured Project: Important Plant Areas in Belarus Context: Belarus has been involved in the development of IPA criteria and the identification of IPAs since 1995. From 2002-2005 a team from the Institute of Experimental Botany in partnership with IUCN-CIS identified the first ten IPAs in Belarus. This project was part of the larger IPAs in Central and Eastern Europe project and illustrated the challenges and potential of implementing European IPA criteria at the eastern edge of Europe. In particular the challenges include a lack of an up-to-date pan-European red list for plants, the lack of eastern species on the Bern Convention or Habitats Directives Annexes and the translation of the Bern and EU habitats into the national classification systems. However this region also contains many of the largest un-fragmented areas of woodland and wetland in Europe. Results: Ten IPAs totalling 698,330 ha were identified. Site selection was based on selecting larger sites, which contain a high number of qualifying features and a complex of habitat types. All IPAs currently have legal protection, four have high level national protection and six have a lower level of national protection, however ensuring effective site management for plants at these sites is an important conservation issue. The key threats are deforestation and intensified forest management, lack of management planning, land improvement measures, tourist and recreation pressures, fires and the absence of monitoring. Future plans: There are three main directions for the development of the IPA process in Belarus • The selection and description of further IPAs (in 2007 a description of the new IPA, Braslav Lakes, will be prepared) • The development of ecological management programmes for individual IPAs in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and the reserve administrations (in 2007 the first management plan for Blue Lakes IPA will be prepared) • The development of joint management projects for trans-border IPAs (with Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Russia) This project has provided important information on the selection of IPAs in the specific ecological conditions of eastern Europe which will assist in the development of regional criteria lists and the identification of IPAs in the Altai-Sayan Project described below.

Coordinating Organisation: Institute of Experimental Botany, Belarus National Academy of Sciences Partners: IUCN-CIS Moscow; Plantlife International Contact: Dr. Oleg Maslovsky ([email protected]) Website: www.biobel.bas-net.by/botany Publications & on-line information: Maslovsky O. et al, 2005, Important Plant Areas of Belarus Anderson, Radford & Kusik, 2005, Important Plant Areas of Central & Eastern Europe: Priority Areas for Plant Conservation, Plantlife International Important Plant Areas on-line database (www.plantlifeipa.org/reports.asp) 23 Funders: PIN-MATRA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands) GSPC Target 5 (EPCS targets 1.4-5; 2.1-3; 2.14): Protection of 50% of the most important areas for plant diversity assured Project: IPAs in the Kemerovo Region of the Altai-Sayan Eco-Region of the Russian Federation Context: The mountainous Altai-Sayan region is one of the most diverse in Russia, containing 334 endemic and 600 sub-endemic plant species, 76 are in the Russian red book. However current legislation and practice are not delivering plant conservation in this globally important region. The aim of this project is to improve plant conservation by developing an effective plant conservation strategy, improving site protection, and sustainable use of wild plant resources by engaging the main stakeholders (national and regional administration, local government, protected area managers, civil society organisations (e.g. NGOs, local traders, and the regional scientific community) Aims: The main aims of this project are • to develop a Plant Conservation Strategy for the Kemerova Region based on the targets of the GSPC and the EPCS • to identify IPAs in six areas of the Russian Federation and to identify threats at IPAs and test solutions for their mitigation • to analyse the market for wild plants and their derivatives, by identifying stakeholders, compiling a basic list of species and any threats caused by their harvesting An initial workshop to agree regional criteria for identifying IPAs in the Altai-Sayan Region was held in Novosibirsk in February 2007. Progress will be reported at the Planta Europa Conference in Romania in September and the results will be published in 2 books (Important Plant Areas of Northern Eurasia and Plants and Markets: Analytical Review)

Coordinating Organisation: IUCN-CIS Moscow Partners: Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; NGO Siberian Environmental Centre (SibEcoCentre); Plantlife International Contact: Dr. Galina Pronkina ([email protected]) Website: www.iucn.ru Funders: BBI-MATRA (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands)

Project: Plant Micro-reserves in the Valencian Community (Spain) Context: The Valencian Community in eastern central Spain is home to 3150 vascular plant species. 350 of them are endemic taxa (60 endemic to the Valencia area) and 68 are listed as critically endangered under IUCN criteria. Many of the endemic taxa and the rare species such as the Eurosiberian relicts live in micro-habitats, e.g. non zonal vegetation types occupying small surface areas (such as temporary ponds, dunes, gypsic outcrops, cliffs, etc). Many important Mediterranean species follow this pattern and PMRs are a valuable tool for plant conservation in this diverse region. They are intended as an addition to and not a replacement of larger protected area networks. Methodology: • The PMRs are legally protected by the Valencian Government • All the plants are strictly protected but traditional activities such as grazing and mowing are permitted • The site selection is made by teams of botanists and includes public consultation • Privately owned sites can be added to the network if the owner agrees to a contract for the management of the sites, accompanied by a one-off payment and in some cases grants for specific management techniques • The declaration of a PMR (published in the official gazette) is accompanied by a management plan which can include in situ conservation actions and ex situ methods such as collection of seed for the germplasm bank at the Botanical Gardens of Valencia • The sites are marked in the field by a series of information boards Progress: Currently 230 PMRs have been identified in the Valencian Community, 30 on private land and 200 on public land. They cover an area of 1440 ha and contain natural and semi-natural habitats. The majority of PMRs are less than 4ha. Over 85% of the endemic species are represented by at least one population within the network. Habitat restoration and/or

24 management of endangered species was carried out in more than 30% of micro-reserves during the 1999-2003 LIFE funded project. The marking of sites has increased awareness and prevented developments in certain areas.

Coordinating organisation: Generalitat Valenciana Conselleria de Medio Ambiente Contact: Dr. Emilio Laguna ([email protected]) Website: www.orto.cth.gva.es/website/metadatos/eepp_microrreservas.xml Funders: Generalitat Valenciana and EU LIFE Project ‘Conservation of priority habitats of the Valencian Community ’ Publications: Laguna E., 2004,The plant micro-reserve initiative in the Valencian community and its use to conserve populations of crop wild relatives. Crop Wild Relative, Issue 2, July 2004, pp.10-13 Laguna, E. 2001, The micro-reserves as a tool for the conservation of threatened plants in Europe, Nature and Environment Series No, 121, Council of Europe, Strasbourg Proceedings of the Fourth Planta Europa Conference Valencia 2004 (www.nerium.net/ plantaeuropa/Proceedings.htm)

GSPC Target 6 (EPCS target 2.9): At least 30% of production land managed consistent with the conservation of plant diversity. Project: Central European Grasslands:Conservation and Sustainable Use The Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology in Slovakia have compiled a database of the natural and semi-natural grasslands of Slovakia and are using their analyses to target conservation action at specific sites, and to influence Natura 2000 and Rural Development Policy. To date the grasslands database and GIS system contains data on 16,278 grassland polygons and 928,955 species records, and 615 map sheets out of a total of 671 have been completed. These data have been used to identify Natura 2000 sites and to identify valuable grassland sites for inclusion in the Agri-environment programme, through a grassland certification system. At the moment the scheme for protection of semi-natural and natural grasslands have been applied on 101,000 hectares of certified grasslands. A series of seminars aimed at explaining the benefits of the agri-environment programme to farmers have taken place and a report with recommendations for improvements to the 2007- 2013 Rural Development Funding and Implementation Mechanisms was published. In addition a publication explaining the value of grasslands and the mechanisms available to conserve them, aimed at farmers, has been published and is available on-line (‘Grasslands of Slovakia: the Guide on Wise Use’), and a training manual for teachers and schoolchildren ‘World of Grasslands’ has been distributed and launched through a series of workshops. The GEF funded project was targeted at four specific areas of grasslands importance, the Morava River floodplain, Olšavica, Mala Fatra National park, and Slovensky Raj National Park, each representing a different ecological problem relating to grasslands, from lowland to alpine ecosystems. The project aims to promote sustainable use of meadows through preparation and implementation of scientifically based and consensus-based restoration and management plans. In the Olšavica valley efforts have been targeted towards demonstrating positive examples and to motivate farmers to manage valuable grasslands for biodiversity through restoration measures (cutting trees/shrubs, mowing/grazing of abandoned grasslands) in order to fulfil conditions for sustainable funding through agro-environmental programmes. At Mala Fatra National Park research has been focussed on the dynamics of mountain grassland vegetation and optimal management measures, including the possibilities of restoring abandoned grasslands by mowing.

Coordinating organisation: Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology (Slovakia) Website: www.daphne.sk Publications: www.daphne.sk/daphne_public.htm) Contact: Dobromil Galvánek ([email protected]) Partners : State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic, National Park Slovensky raj, National Park Maly Fatra, Protected Landscape Area Zahorie, Municipality of Olsavica, Co-operative Farm Olsavica- Brutovce, Faculty of Construction of Slovak Technical University Funding: World Bank - Global Environment Facility (GEF) Medium Size Project Other grassland projects related to agrobiodiversity in CEE: www.veenecology.nl

25

Munsur Mountain IPA Turkey (Photo credit: Sema Atay)

GSPC Target 6 (EPCS target 2.9): At least 30% of production land managed consistent with the conservation of plant diversity. Project: Important Arable Plant Areas (United Kingdom) Arable plant species are the most threatened group of plants in the United Kingdom. Although almost 30% of the country (7 million hectares) is under cultivation, arable plant species suffer continuing and often terminal decline, out of a total of c.150, 7 species are extinct and 54 are currently threatened. Reasons for the decline include: widespread use of herbicides; improved seed cleaning techniques, increased use of nitrogen fertilisers; changes in crop rotation; loss of crops such as rye and flax; loss of over-winter stubble and summer fallow; effective drainage; removal of boundaries and loss of field margins. Recent measures have recognised this threat and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan contains 12 vascular arable plants, 5 arable bryophytes and the arable field margin itself as a priority habitat. The UK Important Arable Plant Area was developed to identify sites of European, national and county level importance for arable plants. The methodology is outlined in Byfield and Wilson (2005). The first list identified133 sites as being of county or national importance, and 6 of these were identified as important at the European level, although this is expected to increase. The next stage of the process was to secure the conservation of key IAPA sites (focused in 5 counties) using sustainable management under the agri-environment schemes available, particularly the new Environmental Stewardship Scheme launched in England in 2005. During this implementation the project identified a number of problems within this new scheme for delivering arable plant conservation and a corresponding list of recommendations for improvement: 1. Review of Stewardship Scheme: uncropped cultivated margins are the most effective management option for rare arable plants, however farmers are currently free to choose a range of management options under the new Entry Level Scheme and the financial incentive to carry out these techniques is insufficient compared with the careful management that is required. 2. Targeting hotspots: key arable plant areas need to be targeted for conservation action 3. Natural regeneration over sown mixtures: the schemes have favoured sown mixes, often non-native, for field margins, which benefit birds but not the local arable plants which could regenerate from the seed bank 4. More best practice advice and flexible management is required 5. Research gaps within arable plant conservation need to be addressed

26

Coordinating organisation: Plantlife International Partners: Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Website: www.plantlife.org.uk and www.arableplants.org.uk

Contact: Kate Still ([email protected])

Funders : Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, Natural England

Publications: Still, K. & Byfield A. (2007) New Priorities for Arable Plant Conservation, Plantlife Walker et al, 2006, DEFRA field margin evaluation: Phase 3: Evaluation of agri-environment cultivation options in England; Effectiveness of new agri-environment schemes in conserving arable plants in intensively farmed landscapes, ADAS, CEH & DEFRA Byfield A.J. & Wilson P.J. (2005) Important Arable Plant Areas: Identifying priority sites for arable plant conservation in the UK, Plantlife International (Salisbury)

GSPC Target 7 (EPCS targets 2.2-2.3): 60% of the world’s threatened species conserved in situ This is a particularly difficult target to assess because of the lack of a European red list for plants. There are many national species protection and recovery programmes however Lady’s Slipper provides a good case study of a species, which is rare, threatened or extinct over a wide range of European countries, and has a Council of Europe Conservation Action Plan which includes in situ and ex situ methodologies. Project: Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium calceolus) Conservation in Europe Distribution: the species is distributed throughout Eurasia from Britain to the Pacific. In Europe the species is found in the mountains and hills of the nemoral and boreal regions and in the lowlands of the Baltic. The present strongholds are in Fennoscandia, the Alps, parts of the Carpathians, and the Podolian Plateau. Threats: in most of its range it is rare in numbers of stations and individuals, which is indicative of a high extinction threat. The main threats are changes in forest regime and water table; closing of the forest canopy and increased undergrowth; soil eutrophication (nitrification in particular), trampling, grazing, cutting of flowers and digging up of bulbs Conservation actions in the Council of Europe Plan: Managed protected areas Diffuse habitat measures Individual protection Population reinforcement and reintroduction International Integration and Information Exchange Current Conservation Projects: 8 EU LIFE Projects have included Lady’s Slipper Conservation since 1996 Sweden (2006) – Restoration of the wetland area of Hejnum Kallgate Austria (2006) – Bisamberg habitat management Austria (2005) – Conservation strategies for woodlands and rivers in the Gesäuse Mountains Finland (2000) – Conservation of Cypripedium calceolus and Saxifraga hirculus in Northern Finland Finland (2000) – Herb-rich forests, forests of Dencrocopos Leucotus and western taigas in Karelia Austria (2000) – Wild river landscape of the Tyrolean Lech France (1999) – Forests and linked habitats in Burgundy Spain (1996) – Conservation of 13 endangered plant species in Aragon A series of research projects into Cypripedium calceolus populations in North East Poland have been carried out. (see references) In the United Kingdom an ex situ propagation methodology was developed at Kew Gardens (see references) through the Sainsbury Orchid Conservation Project, and a targeted reintroduction has been carried out at 12 sites in England. Until this project the plant was known from only one site in the UK and had been thought to be extinct at the start of the twentieth century. This successful project has shown the potential for reintroduction and reinforcement of Lady’s slipper populations at other sites in Europe.

27 Relevant publications & websites:

Brzosko, E., 2002, Dynamics of island populations of Cypripedium calceolus in the Biebrza river valley (north-east Poland). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Number 1, May 2002, pp. 67- 77(11) Nicole, F., Brzosko E., Till-Bottraud I., 2005, Population viability analysis of Cypripedium calceolus in a protected area: longevity, stability and persistence. Journal of Ecology 93 (4), 716–726. Ramsay, M.M. & Stewart J., 1998, Re-established of the Lady’s Slipper Orchid (Cypripedium

calceolus) in Britain, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 126 (pp. 173-181)

Terschuren, J. 1999, Action Plan for the Conservation of Cypripedium calceolus in Europe, Nature and Environment No.100, Council of Europe Publishing (www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co- operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/publications/SN100-E.pdf) LIFE projects database www.ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm Sainsbury Orchid Conservation Project (www.kew.org (education, resources, information sheets) UK Biodiversity Action Plan for Lady’s Slipper (www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=255)

GSPC Target 8 (EPCS targets 1.9, 2.4-6, 2.11): 60% of threatened species in accessible ex situ collections, preferably in the country of origin, 10 per cent of them included in recovery and restoration programmes EPCS target 2.6: At least 12 priority species of bryophyte brought into ex-situ conservation and methodology promoted internationally The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has been developing a programme to standardise methods for the collection, sterilisation, tissue culture and cryopreservation of bryophytic material since 2000. The focus is to expand the living and cryopreserved bryophyte collection, and to develop methods for introducing specific species into their natural environment. There is an emphasis on developing ex situ techniques as a complement to, and not a replacement for, in situ conservation efforts. Collection: Three protocols have been produced and circulated for the collection of a) desiccation tolerant mosses, b) desiccation intolerant mosses and leafy liverworts and c) thalloid liverworts and hornworts. The protocols emphasise the importance of limiting detrimental effects to the in situ populations and collecting representative genetic samples. Propagation: Bryophytes are grown in axenic culture (without fungal, algal and bacterial contaminants) in the ex situ collection. Although artificial, axenic culture provides a more uniform and secure method of maintaining plants in a tissue culture collection, which can prevent material being overwhelmed by contaminants during recovery from cryopreservation, and allows them to be transported across international borders. Storage: Cryopreservation is the storage of living material at -196 oC in liquid nitrogen and has been used successfully for the long-term storage of many different plants. A standard protocol has been developed for the cryopreservation and recovery of protonemal material and protocols are under development for leafy gametophores. The endangered bryophytes in the programme are: Aplodon wormskjoldii (Hornem.) Kindb.; Bartramia stricta Brid.; Cyclodictyon laetevirens Mitt.; Ditrichum cornubicum Paton; Ditrichum plumbicola Crundw.; Jamesoniella undulifolia (Nees) Müll. Frib.; Leptodontium gemmascens (Mitt. Ex Hunt) Braithw.; Micromitrium tenerum (Bruch & Schimp.) Crosby; Orthodontium gracile Schwägr. ex Bruch, Schimp. & W. Gümbel; Orthotrichum obtusifolium Brid.; Orthotrichum pallens Bruch ex Brid.; Rhynchostegium rotundifolium ( Brid.) Bruch, Schimp. & W. Gümbel; Seligeria carnicolica (Breidl. & Beck) Nyholm; Tortula cernua (Huebener) Lindb. Weissia multicapsularis (Sm.) Mitt.; Weissia rostellata (Brid.) Lindb; Zygodon forsteri (Dicks.) Mitt.; Zygodon gracilis Wilson

Coordinating Organisation: Royal Botanic Garden, Kew (UK) Partners: Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage Contact: [email protected]. Website: www.rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/bbs/Learning/exsitu/exsitu.htm

28 Project: ENSCONET European Native Seed Conservation Network One of the main purposes of ENSCONET is to improve quality, co-ordination and integration of European seed conservation practise, policy and research for native plant species. A second main objective of ENSCONET is to assist the European Union and its conservation policy to meet its obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GSPC. ENSCONET currently holds a combined list of holdings of its member seed banks with 36,600 accessions, representing 6,100 taxa. Among them, 2,100 species are red-listed (>60% of all threatened species in Europe). There are 4 main activity areas: Collection: the main objectives are to prepare a detailed seed collection programme based on the species priorities in the GSPC, the EPCS, and the EU Sixth BAP, and to create an international standard for seed collecting of wild plant species, to maximise the genetic diversity effectiveness and longevity of the collected seed. (lead - Jardin Botanico Gran Canaria) Curation: the main objectives are to make an inventory of the seed conservation facilities and resources in the biogeographic regions in Europe, to disseminate information on best practices, to assess the capacity of the resources to meet needs and to initiate further research on the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of the native European spermatophyte flora. (lead - Centre of Biological Diversity Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences) Data Management: the main objective is to create a virtual seed bank for wild plant species native to Europe to integrate the collected data of ENSCONET partners. (lead -Trinity College Botanic Garden, Dublin) Dissemination: the main objectives are to create a web-page with information for specialists and non-specialists, an e-forum for discussing key concepts of seed preservation and facilitating exchange of specialised information, and an annual newsletter. (lead - University of Valencia, Botanic Garden)

Coordinating organisation: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (UK) Partner organisations (full and associate members): National and Kapodistrian University, Athens, Greece; Institute of Botany, Bratislava, Slovakia; Budapest Zoo & Botanical Garden, Hungary; Mediterranean Agronomic Institute Chania (Crete), Greece; IMGEMA-Jardín Botánico de Córdoba, Spain; Trinity College Dublin, Ireland; Jardin Botanico Gran Canaria, Spain; Agricultural Research Institute Cyprus Nicosia, Cyprus; Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain; National Botanic Garden Belgium Meise, Belgium; Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle Paris, France; Università di Pavia / Centro Flora Autoctona della Lombardia, Italy; Università di Pisa, Orto Botanico, Italy; Jardi Botanic de Soller (Mallorca), Spain; Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali Trento, Italy; Universitat de València, Spain; Universität Wien, Austria; Botanical Garden Polish Academy of Sciences Warsaw, Poland; Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Germany; Helsingin yliopisto, Helsinki, Finland; Jardim Botânico - Fundação da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal; Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway; Institute of Botany - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria; Musée national d’histoire natuelle Luxembourg, Luxembourg; Conservatoire et Jardin botanique de la Ville de Genève,

Switzerland; Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Austria

Contact: Jonas Müller ([email protected]) Website: www.ensconet.eu Funders: European Commission, Sixth Research Framework Programme

GSPC Target 9 (EPCS targets 1.2a, 2.1, 2.11): 70% of the genetic diversity of crops and other socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, and associated local and indigenous knowledge maintained. Project: European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum (PGR Forum) PGR Forum, coordinated by the University of Birmingham, was funded by the EC Framework 5 for Research and had 23 partner institutions in 21 countries in Europe, including IUCN (the World Conservation Union) and IPGRI (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, now Bioversity International). The project developed methodologies for crop wild relative (CWR) threat and conservation assessment, in situ data management methodologies, population management methodologies, and genetic erosion and genetic pollution methodologies. The Crop Wild Relative Information System (CWRIS – http://cwris.ecpgr.org/), launched in 2005, provides:

29 • Access to a searchable catalogue of socio-economic plants of Europe and the Mediterranean, including information on their distribution, as well as links to external information sources on their uses, habitats and threat status etc. Currently, there are 25,687 species and in excess of 280,000 distribution records contained in the Catalogue.

• A data model for the management of CWR information, with an emphasis on site and population data, which is required for the effective genetic conservation of in situ CWR populations. The data model is illustrated with a number of CWR case studies and a corresponding XML schema is also available.. The PGR Forum website also provides access to case studies and fact-sheets on conservation issues and recommendations for specific CWR (see example below), as well as five issues of the publication, Crop wild relative, which is now being taken forward by the newly formed IUCN/SSC CWR Specialist Group Example: the diploid oat and crop wild relative, Avena strigosa does not form a sustainable natural seed bank and must be repeatedly bolstered by crop escapes to survive. Its distribution has declined dramatically across Europe because of lack of cultivation, although it is still grown by small-scale farmers as a fodder crop in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland because of its tolerance to high wind and manganese poor soils. It has recently been included on the UK Red List (2005). As a result of recent conservation action, there are now several accessions in national and international gene banks. Crop Wild Relative Red List – If the 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is queried, only 184 CWR taxa have been assessed and considered threatened, and these are nearly all trees. However, PGR Forum stimulated Red Listing of CWR taxa in Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and across Africa (the latter for the wild relatives of cowpea). For example, in Portugal, 216 priority CWR species were assessed using the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria; one species was considered to be Extinct (EX) (Astragalus algarbiensis Bunge) because it has not been detected since the beginning of the 20th century, 58 species were assessed as Endangered (EN), 47 Data Deficient (DD), 43 Vulnerable (VU), 45 Near Threatened (NT) and 22 Critically Endangered (CR).Red Listing CWR will be a major activity of the recently formed IUCN/SSC CWR Specialist Group. PGR Forum staged the First International Conference on Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use in Sicily, Italy in 2005.One of the outputs of this conference is a Draft Global Strategy for Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use (available on the PGR website), which is being taken forward by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in the context of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the CBD Secretariat A major publication, Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use, which stems from PGR Forum and the First International Conference on CWR Conservation and Use, will be published by CABI Publishing later in 2007. This will be an important publication to raise awareness about the critical need for greater attention to these neglected resources.

Coordinating Organisation: School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham Contact: Dr. Nigel Maxted ([email protected]) Website: (www.pgrforum.org/index.htm) and http://cwris.ecpgr.org/

GSPC Target 10 (EPCS targets 2.21-22): Management plans in place for at least 100 major alien species that threaten plants, plant communities and ecosystems Project: DAISIE – Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe There are numerous local, national, and regional initiatives and research projects to deal with the growing problems of invasive alien plant species throughout Europe. The DAISIE project aims to provide an Alien Species Gateway to act as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for information on biological invasions in Europe. The project will provide direct access to national knowledge bases throughout Europe and easily accessible data on those species, which are invasive or potentially invasive in particular habitats, with the potential to be used in planning for the management of invasive species. The Project will have 4 main outputs: European Expertise Register – a directory of researchers and research

30 European Alien Species Register – including all known established alien species in Europe Invasive Alien Species Accounts – description of all established alien species known to be invasive in Europe Distribution Maps and Spatial Analysis – distribution maps of all invasive alien species in Europe known or suspected of having environmental or economic impacts

Coordinating organisation: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UK) Contacts : Dr. David Roy ([email protected]); Teresa Cunha ([email protected]) Website: www.europe-aliens.org

Partner organisations: Centre for the Kartography of Flora and Fauna (CKFF) Slovenia; Centre for

Ecological Research and Forestry Applications, Barcelona (CREAF) Spain; GoConsult, Gollasch Consulting, Germany; The Hebrew University Jerusalem, Israel; IBOT, Dept. of Invasion Biology, Institute of Botany, Academy of Science, Czech Republic; INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France; MOI Marine Organism Investigations, Ireland; NERC National Environmental Research Council, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK; NIO-IOLR National Institute of Oceanography, Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research; NKUA-ECO National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece; NWI, National Wildlife Institute, Italy; SEPA, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; UBA-A, The Federal Environment Agency, Austria; UBERN, University of Bern, Zoological Institute, Switzerland; UFZ Umweltforschungscentrum Leipzig-Halle, Dept. of Community Ecology, Germany; ULFPP, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Maritime Studies and Transportation, Slovenia; ZINRAS Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences Funding : EU Sixth Framework Research Funding

Other relevant information on invasive species in Europe: Council of Europe, 2003, European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species European Commission, 2004, LIFE Focus, Alien Species and Nature Conservation in the EU, the role of the LIFE Programme (www.ec.europa.eu/environment/life/infoproducts/alienspecies_en.pdf)

GSPC Target 11 (EPCS target 3.1): No species of flora endangered by international trade The two main mechanisms which are available to deal with the problems of trade in wild plants are the enforcement of legal protection under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), and the implementation of standards and models for sustainable collection and use of wild resources, such as the International Standard for the Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP). CITES in Europe: Information relating to the implementation of CITES in Europe can be found on the CITES website and also on the TRAFFIC website and the TRAFFIC EU website. The Royal Botanic Garden Kew have produced a series of publications and slide presentations for training on CITES listed plants. TRAFFIC Europe have recently completed a report on the implementation of CITES in 15 countries in Central and Eastern Europe and one of the main conclusions is the low priority given to the legislation both in the new and old EU member states.

Websites & Publications: www.cites.org www.traffic.org http://www.eu-wildlifetrade.org/html/en/wildlife_trade.asp CITES user guides on plants from the Kew (http://www.kew.org/conservation/cites-slidepack.html) McGough H.N. et al, 2006, CITES and Slipper Orchids: A User’s Guide McGough H.N. et al, 2004, CITES and Succulents: A User’s Guide McGough H.N. et al, 2004, CITES and Plants: A User’s Guide

Kecse-Nagy, K., Papp, D., Knapp, A., Von Meibom, S., 2006 Wildlife Trade in Central and Eastern Europe: a review of CITES implementation in 15 countries. TRAFFIC Europe Report, Budapest, Hungary (available on-line at www.traffic.org/content/801.pdf)

International Standard for the Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP): More than 400,000 tonnes of medicinal and aromatic plants are traded annually, with 80% harvested from the wild. Many species are in danger of over-exploitation and even extinction through over-harvesting and habitat loss. The process to develop an International Standard began in 2004 as a joint initiative of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), the IUCN Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (MPSG), WWF Germany and TRAFFIC. These standard go a long way towards meeting the urgent need to provide specific

31 guidance for industry, resource managers, collectors and other stakeholders on sustainable sourcing practices.

IUCN Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/mpsg/main/issc_map.html) Publication: Medicinal Plant Specialist Group. 2007. International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP). Version 1.0. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), MPSG/SSC/IUCN, WWF Germany, and TRAFFIC, Bonn, Gland, Frankfurt, and Cambridge (BfN-Skripten 195).

GSPC Target 12 (EPCS target 3.1): 30% of plant products derived from sources that are sustainably managed Context: Arnica montana is widely used as a herbal medicine for external injuries such as bruising, muscle and joint pain, and as a heart medicine in Europe. The main sources of the plant (flowers and root) are the Balkans, especially Romania, Spain and Switzerland, and they are harvested mainly from the wild. Arnica populations are in decline in many countries and it receives legal protection in France, Germany, Hungary, parts of Switzerland, and through Annex V of the EU Habitats Directive. The causes of the decline are due to loss of habitat, in particular when sustainable mountain-meadow management has been abandoned or if fertilizers are used on the meadows, and over-harvesting. There are projects such as those of the herbal company Weleda to restore and enrich arnica habitats in France, but there are still many problems of unsustainable management of European arnica supplies. Project: Arnica montana conservation in Romania Aims: The main goal is to develop a model for the sustainable production of and trade in Arnica montana in Gârda-de-Sus in the Apuseni Mountains Natural Park, resulting in benefits to both biodiversity and livelihoods. This model can then be replicated in the region for other Arnica harvesters and other medicinal plants. The main project components will be:

4 Training and capacity building: the aim is for the project team and the farmers/collectors to develop monitoring methods, a local sustainable management plan and and a local management and trade organisation/ business. Also the members of the local association will train others after the project finishes, and the capacity of Romanian researchers has been built in interdisciplinary approaches to conservation.

5 Local Resource Management and Business Structures: A local association (Ecoflora) consists of local farmers and collectors, and its main tasks are to help implement the Arnica management plan jointly developed during the project. This involves resource monitoring and setting annual quotas; Ecoherba, the local business unit, covers product marketing and trade and, e.g. negotiates between traders and herbal companies and also between farmers and collectors if necessary. Development and construction of Arnica drying facilities and further value adding: the dried and processed flower can be sold at considerably higher prices than the fresh product, increasing value for the local producers. To increase the chances of profitability and sustainability of the social enterprise (Ecoherba) diversification into other products (e.g., dried Boletus edulis) and further value-adding (Arnica oil and tincture production) has been recommended by the project. Research on Arnica ecology, trade chain, socio-economic context and drying

Coordinating organisation: WWF (WWF-UK, WWF-Danube Carpathian Programme) Partners: University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine (USAMV), Cluj Napoca (Romania); Gârda- de-Sus Community members; Landschaftsökologie (Germany) Website: www.arnica-montana.ro/Arnica-montana_files, www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/amontana.pdf Funders: The Darwin Initiative (DEFRA – UK) Contact: Dr. Susanne Schmitt (WWF-UK; [email protected]) Wolfgang Kathe ([email protected])

32 GSPC Target 13 (EPCS target 3.1): The decline of plant resources and associated local and indigenous knowledge, innovations and practices that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, halted. Project: RUBIA (Circum-Mediterranean ethnobotanical and ethnographic heritage in traditional technologies, tools and uses of wild and neglected cultivated plants for food, medicine, textiles, dyeing and handicrafts) The project acknowledges the profound impact that Mediterranean cultures have had in the management of the natural environment, and the aim of the project was to record ethnobotanical field data on plants and their uses within their socio-economic and anthropological context in twelve sites in the Mediterranean, including the ethnobotany of Turkish migrants in Cologne, the Russlanddeutschen of Southern Germany, and a study of a community in the Northern Albanian Alps which has been dramatically affected by migration waves. The project was carried out by eight universities and research centres in Holland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Morroco, Egypt, and Algeria. The project also aimed to disseminate the traditional knowledge records via the visual database records and within a permanent educational framework (booklets for local communities and the public, a general ethnographic atlas of useful plants of the Mediterranean and related video on paper and CD, and in a few cases through museum exhibitions. Publications related to the project can be found at www.andreapeironi.eu. Part of the project was to evaluate a few traditional neglected crops for their current agronomic feasibility, and cultivation of these species in arid and semi-arid areas). This part was carried out in Natural Park of St. Catherine in the Sinai Peninsula by the University of Mansoura, Egypt under Prof. El-Demerdash. The group established an experimental small cultivation of locally used wild medicinal/food plants: Verbascum sinaiticum, Solenostemma arghel, Origanum syriacum, Salvia multicaulis, Mentha longifolia and Cleome droserifolia. They built also a small- scale apparatus for drying these herbs. All aspects of the project were agreed with the male heads of the Bedouin tribes living there and Prof. El-Demerdash research team.

Project Coordinator: Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University and Research Centres (Netherlands), Institut für Linguistik – Phonetik, Universität zu Köln (Germany) Partner Organisations: Dipartimento di Storia delle Arti I dello Spettacolo, Università degli Studi di Firenze (Italy); Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Granada (Spain); Department of Natural Products and Biotechnology, Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania (Greece); Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia (Cyprus); Institut National des Plantes Médicinales et Aromatiques (INPMA), Taounate (Morocco); Department of Botany, University of Mansoura (Egypt); University Saad Dahleb, (Algeria) Duration: 2003-2005 Funders: EU Fifth Research Framework Contact: Dr. Andrea Pieroni, University of Bradford ([email protected]) Website: www.andreapieroni.eu

GSPC Target 14 (EPCS targets 4.2-4.3): The importance of plant diversity and the need for its conservation incorporated into communication, education and public awareness programme Project: PlasciGardens: Plants Scientists Investigate This project aims to improve plant science education in schools by highlighting the opportunities of partnerships among botanic gardens, primary schools and national school boards and to utilise the expert knowledge, first hand experience and educational facilities of botanic gardens. Currently there are four countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, UK), 112 teachers and 60 primary schools involved in the project. One of the project outputs will be a multi-lingual, multi-cultural education tool targeted towards 8-10 year old children with four parts: • Teachers pack • Teacher resources • Botanic garden activities • Teacher training seminars The topics covered by these educational tools are Threatened species conservation and sustainability; Food; Plants in art and daily life; and Ecology The problems identified in plant science education were that teachers did not have the time or the expertise to teach plant science, in part because they had not learnt about plants at school

33 or during their teacher training. The problems for botanic gardens were that the educators rarely had any information about what the children already knew, they did not usually have any contact with pupils or teachers before their visit, and the children were expecting a fun trip not an education experience The methodology of Plasci-gardens involves a bottom up approach developed by national working groups including primary school teachers, representatives of national school boards, botanic garden educators and teacher trainers. The teaching of plant science will involve pre- processing in schools (preparation for botanic garden visits), experiments and activities in botanic gardens, post-processing and assessment in schools.

Project Coordinator: Innsbruck University Botanic Garden (Austria) Project Partners: University of London Institute of Education (UK); Trento Natural History Museum, (Italy); University of Sofia Botanic Garden (Bulgaria) Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (UK) Duration: October 2005-October 2007 Funders: EU Sixth Research Framework

GSPC Target 15 (EPCS target 5.1): The number of trained people working with appropriate facilities in plant conservation increased, according to national needs, to achieve the targets of this strategy Project: EDIT the European Distributed Institute of Technology The overall objective of EDIT is to integrate European taxonomic effort within the ERA and to build a world leading capacity. EDIT will create a European virtual centre of excellence, which will increase both the scientific basis and capacity for biodiversity conservation. The project objectives are to help to reduce the fragmentation in European taxonomic research and expertise and to coordinate the European contribution to the global taxonomic effort, in particular the Global Taxonomy Initiative, through an integrated initiative aimed at improving society’s capacity for biodiversity conservation. EDIT Work Programmes (WP): WP1: EDIT Coordination and Management WP2: Integrating the expert and expertise basis (Programme leader: Prof. Henrik Enghof, National Museum of Natural History of Denmark, University of Coperhagen) WP3: Integrating the Infrastructure Basis (Programme leader: Dr. Wouter Los, Universiteit Van Amsterdam) WP4: Coordinating (Programme leader: Dr. Marian Ramos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas) WP5: Internet Platform for Cybertaxonomy (Programme leader: Walter Berendsohn, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum) WP6: Unifying Revisionary Taxonomy (Programme leader: Dr. Dave Roberts, Natural History Museum London) WP7: Inventories, Applying Taxonomy to Conservation (Programme leader: Christoph Häuser, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, Stuttgart) WP8: Training and public awareness (Programme leader: Dr. Jackie Van Goethem, Royal Belgium Institute of Natural Sciences)

Partner organisations: Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, France; Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, France; National Museum of Natural History of Denmark; Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Spain; Universiteit Van Amsterdam, Netherlands; Nationaal Herbarium Nederland; Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis, Netherlands; Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Netherlands; Freie Universitaet Berlin – Botanical Garden and Botanical Museum, Germany; Natural History Museum London, UK; Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, UK; Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Germany; Royal Belgium Institute of Natural Science, Belgium; Royal Museum for Central Africa, Belgium; National Botanic Garden of Belgium; Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences; Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences; Hungarian Museum of Natural History; Univerzita Komenskeho V Bratislave, Slovakia; Institute of Botany, Slovakian Academy of Sciences; Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France; Society for the Management of European Biodiversity Data, Ireland; Speices 2000, UK; Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Missouri Botanical Garden, USA; Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, USA Website: www.e-taxonomy.eu Funders: European Commission, Networks of Excellence, 2006-2011

34 Project: Botanical Volunteers and Supervolunteers in the Netherlands FLORON is a Non Governmental Organisation in the Netherlands with a professional staff of 8 employees. FLORON is responsible for the management of a national database of vascular plant distribution data with over 10 million records. Network of volunteers Our main program is the coordination of floristic inventory work of volunteers. We have a network of nearly 1100 amateur botanists volunteers who are involved in our activities, some only by participating on an excursion, others by carrying out fieldwork several times a week. The background of volunteers varies widely. They include schoolteachers, doctors, housewives and social workers. A number also have a professional background such as botanical field workers of regional government agencies and nature management organisations. Although diverse in make up in general there are more men than women, the average age is above 50 years and most are well educated. Data gathering projects The main project is to gather data on a square kilometre basis using topographical map grids. A data collection form with nearly all 1500 wild plant species in the country has been prepared. All species found at a square kilometre site is recorded and distribution patterns of nearly all plant species for over 20 years can be produced. Another important project focuses on redlist species. Volunteers are asked to register information on specific location, population size and site management on a special form. These detailed distribution data are very important and allow regular monitoring of populations of threatened species over time through regular repeat site visits. Role of supervolunteers A strong aspect of a network of volunteers is regional involvement. The country is divided into 23 districts, each with a local coordinator at the head. These coordinators are also volunteers, our ‘supervolunteers’. They meet twice a year at the national office and invited to participate in a special fieldwork weekend once a year. This form of team building is important in creating a network of devoted volunteers who feel they belong to the organisation. The regional coordinators are very important in the implementation of national projects on a local scale. They organise field work excursions in their own region; administer who will record at what site, help with the identification of species, and publish a regional newsletter with information on ongoing activities such as excursions, field projects, special observations, and so on. The use of collected information FLORON uses the distribution data for applied research, conservation tasks (e.g. to make a red list book and species recovery plans), and policymaking. The National Herbarium uses the distribution data for flora writing, biogeographical research and collection of herbarium specimens for taxonomic research. Challenges for the near future The challenge for FLORON now is to involve more, and especially younger, people. We organize, with other flora and fauna NGO’s, a course on nature investigation methodologies where new volunteers can learn basic elements of data recording, i.e. how to locate a site and how to report observations. They are also educated on how their records are checked and used in research and conservation purposes. Another key to make things more attractive to a younger generation is the use of ’high tech’, such as GPS for determining exact locality of rare species and PDA’s to registrate observations. One of the main opportunities to reach also younger people these days is the use of internet. Therefore it is important to maintain a website with regular news and to create the possibility to report plant observations online. FLORON works together with many other dutch NGO’s to create that kind of interactive possibilities for both flora and fauna groups.

Coordinating Organisation: FLORON Contact: Wout van der Slikke ([email protected]) Website: www.floron.nl Funders: The volunteer program of FLORON is partly financed by the Dutch ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.

35

GSPC Target 16 (EPCS targets 2.17, 4.2a, 5.5-5.7): Networks for plant conservation activities established or strengthened at the national, regional, and international level

Project: Establishment of the German Network for Plant Conservation

Inspired by the mid-term review of the EPCS at the Planta Europa Conference in Valencia 2004, representatives of NABU (a German NGO for nature conservation) had the idea to initiate a plant conservation network in Germany. Another driving force for the establishment of the network was a project on the implementation of the GSPC in Germany financed by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). NABU organised a symposium held in November 2005 which was supported by the BfN: “Network for Plant Conservation - New Challenges for botanists in Germany”. About 200 representatives from universities, governmental and non-governmental organisations, as well as volunteer conservationists, came together and discussed the challenges of plant conservation in Germany in the context of the GSPC and EPCS. It was determined that there was a lack of co-ordination and co-operation of plant conservation activities, predominantly as a result of Germany’s federal system. The most important result of the meeting was the foundation of the “Netzwerk Botanischer Naturschutz Deutschland” (German Network for Plant Conservation, www.florenschutz.de). The main purpose of the network is to bring together the plant conservation resources in Germany. The current 250 members represent non-governmental organisations, Federal State authorities for nature conservation, academics, freelancing and volunteer conservationists. The network has been initially coordinated within the scope of the BfN supported GSPC project. The principal task of the project is to develop an Internet platform for the network including expert lists, news groups, mailing lists and calendar of events etc. The BfN is supporting the establishment of the Internet platform which is currently under construction. Several working groups have been founded within the network to address specific subjects of plant conservation that help deliver the GSPC and EPCS. For example, the Important Plant Areas working group has adapted the criteria for the classification of IPA’s published by Planta Europa to the German situation and has started working on the identification of such areas. The ex situ working group has developed a detailed concept for the ex situ conservation of Germany’s threatened plants in Botanic Gardens. It is anticipated that the network will be able to coordinate and strengthen the numerous ongoing plant conservation activities in Germany. The foundation of the network was a first important step in that direction.

Coordinating Organisation: “Netzwerk Botanischer Naturschutz Deutschland” (German Network for Plant Conservation, www.florenschutz.de). Contact: Marliese von den Driesch , Cornelia Löhne, Dr. Wolfram Lobin ([email protected]) Website: www.florenschutz.de

36 Annexes

Annex 1 Targets of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC)

Objective 1: Understanding & Documenting Plant Diversity Target 1 A widely accessible working list of known plant species, as a step towards a complete world flora Target 2 A preliminary assessment of the conservation status of all known species at national, regional and international levels Target 3 Development of models with protocols for plant conservation and sustainable use, based on research and practical experience Objective 2: Conserving Plant Diversity Target 4 At least 10% of the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved Target 5 Protection of 50% of the most important areas for plant diversity assured by 2010 Target 6 At least 30% of production lands managed consistent with the conservation of plant diversity Target 7 60% of the world’s threatened species conserved in situ Target 8 60% of threatened plant species in accessible ex situ collections, preferably in the county of origin, and 10% of them included in recovery and restoration programme Target 9 70% of the genetic diversity of crops and other major socio-economically valuable plants conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained Target 10 Management plans in place for at least 10 major alien species which threaten plants, plant communities, habitats and ecosystems Objective 3: Using plant diversity sustainably Target 11 No species of wild flora endangered by international trade Target 12 30% of plant based products derived from sources that are sustainably managed Target 13 The decline of plant resources, and associated indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and healthcare, halted Objective 4: Promoting education and awareness about plant diversity Target 14 The importance of plant diversity and the need for its conservation incorporated into communication, education and public awareness programmes Objective 5: Building capacity for the conservation of plant diversity Target 15 The number of trained people working with appropriate facilities in plant conservation increased, according to national needs, to achieve the targets of the strategy Target 16 Networks for plant conservation activities established or strengthened at the national, regional and international levels

Targets of the European Plant Conservation Strategy (EPCS) (details of milestones and progress available on-line at www.plantaeuropa.org/pe-EPCS-targets.htm)

Objective 1: Understanding & Documenting Plant Diversity Target 1.01 Working list of all known European plant species (including cryptogamic plants and fungi) produced Target 1.02 European Red List for vascular plants, revised list for bryophytes, and preliminary Red Lists for lichens, macrofungi and other selected groups published Target 1.02a Develop Red List for Wild Crops Relatives Target 1.03 Manual of tried and tested (species and habitat) monitoring protocols for scientists and naturalists made available on the web. Target 1.04 First edition of European Important Plant Areas (IPA) Inventory completed Target 1.05 Research initiated to assess effectiveness of IPA approach Target 1.06 Information about all designated areas important for plant conservation included in the Common Database on Designated Areas Target 1.07 Effectiveness of the "improved biodiversity indicators" for Sustainable Forest Management assessed in at least four biogeographical regions. Target 1.08 Single web address and list server for exchanging information on European Red List projects established and maintained. Target 1.09 List of threatened European plant taxa in ex situ collections published on the web Objective 2: Conserving Plant Diversity Target 2.01 National programmes to identify and monitor non-red listed rapidly declining species promoted in 15 European countries Target 2.02 To have promoted the development and implementation of recovery programmes in relevant countries for 50 priority plants across all taxa, their selection to be informed by appropriate priority species lists and lists of rapidly declining but widely scattered species (see target 14 of the GSPC) as these become available Target 2.03 Exemplary trans-national (including transboundary) partnership projects for the recovery of at least 5 priority (near endemic or threatened) or flagship species to have reached implementation stage.

37 Target 2.04 Spore-bank for pteridophytes established Target 2.05 A range of the genetic diversity of 50 % of regionally and nationally threatened species stored in gene banks (prioritised by threat). Target 2.06 At least 12 priority species of bryophytes brought into ex-situ conservation and methodology promoted internationally. Target 2.07 Manual with guidelines and case studies of best practice for integrated (in-situ and ex-situ) plant conservation programmes made available on the web. Target 2.08 Protocols for ex situ conservation for all groups of vascular plants, cryptogamic plants and fungi produced Target 2.09 Plant conservation benefits of effective Rural Development Plans (including agri-environmental schemes) and other relevant environmental stewardship incentive measures promoted in all European countries Target 2.10 Management plan for at least 5 endangered species of wild crop relatives initiated in at least one protected area in each of 5 or more European countries Target 2.11 80% of the genetic diversity of 30% of wild crop relatives and other socio-economically and ethnobotanically important species stored in genebanks Target 2.12 To keep Annexes of the Habitats Directive updated and promoted to commission through national governments Target 2.13 Produce datasheets for fungi, bryophytes, lichens & algae to promote their inclusion in Bern Convention Annexes Target 2.14 IPAs promoted for inclusion in the PEBLDS and National Biodiversity Action Plans, and promoted to support, inform and underpin international protected area networks (e.g., Emerald, Natura 2000, pan-European Ecological Network, Ramsar etc.) Target 2.15 Programme designed and initiated to evaluate the effectiveness of current protected area management across selected sites of European importance for plants and recommendations disseminated Target 2.16 Existing initiatives on enhancement of wild plant diversity in urban and peri-urban areas reviewed in at least 5 countries Target 2.17 Planta Europa to support partners in the defence of threatened sites important for plant conservation. Target 2.18 Dissemination of information and experience of micro-reserve programmes. Target 2.19-2.20 Combined new target: 2.19 & 2.20) Produce an information sheet for botanists on how they can engage in the water framework process. Target 2.21 Up to date information on European invasive species made available to relevant target audiences. Target 2.22 Holistic institutional, policy and legislative framework for invasive species control established in 25% of European countries Objective 3: Using plant diversity sustainably Target 3.01 Best practice for the conservation and sustainable use of medicinal plants (and other sociologically important plants) identified and promoted to relevant policy makers Objective 4: Promoting education and awareness about plant diversity Target 4.01 A joint public promotion to articulate the state of wild plants and the need for their conservation to be implemented by Planta Europa members: Target 4.02 Identify in each country agencies responsible for the national curriculum and promote to them the inclusion of plant issues in coverage of the environment Target 4.02a To share the experience, information and skills gained in awareness-raising within big projects (such as LIFE) Target 4.02b To support communication, education and public awareness of the value of plants as a prerequisite for plant conservation. Target 4.03 Bring together those who do informal interactive education on plants ex situ in botanic gardens with those doing it in situ Objective 5: Building capacity for the conservation of plant diversity Target 5.01 Increase employed taxonomists supporting plant conservation by 25% in each European country Target 5.02 Deleted in mid-term review Target 5.03 All targets in the European Plant Conservation Strategy related to existing research programmes, gaps identified: Target 5.04 Increase the number of unpaid public participants (volunteers, friends/supporters) contributing data to support plant conservation and promote their involvement in conservation projects: Target 5.05 Communication and information exchange between those working for plant conservation enhanced Target 5.06 Capacity of Planta Europa to achieve effective plant conservation enhanced Target 5.07 Key conservation messages regularly disseminated to Planta Europa members Target 5.08 European Plant Conservation Strategy included within the Global Plant Conservation Strategy of CBD

38 39 Challenges Lack of direct funding stream for for stream funding direct of Lack implementation Direct funding to carry out the the out carry to funding Direct work Engagement of CITES focal points Ability to develop effective effective develop to Ability models can be that applied in regions other focal national of Engagement on IPAs relevant include to points list. RAMSAR national of Commitment governments to fund protection & sites of management Lack of direct funding stream for for stream funding direct of Lack of non-engagement GSPC, focal points national Show-casing the implementation implementation the Show-casing Opportunities of the EPCS as a means of of means a as theof EPCS biodiversity of rate the reducing regions other for model a as loss conservation concerns through the the through concerns conservation network CITES existing best of information of Exchange practise case studies Potential to show how plant how show to Potential integrated can be conservation development a sustainable into model beyond Europe and within & plant IPAs of awareness Raising through issues conservation list of the to RAMSAR additions wetland sites committed to delivering targets targets delivering to committed 2010 by Signatory have governments Raising awareness of plant plant of awareness Raising

International International All targetsAll EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) Target 3.01 3.01 Target Target 3.01 3.01 Target 3.01 Target 2.11 Target 3.01 Target 1.4 Target 1.5 Target 2.1-2.3 Targets 2.14* Target All targetsAll trategies 30% of plant based plant of 30% based plant of decline The Protection of 50% of GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) All targetsAll Target 11: No species of wild international by endangered flora trade Target 12: Target 11: No species of wild international by endangered flora trade products derived from sources sources from derived products that are sustainablymanaged Target 13: resources, associated indigenous and local innovations knowledge, and support that practices sustainable livelihoods, local food security & health care halted Target 5: IPAs assured by 2010 2010 by assured IPAs All targetsAll on wetlands

– Convention on - Convention of Biological Annex 2 2 Annex s existing to relevance their & targets GSPC/EPCS CBD Diversity World Summit on Sustainable Development WSSD (Biodiversity: achieving a in the reduction significant current loss of biological diversity 2010) by Goals Millennium Development environmental 7 – ensure (target sustainability) Ramsar Convention CITES endangered in Trade International fauna and flora wild of species of international importance importance international of 40 Challenges The programme is heavily heavily is programme The subscribed already and it is support would it that unlikely of training or work taxonomic in Europe taxonomists identify for funding direct of Lack or conserve sites of the Emerald network The wider listBern of species and by recognised fully not is habitats & the Directive Habitats the EU Potentially IPR andPotentially data confidentiality for funds raise to Potential in projects EPCS specific programem this with association No legal obligation on national governments to meet the targets of the Kiev Declaration monitoring effective of Lack systems to identify if agri- environment schemes are conserving in successful biodiversity Opportunities Potential for the exchange of best best of exchange the for Potential in training of models practice a in red-listing and taxonomy data and environmental of variety situations the into incorporated can be IPAs Emerald network where appropriate threatened the of Inclusion species, habitats & sites of Pan- Europe EU the influence to Potential Opportunity to develop and Opportunity develop to house clearing improve EPCS/GSPC the for mechanisms to data plant relevant of Inclusion specific of awareness raise issues conservation being work the of profile Raise carried out on the GSPC/EPCS to commitment ministerial The agricultural conserve and identify (HNV) value nature high of lands the for potential great has implementation of Target 6 Pan-European Pan-European EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) Target 1.1 Target 1.2 Target 1.2a Target 1.8 Target 2.1 Target 2.13 Target 1.4-1.5 Targets 2.1-2.3 Targets 2.14 Targets 2.2-2.3 Targets 2.9 Target Target 2.2.1 2.2.1 Target 4.2b* Target 5.4 Target The number of trained The importance of of importance The 30% of production lands A widely A accessible A preliminary Protection of 50% of the the world’s of 60% GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) working list of known plant species as a step towards a world flora Target 2: assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species and regional at national, international level Target 15: people working with appropriate to according increased, facilities need national 2010 by assured IPA world’s Target 7: in concerned species threatened situ Target 14: Target 1: targets many for implications Has but especially: Target 6: the with in consistent managed conservation of plant diversity Target 5: plant diversity and the need for and need for the plant diversity into incorporated conservation its and education communication, programmes public awareness – Global Biodiversity – Global Taxonomic Initiative Initiative Taxonomic Global – GBIF Facility Information GTI of the CBD Process, Europe for Environment Declaration Kiev the particularly & Emerald Convention Bern Network 41 Challenges Natura 2000 network network 2000 Natura Apart from the Dutch MATRA MATRA Dutch the from Apart funding direct no is there scheme PEBLDS implementing for stream & PEEN Implementation of effective and national at the legislation regional level to & funding methods Effective implement control andrestoration on the ground No legal obligation to fulfil the aims of this organisation. pan-European or EU clear of Lack policy on forest protection, especially ‘old=growth’ forests for often policies Afforestation Opportunities annexes during the processes of enlargement about awareness raise to Potential network the through EPCS/GSPC of national Bern experts Potential to include IPAs into the the into IPAs include to Potential PEEN network funding targeting for Potential lands at production and action corridors ‘green’ in located sites main the PEEN between for funding targeting for Potential threatened of in situ conservation species cooperation greater for Potential amongst specialists and conservation organisations in the of elaboration and identification the PEEN network control for plans management on protection for campaign to Forum of old-growth forests & more for forest effective policy conservation biodiversity

Potential to contribute expertise expertise contribute to Potential for the the 1 for ee Annex ee Annex 2.17 Target 4.2a Target 5.5-5.7 Targets EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) Targets: 1.4-15 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: 2.2-2.3 Targets: 2.7 Target: 4.2a Target: 5.5-5.7 Targets: 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: Targets 2.21-2.22 2.21-2.22 Targets GSPC between correspondence targets and EPCS S e 2: e 2: Management plans in in plans Management Networks for plant Networks Networks for plant Networks Protection of 50% of At least 30% of At least 30% of the world’s of 60% : Protection of 50% of the GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) Target 16: conservation activities established established activities conservation national, the at strengthened or regional international level and production lands managed managed lands production conservation the with consistent plantof diversity Target 7: in conserved species threatened situ Target 16: activities conservation the at strengthened or established national, regional or international level the world’s most important areas 2010 by assured plants for Target 6*: managed lands production Target 5 world’s most important areas for 2010 by assured plants Target 6: Target 10: alien major 100 least at for place species that threaten plants, associated and communities plant ecosystems andhabitats Biodiversity Conserving Target 5*: PEBLDS & PEEN Invasive on Strategy European Alien Species Convention Landscape European Objectiv On 4-7 Targets Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 42 adversely affect other sites sites other affect adversely e.g. biodiversity, for important planting exotics, alien planting trees on grasslands Challenges The effective engagement of engagement effective The relevant specialists in the practical of development monitoring protocols widespread and existence The and application effective of monitoring practical plant protocols. out carry to Long term funding act on to and monitoring effective the results of that monitoring Inadequate funding for the EU EU the for funding Inadequate Biodiversity strategy, especially the and the for budget LIFE+ small the of elements agri-environment Rural Programme Development Lack of progress, commitment, of loss the halt to funding and (European Platform for for Platform (European Opportunities Potentially Important framework of effectiveness the assessing for ground. the on EPCS/GSPC the Potential for specialists botanical engage with to Europe throughout policy monitoring European some for funding avenue Potential the of aspects monitoring theof EPCS Potential for greater awareness awareness greater for Potential raising of plant conservation to and EPCS/GSPC, the and issues the through funding research raise EPBRS Strategy) Research Biodiversity and conference E the including 2007 in May meeting Leipzig 2.2-2.3 Targets: EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) Targets: 1.2-1.2a 1.2-1.2a Targets: 1.8 Target: 2.1 Target: 2.13 Target: 1.3 Target: 1.6 Target: 2.7-2.8 Target: 5.3 Target: 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: 2.2-2.3 Targets: See above for details on on details for above See GSPC between correspondence targets and EPCS European Union Strategies & Directives Directives & Strategies Union European on Objective 2: 60% of the world’s the world’s of 60% Development of models Development of Protection of 50% of the At least 30% of the world’s of 60% : A preliminary preliminary : A threatened species conserved in conserved species threatened situ GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) conservation the with consistent plantof diversity Target 7: with protocols for plant use, sustainable and conservation based and on research practical experience Target 5: world’s most important areas for 2010 by assured plants Target 6: managed lands production conservation the with consistent plantof diversity Target 7: in conserved species threatened situ Target 2 assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species and regional at national, international level Target 3: especially those on conservation, sustainable development, production lands & awareness Targets 4-7 Conserving Biodiversity Biodiversity Conserving Target 14 on Objective 4: Parts of many targets but manyParts of targets SEBI-2010 Strategy EU Biodiversity 43 Challenges Lack of progress, commitment, and funding to implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy European the on clarity of Lack Commission’s position on the often competing objectives on and Development Sustainable the the Lisborn Accord on Economic Competitiveness The annexes of the directive offer offer directive the of annexes The protection to only a subset of the by covered species plant those EPCS/GSPC of process slow/inadequate The the to changes making species/habitats of the Annexes to funding direct of lack The sites those monitor and protect 2000 Natura the under identified network agri- for funding Inadequate environment schemes.Currently RDP receives 16% of agricultural to likely Agri-environment funds, from (figures €3bn/year receive must but International) Birdlife and soil water, fund biodiversity, landscape benefits and standards of The lack the assessing for monitoring agri-environment of effectiveness conserving for schemes biodiversity Awareness among botanical specialists of their potential biodiversity by 2010 2010 by biodiversity Opportunities

Potential to promote the the promote Potential to to contribution a as EPCS/GSPC sustainable development under Objective 4 – management of & potential resources natural under of a means 1 as Objective mitigating the results of Climate Change Potential for incorporating IPAs IPAs incorporating for Potential production and diversity rich plant 2000 Natura the into lands network Potentially one of the most in funding of sources important sites plant conserving for Europe and species in situ. for potential the Provides botanical specialists to include EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) See annexes for details on on details for annexes See GSPC between correspondence targets and EPCS Targets: 1.4-15 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: 2.2-2.3 Targets: 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: 2.2-2.3 Targets: 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: on Objective 3: on Objective 2: Protection of 50% of Protection of 50% of Protection of 50% of At least 30% of At least 30% of the world’s of 60% the world’s of 60% GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) Promotingeducation & awareness diversity about plant Using Plant Diversity Sustainably Sustainably Diversity Plant Using 4: Target Objective 14: on Promotingeducation & awareness diversity about plant Targets 4 –10 Biodiversity Conserving Targets 11-13 Target 5*: Target 5*: Target 5*: the world’s most important areas 2010 by assured plants for Target 6: managed lands production conservation the with consistent plantof diversity Target 7: in conserved species threatened situ the world’s most important areas 2010 by assured plants for Target 6*: managed lands production conservation the with consistent plantof diversity Target 7: in conserved species threatened situ the world’s most important areas Development Sustainable EU Strategy & Birds & Directives EU Habitats network 2000 Natura EU Common Agricultural Policy& Programme Development Rural Directive Framework Water EU 44 Challenges contribution to this process. this to contribution national of effectiveness The implementation systems of and including identifying, for important sites monitoring plant diversity water Dependence on national policies & competitive bureaucratic Very and funding for applying of system Potentially on progress. reporting many smaller for off-putting research organisations . Opportunities sites of importance for water water for importance of sites and sites of register in the plants monitoring systems of the WFD, 6,7,8 article under Potential for greater engagement engagement greater for Potential with campaigning and increased forest in involved networks other protection in Europe (eg. WWF Europe FERN) and particularly forPotential funding strategy, the of parts those for such as the taxonomic/training/ex-situ/case studies & protocols not EU other by covered specifically strategy strengthening for Potential applications joint through network funding research for Targets: 2.14 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) Targets: 1.4-15 1.4-15 Targets: 2.1-2.3 Targets: 2.14 Targets: 2.9 Target: 1.1 Target 1.2-1.2a Target 1.8 Target 2.1 Target 2.13 Target 1.3 Target 1.6 Target 2.7-2.8 Target 5.3 Target 1.9 Target 2.4-2.6 Target 2.11 Target 1.2a Target 2.1 Target 2.11 Target Protection of 50% of 60% of threatened At least 30% of At least 30% of 70% of the genetic the of genetic 70% a widely accessible accessible a widely A preliminary : development of models of : development production lands managed managed lands production conservation the with consistent plantof diversity GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) 2010 by assured plants for Target 6*: working list of known plant species, as a step towards a flora world complete Target 2: assessment of the conservation status of all known plant species and regional at national, international level Target 3 Target 5*: Target 1: with protocols for plant use, sustainable and conservation based and on research practical experience Target 8: the world’s most important areas 2010 by assured plants for Target 6*: managed lands production conservation the with consistent plantof diversity plant species in accessible ex-situ in the preferably collections country of origin and 10% of them and recovery in included restoration programes Target 9: diversity of crops and other socio- economically valuable plant species conserved and associated indigenous and knowledge local Policy Forestry EU Framework Research Seventh Programme 45 Challenges Providing clear and effective plant plant effective and clear Providing conservationmessages to a range of audiences information the Disseminating Europe throughout effectively awareness for funding Direct raising Opportunities Provides clear guidance on the the on guidance clear Provides the affecting information to right campaigning for environment organisations plant specific provide to Potential a to information conservation range of organisations and networks and European raise to Potential increase to funding national conservation plant of awareness issues 2.21-2.22 Target 5.1 Target 2.17 Target 4.2a Target 5.5-5.7 Target EPCS target(s) target(s) EPCS (* denotes special relevance) Target 2.17 2.17 Target 2.21 Target: 4.1-4.3 Target: 5.4 Target 2.7 Target: 4.2a Target: 5.5-5.7 Targets: Management plans in in plans Management trained of number The Networks for plant Networks Networks for plant Networks The importance of of importance The GSPC target(s) target(s) GSPC (* denotes special relevance) maintained Target 10: alien major 100 least at for place invasive species Target 15: people working with appropriate conservation plant facilities in increased Target 16: or established conservation regional at national, strengthened levels international and Target 14: established activities conservation national, the at strengthened or regional international level and plant diversity and the need for and need for the plant diversity into incorporated conservation its and educational communication, programmes public awareness Target 16: on public Convention Aarhus participation Annex 3 Financial Mechanisms

EU funding streams

LIFE+ Total budget: 1.9 Billion Euros (2007-2013) The newly agreed LIFE+ fund will have 50% of its total budget, effectively 800 million Euros between 2007 and 2013, dedicated specifically to biodiversity and nature conservation. Although the LIFE+ programme will continue to be centrally managed by the Commission and the Commission will have the final approval of projects, Member States will have a large say in allocating funds according to their national priorities. The programme will address all four priority areas of the Sixth Environment Action Programme (EAP)- climate change; nature and biodiversity; health and quality of life; natural resources and waste; as well as the programme’s seven thematic strategies. The new programme is divided into three strands: LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity; LIFE+ Environmental Governance and Policy and LIFE+ Information and Communication. The programme includes a provision to ensure a proportionate distribution of projects by establishing indicative national allocations based on a set of criteria, essentially population size and the percentage of nature and biodiversity in the Natura 2000 network. 15% of the budget will be allocated to trans-national projects. The first call for proposals is expected to be in 2007.

The European Agricultural Rural Development Fund (EAFRD) Total budget: 77.66 Billion Euros (2007-2013) Axis 1: Competitiveness – minimum 10% Axis 2: Land Management – minimum 25% Axis 3: Wider Rural Development – minimum 10% Axis 4: LEADER approach – minimum 5% (2.5% in new member states) EAFRD supports the implementation of the Rural Development Programme the Second Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. There are four axis of which Axis 2 ‘Improvement of the environment and countryside through better forms of land management and the conservation of natural resources, is the most directly relevant for nature conservation, although axis 3 ‘Quality of Life and Diversity of the Rural Economy and Axis 4, the LEADER, local community action for sustainable development’, are also relevant for the conservation of wild plants and the livelihoods which they support. The funding for the EAFRD will be allocated through national programmes, although these national programmes must be developed in accordance with the EU strategic guidelines for rural development and must be approved by the European Commission. The challenge for plant conservation is to ensure that there is sufficient provision within these national funding plans for nature conservation among the other competing areas of the fund’s remit and to make sure that any omissions, which cannot be resolved at the national level, are reported to the Directorate General of Environment of the European Commission. One of the main challenges in the agri-environment schemes has been to assess their effectiveness in conserving wildlife and effective monitoring must be a strong element of national rural development plans. (www.ec.europa.eu/comm/agriculture/rurdev/index_en.htm)

FP7 – Seventh Framework Programme ‘Building the European Research Area for Knowledge for Growth’ Total Budget for the Cooperation activities c.32.4 Billion Euros Budget for environmental research 1.8 Billion Euros (2007-2013) Budget for food, agriculture, and biotechnology 1.9 Billion Euros (2007-2013) The seventh framework programme for research has four main blocks of activities and environment and sustainable agriculture research is funded under the ‘Cooperation’ block. Environmental research including climate change has four main areas for research: climate change, pollution and risks; sustainable management of resources; environmental technologies; earth observation and assessment tools. Under the food, agriculture and biotechnology research stream the objectives include: sustainable production and management of biological resources from land, forest and aquatic environments, enabling research on sustainable production systems. Information for applicants and a database of current and past projects is available through the CORDIS website, (www.cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html, www.ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm)

46 The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Total budget of the ERDF and the European Social Fund: 336.1 Billion Euros This fund aims to contribute to the economic, social and territorial cohesion within the EU. The fund is administered through national strategic reference frameworks (NSRF) developed according to the thematic and territorial priorities of individual Member States. The fund is split into 3 strands – Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation all of which contain specific objectives relating to the sustainable development and protection of the environment and natural resources. For a review of environmental projects that have received ERDF funding see (www.ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/index_en.cfm) and for examples of how to access the ERDF and European Social Fund see the WWF publication ‘EU Funding for the Environment: a handbook for the 2007-2013 programming period’ (Website: www.ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/2007/index_en.htm)

Pre-Accession Countries and Neighbouring Countries

The Instrument for Per-Accession Assistance (IPA) Total Budget: 11.468 Million Euros (2007-2013) Eligible countries: Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo The IPA programme replaces the former PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD , Turkish pre-Accession instrument and CARDS. The IPA will focus on institution building, enhancing administrative and judicial capacity, and preparation for national administrative of structural and agricultural/rural development policies and funds. The fund will be administered mainly through DG Enlargement (www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement/financial_assistance/index_en.htm) (www.ec.europa.eu/enlargement/financial_assistance/ipa/index_en.htm)

The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) Total Budget: 5.6 Billion Euros (2007-2010) Multi-country programmes: 827.6 Million Euros Country Programmes: 4.12 Billion Euros Cross-border Cooperation Programmes: 277.1 Million Euros Eligible countries: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Ukraine (Belarus, Syria and Libya have qualifications on their entry and Russia is covered by a separate Strategic Partnership) The ENPI aims to encourage political relationships and economic integration between the EU and its bordering countries. Each country will develop a national action plan in consultation with the EU and 73% of the budget will be distributed through these national plans. The objectives of the ENP objectives state clearly their commitment to sustainable development and nature conservation: Article 2 (e) Promoting sustainable development in all aspects Article 2 (g) Promoting environmental protection, nature conservation and sustainable management of resources including freshwater and marine resources Article 2 (y) supporting cross-border cooperation through joint local initiatives to promote sustainable economic, social and environmental development in border regions and integrated territorial development across the communities external border. Project selection will be carried out by national or regional programme authorities and information on the relevant authorities at www.ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/interreg3/abc/progweb_en.htm. Website for the ENPI (www.ec.europa.eu/world/enp/index_en.htm)

47

Non-EU Regional Funding Streams

Global Environment Facility (GEF) • Full sized projects – agreed with operational focal point in recipient countries • Medium sized Projects (MSPs) – grants of less than US$1 Million, available to a wider range of interested parties to develop projects • Small Grants Programme – Administered by UNDP, offers grants up to $50,000 • Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Programme – a partnership with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) finances projects which demonstrate a positive environmental impact and have basic financial viability • Enabling activities – grants to prepare national inventories, strategies and action plans in cooperation with the CBD and the UN Framework on Climate Change • Project Preparation and Development Facility (PDF) – funding for project preparation in 3 blocks: Block A – grants up to $25,000 for early stage preparation; Block B – grants up to $350,000 for single country projects and up to $700,000 for multi-country projects; Block C – grants up to $1 Million Eligible countries: those countries who have signed the Convention on Biological Diversity The GEF helps developing countries to fund projects and programmes that protect the global environment and supports projects under the following 5 topics: Biodiversity; Climate Change; International Waters; Land Degradation; Persistent Organic Pollutants. These topics in turn form the basis of the 15 Operational Programmes under which the grants are distributed. (www.gef.org)

DARWIN Initiative Annual Budget: 7 Million Pounds Sterling Eligible countries: countries rich in biodiversity but poor in resources The DARWIN Initiative is administered by the UK Government Department for Food and Rural Affairs. The aim of the initiative is to draw on expertise in the UK to work with partners in countries rich in biodiversity, but poor in resources to achieve the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utlization of genetic resources. Application for projects must be through a UK organisation in partnership with an organisation (scientific, NGO or governmental) in one of the eligible countries. Not all European countries are eligible for DARWIN funding. (www.darwin.gov.uk)

The EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanism Total Budget: 1.17 Billion Euros (2004-2009) (Norway contributes 1.14 Billion Euros) Eligible Countries: The 10 new member states which joined the EU in 2005 and Spain, Portugal and Greece This fund aims to reduce economic and social disparities within the European Economic Area (EEA). It has nine priority areas including: Environment, Cultural Heritage, Sustainable Development, Academic Research and Cross-Border Activities. Grants are available through an open call for proposals under each national programme. Also the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanism specifically supports the development of NGOs and has a specific fund for NGO grants. (www.eeagrants.org/index.php)

BBI-MATRA & MATRA KNIP Funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. The aims of both funds are to promote development and implementation of biodiversity projects in MATRA countries and to promote concrete measures for site protection and management in MATRA countries. The programme grants funds for projects under the following themes: policy development for nature management and ecological networks; increased support for nature management; site protection and management of ecosystems and exchange of knowledge and expertise on ecosystems; promotion of a sustainable relationship between agriculture and nature management.

48 MATRA-KNIP – Small Nature Management Initiatives – these are small ‘seed money’ grants for projects which implement the programme themes and objectives. The grants are available at a national level through national Dutch Embassies. BBI-MATRA (formerly PIN-MATRA) - The new BBI-MATRA Action Plan 2005-2008 aims to halt the loss of biodiversity in the Pan-European region by 2010. It supports the establishment of national and international (Pan-European) ecological networks as well as the strengthening of civil society in biodiversity conservation. It focuses on the pre-accession countries and the EU Neighbouring States. Application must be made through a Dutch organisation in partnership with national conservation organisations. Information on past and present projects can be found at (www.proforis.nl).

Altai Mountains, Siberia (Photo Credit: Jonathan Rudge)

49