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

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

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

4. 6.1 Habitat condition
a) good
a) Minimum
Percentage in good condition
b) Maximum
b) not-good
Percentage in not- good condition
c) unknown
Percentage where condition is not known
If percentage where condition is unknown is not zero, please indicate if
a) Due to lack of information in one part of the distribution (e.g. an administrative region) YES/NO
b) A more general lack of information YES/NO
UK propose to add
“where a precise estimate is known, report same value for both min & max”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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