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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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