Task 1 New process of producing, approval, monitoring and updating the documents supporting the implementation of the Birds Directive

Task 1 New process of producing, approval, monitoring and updating the documents supporting the implementation of the Birds Directive

• Task 1 New process of producing, approval, monitoring and updating the documents supporting the implementation of the Birds Directive

• Task 2 Drawing up a list of species for which plans or population status assessments should be produced

• Task 3 Data collection for 4 species and assessment of their population status

• Task 4 Organisation of a conference, November 2010

• Implemented by:

Assessment of the relevant experience of EC, MS and key international organisations and NGOs

• Assessment of the relevant experience of EC, MS and key international organisations and NGOs

• A Methodology (Strategy) for bird recovery for the EC

• Prioritisation of species based on objective criteria (lists)
• Fit with planning and reporting cycles under the Birds Directive
• Coordination with the relevant international conventions
• Optimised planning process and content of the plans
• Lists of current plans, update schedules, status of implementation
• Proposals for new plans/species, multi-species and issue based plans for 2011-2015

Assessment of the population status of four species of EU significance with insufficient knowledge

• Assessment of the population status of four species of EU significance with insufficient knowledge

• Conference “Bird Recovery in the EU” (Nov. 2010) and conference report

• SWOT analysis and methodology for improvement of the Key Concepts Document under Art. 7(4) of the Birds Directive

• Report organised in four Parts (I-IV) and 8 Annexes.

• All documents are available at Circa

Overview

• Overview

• No regular monitoring of plans

• 79% out of date or no info.

• Maintenance work focused on Red List species

• Insufficient coordination between parties concerned

• No data on EU Annex II species management plans

Focused on priority species or a combination of them

• Focused on priority species or a combination of them

• Follow an ecosystem approach

• Coordinated approach to conservation of migratory species along flyway

• Be flexible – single species or groups of species

• Contain objectives that are quantifiable and scientifically robust, but in the same time practical and understandable by the stakeholders

• Implement threat based intervention logic based on sound prioritisation of actions

• Facilitate policy integration and institutional coordination

• Implement a partnership approach to conservation

• Build on communication, coordination and collaboration with stakeholders

• Are maintained up to date and allow for adaptive management and learning through their monitoring and feedback

Which species are of higher priority for a recovery plan at EU level?

• Which species are of higher priority for a recovery plan at EU level?

• What would be the added value of such plan?

• Which is the most suitable international framework under which the recovery plan should be developed?

• What should be the geographical scope of the plan?

• What scope of plan should be most efficient?

• What is the potential value of single species recovery plans and when could a multi-species format be more appropriate?

Species prioritization criteria should be explicit and linked to threat status;

• Species prioritization criteria should be explicit and linked to threat status;

• Prioritization should be re-run periodically, in conjunction to conservation status assessments and Art. 12 reporting (e.g. every six years).

The planning process should be organised in order to accommodate the necessary activities for stakeholder involvement and institutional coordination.

• The planning process should be organised in order to accommodate the necessary activities for stakeholder involvement and institutional coordination.

Objectives:

• Objectives:

• To coordinate the prioritisation of species that should be the subject of new and revised recovery plans;

• To agree on lead body to manage the production and implementation of plans;

• To coordinate the (timetable for) production, consultation and approval of plans.

• To coordinate the implementation of recovery plans e.g. through Species Working Groups

International Coordinator for each plan (funded)

• International Coordinator for each plan (funded)

• Species conservation team/ Working group i.e. AEWA approach (voluntary)

• Coordination centre (organisation) and web tools (funded)

• National focal points for each plan, networked (voluntary)

• Development of national and regional recovery plans

• Reporting by Member States on recovery plans

• Better targeting of the action plans towards available resources and access to funding for implementation at national and EU level

Recovery plans have proven their value as an EU instrument

• Recovery plans have proven their value as an EU instrument

• Support for them prevails in member states

• Recovery plans give an excellent basis for cooperation

• Behind the implementation of each plan is a large group of enthusiastic people: officials and citizens. Their commitment is the most important recipe for success.

• Other important ingredients:

• Focus and objectivity, quality of the process
• Coordination and stakeholder involvement
• Integration and communication
• Monitoring and adaptability