important plant areas in central and eastern europe - Plantlife

Section 2
In eastern and south eastern Europe there were two main challenges in applying this
criteria.The first was the process of translating EU and Bern classification systems into
the national classification systems and further work needs to be carried out on this
process in many countries.The second was the lack of habitat mapping data in most
countries.The IPA process in these regions has also highlighted threatened habitats which
are not currently recognised by the EU Habitats Directive or the Bern Convention and
could be included in future revisions of the annexes of these legislative instruments.
Data availability and data strategies
There was a wide variety of data availability in the seven partner countries and the
national IPA selection strategies reflect these data availability issues.This also had
implications for how national teams prioritised the use of available resources between
collating existing data and undertaking new fieldwork.
In countries with a high level of recent, computerised and digitised plant and habitat
records, much of the selection was based on existing data supplemented by fieldwork or
specialist data collation for gap areas.
In countries with a lower level of recent or computerised data the IPAs were identified
using targeted fieldwork on potential sites, which were highlighted from the existing data.
This project has also highlighted areas where we have no current data and these gaps
will form the future of further IPA identification work.
Site selection
An IPA can be selected for one or more qualifying criteria.The basic principles of site
selection, including guidelines on site boundaries, and criteria for selection, are given in
the IPA Site Selection Manual.
Each national team decided on their site selection strategy within the constraints of the
criteria and thresholds. Fundamental to these national strategies were decisions of the
number and size of IPAs and the definition of site boundaries. Each country decided on
the balance of large IPAs with a mosaic of habitats and species and smaller IPAs
identified to protect a particular species or habitat. Boundary demarcation, such as the
treatment of small IPAs located near to each other, or the defining of boundaries in
areas of fragmented habitats or land uses, was decided on the basis of the local
conditions of ecological integrity, ownership and practical management.
The size range of IPAs in the current project is as follows: up to 100 ha (281 IPAs), >100
and < 1000 ha (207 IPAs), >1000 and < 10,000 ha (148 IPAs), >10,000 and < 10,000 ha
(111 IPAs) and > 100,000 ha (43 IPAs).
Further work on direct conservation and site management on IPAs will also contribute
to refining site selection and boundary definition guidelines for the future.
Bryophytes, fungi, lichen and algae
The IPA programme includes lower plants and fungi in the assessment methodology.
These important organisms are neglected in existing nature conservation legislation and
Europe has a particular global responsibility to conserve them.
Bryophytes: mosses and liverworts, are well represented in this project.There were 54
bryophytes on the IPA list for the seven partner countries and they are recorded
qualifying features on 77 IPAs. Bryophytes are also an important component of several
of the threatened habitats under Criterion C and were also used in some countries as
indicator species for assessing botanical richness under Criterion B.
18