Red Lists and Red Books in Poland Main characteristics: 1. Red - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Red Lists and Red Books in Poland Main characteristics:

• 1. Red Lists – lists of species with threat category
• 2. Red Books – list of species with much more information on

the species (distribution, habitat, morphology, ecology, maps etc.)

• 3. IUCN threat categorization is used (sometimes with relation to Bern

Convention and Habitats/Birds Directive)

• 4. No time agenda for release of lists/books is set. They are released

depending on possibilities (gathered knowledge, need to update, available resources etc.) – updated roughly every 10 years

• 5. Generally country-wide lists but there are also regional ones

HELCOM Red List Workshop, Uppsala 2017

Red Lists and Red Books in Poland Main characteristics:

• 6. Prepared by scientific institutions (mainly by Polish Academy of

Sciences, Institute of Nature Conservation) without any closer cooperation with nature conservation administration

• 7. Nature conservation administration has no influence on threat

categories assigned to particular species

• 8. They represent a very valuable source of information, also while

making decisions by the statutory nature conservation bodies, but they are not legally binded – lists of protected species may significantly differ from Red Lists

HELCOM Red List Workshop, Uppsala 2017

Red Lists and Red Books in Poland Currently released lists/books: PLANTS: ferns, flowering plants, fungi, mosses, lichens (1981-2016) ANIMALS: vertebrates, invertebrates, fishes (1992-2004) HABITATS: no lists so far No specific list for marine features Marine species – only the most characteristic ones: seals, harbour porpoise, sea lamprey, sturgeon, blue mussel, common eelgrass etc. No significant new knowledge on marine features since 2013 No knowledge about new lists before 2020

HELCOM Red List Workshop, Uppsala 2017

Feedback from two Polish experts who participated in HELCOM Red List Project

Main conclusions: 1. New Red Lists in >10 years cycle:

• new knowledge does not appear that often
• significant workload required
• 2. More often – update of current lists using monitoring data collected,

e.g. for habitats: HELCOM COMBINE or WFD data

• 3. Change of taxonomic names should be included
• 4. Use of the Red Lists:
• background for some scientific papers (citation)
• additional argument for campaigns, e.g. to protect European eel
• 5. Better coordination of experts’ work on a national level will be necessary

at the next round.

• 6. New data: sandhoppers categorized as DD (e.g. Talitrus saltator,

Orchestia gammarellus), bivalvia (Parvicardium hauniense), plants (Nitellopsis obtusa, Chara sp.: C. connivens i C. tomentosa)

HELCOM Red List Workshop, Uppsala 2017