PlantLife Important Plant Areas

Important Plant Area (IPA) criteria

The identification of IPAs is based on 3 basic criteria:

Criterion A: threatened species
Criterion B: exceptional botanical richness
Criterion C: threatened habitats

A site can be identified as an IPA if it qualifies under one or more of these criteria.

Criterion A: Threatened Species

Criterion A is designed to identify and conserve populations of the most threatened plant and fungal species on a global or regional scale.

Criterion	Description	Threshold	Sources and guidance on applying criteria
Ai	Site contains one or more globally threatened species	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥1% of the global population AND/OR ≥5% of the national population OR the 5 "best sites" for that species nationally, whichever is most appropriate	(1) Qualifying species must be listed as threatened [vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CR); IUCN 2012] on the IUCN global Red List (www.iucnredlist.org) or, if relevant or appropriate, the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants (Walter and Gillett 1997). (2) It is acceptable to include those species assessed as threatened and accepted by the IUCN review process but awaiting upload onto the IUCN Red List. (3) Wherever possible, both the global and national importance of the site should be documented by applying the % population thresholds for each threatened species; the selection of ‘‘best sites’’ should only be applied where population data are not available and cannot be inferred. (4) If the IPA contains a single-site, threatened (CR or EN) endemic species, i.e., the site effectively holds the entire global population of that species, this should be recorded in the site documentation. (5) A(i) species of high socio-economic importance (nationally, regionally or globally) can be tagged as such to facilitate subsequent analysis focused on useful species.
Aii	Site contains one or more regionally threatened species	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥5% of the national population AND/OR ≥5% of the national population OR the 5 "best sites" for that species nationally, whichever is most appropriate	(1) Qualifying species must be listed as threatened on an IUCN Regional Red List OR another regionally approved, peer-reviewed threat list, for example the threatened medicinal plants of the Himalaya (Hamilton and Radford 2007). (2) Note (5) for sub-criterion A(i) is equally applicable here.
Aiii	Site contains one or more highly restricted endemic species that are potentially threatened	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥1% of the global population AND/OR ≥5% of the national population OR the 5 "best sites" for that species nationally, whichever is most appropriate	(1) A ‘‘Highly Restricted Endemic’’ (HRE) is defined as a species with a total range of 100 km2. These definitions of ‘‘highly restricted’’ and ‘‘range restricted’’ are aligned respectively to the CR and EN range (EOO) thresholds for IUCN threat assessments under criterion B (2012). Endemism is defined by ecological range size rather than by political borders, and thus A(iii) and A(iv) species can have trans-border ranges. A(iii) and A(iv) are recorded separately to allow for more detailed analysis of sites and species; they share the same thresholds. (2) Species should be listed as HREs or RREs on a recognised national or regional list that can be developed, peer-reviewed and published as part of the IPA identification process. (3) HREs and RREs that have already been assessed on the IUCN Red List are excluded from these sub-criteria except where listed as Data Deficient. If they have been assessed as threatened (VU, EN or CR), they should be considered under subcriterion A(i); if assessed as least concern or near threatened, they should be included in the species list for sub-criterion B(ii). (4) Notes (3)–(5) for sub-criterion A(i) are equally applicable to sub-criteria A(iii) and A(iv). In addition, where a site is known or inferred to contain ≥10% of a HRE or RRE, this should be recorded in the site documentation.
Aiv	Site contains one or more range restricted endemic species that are potentially threatened	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥1% of the global population AND/OR ≥5% of the national population OR the 5 "best sites" for that species nationally, whichever is most appropriate

Criterion B: Exceptional Botanical Richness

Criterion B is designed to identify and conserve sites of exceptional plant and fungal diversity, focussing on high-quality species assemblages, irrespective of threat. Sites that contain high concentrations of species that either indicate high quality habitat and/or species rich sites can qualify as IPAs under Criterion B.

Criterion	Description	Threshold	Sources and guidance on applying criteria
B(i)	Site contains a high number of species within defined habitat or vegetation types	For each habitat or vegetation type: up to 10% of the national resource can be selected within the whole national IPA network OR the 5 ‘‘best sites’’ nationally, whichever is the most appropriate	(1) The development and use of national indicator species for each habitat/vegetation type is encouraged, given sufficient data. Indicator species chosen for B(i) should be characteristic species that indicate good quality habitat: axiophytes (see Lockton 2005; Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland 2016). (2) Botanical richness is linked to habitats in this sub-criterion to give an indication of habitat quality-the best peat bogs, the best chalk grasslands, etc., since it is important to compare like with like. Sites that have exceptional richness because they hold a mosaic of habitats within a small area should be identified using B(ii) below. (3) This sub-criterion should only be applied for defined habitats where there is a sufficient level of information on species composition in order to determine habitat quality. It is likely to be difficult to apply systematically in many tropical countries, where habitat classifications at an appropriately fine scale and lists of indicator species for habitat quality often do not currently exist. In these cases, sub-criterion B(ii) is likely to be more appropriate-assessors should apply either B(i) or B(ii), not both.
B(ii)	Site contains an exceptional number of species of high conservation importance	Site known to contain ≥3% of the selected national list of species of conservation importance OR the 15 richest sites nationally, whichever is most appropriate	(1) B(ii) species can be selected from the following categories: (a) restricted range species, defined as those with a total range of \10,000 km² (note: species also qualifying under IPA criterion A are NOT excluded), (b) national endemic species, (c) national Red List species not covered by criterion A. It is not obligatory to include all of the categories (a–c). The possible inclusion here of national endemics—defined by political borders—is not without controversy, but we acknowledge that national endemic species can be of importance in conservation planning and so should be recognised as species of high conservation importance. The decision as to which species groups from (a) to (c) are chosen for applying this sub-criterion should be made by the national IPA constituency. (2) Lists of species used should be published and justified as part of the IPA identification process. (3)The species list can comprise qualifying species from the total flora or mycota of the country, or the qualifying species from one or more taxonomic groups (for example, a plant family) that is/are representative of the wider flora or mycota and so can be used as proxy group(s) for measuring exceptional richness. (4) There is no prescriptive minimum number of species for a site to qualify as this will depend in part on the richness of the national flora or mycota and of its species of high conservation importance, but the site should be exceptional at a national scale; this judgement can be made by the national IPA constituency. (5) Sites selected should have reasonable ecological and geographical integrity, whether a habitat mosaic or otherwise, and should not be greater than 1% of the area of the country or 50,000 km², whichever is the smaller.
B(iii)	Site contains an exceptional number of socially, economically or culturally valuable species	Site known to contain ≥3% of the selected national list of socially, economically or culturally valuable species OR the 15 richest sites nationally, whichever is most appropriate	(1) B(iii) species can be selected from the following categories and should focus on those species that would benefit from site-based conservation measures: (a) socio- economically important wild-harvested species, including medicinal plants, foodplants, resin/dye plants, timber species, etc., (b) CWRs, (c) other culturally and spiritually important plants; (d) CITES species listed on Appendix 1 or Appendix 2 (excluding plant groups where whole families/genera are listed on Appendix 2 such as orchids, Aloe spp., succulent Euphorbia spp.). (2) A list of B(iii) species should be published and justified as part of the IPA identification process. Naturalised alien species should not be included on this list except where a strong case can be made for their inclusion (e.g., thoroughly naturalised archaeophytes); this is a decision for the national IPA constituency. (3) Notes (4) and (5) for sub-criterion B(ii) equally apply here.

Criterion C: Threatened Habitats

Criterion C is designed to capture the largest, most intact areas of threatened and/or extremely restricted (and thus highly likely to be threatened) natural or semi-natural habitats, and severely declining habitats that may once have been common. This is regardless of how botanically rich they are.

Criterion	Description	Threshold	Notes
Ci	Site contains globally threatened or restricted habitat/ vegetation type	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥5% of the national resource (area) of the threatened habitat type OR site is among the best quality examples required to collectively prioritise 20-60% of the national resource OR the 5 “best sites” for that habitat nationally, whichever is the most appropriate.	(1) C(i) threatened or restricted habitat/vegetation types are taken from a globally recognised list, potentially following the categories and criteria of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Ecosystems (Bland et al. 2015). This list does not exist at present but may do in future so is included to ‘future-proof’ the criteria. (2) The 20–60% threshold is derived from the EU Habitats Directive for priority threatened habitats and so may not be appropriate for use outside Europe, where the C5% threshold may be more appropriate. (3) Wherever possible, the national importance of the site should be documented by applying the threshold for the % of the national resource; the selection of ‘‘best sites’’ should only be applied where quantitative data are not available and cannot be inferred. (4) In addition to meeting the national thresholds, if the site is known or inferred to contain C5% of the global extent of a globally Endangered or Critically Endangered habitat/vegetation type, C10% of the global extent of a globally Vulnerable habitat/ vegetation type, or C20% of the global extent of a geographically-restricted habitat/vegetation type regardless of threat status, then this should be recorded in the site documentation to assist with alignment to KBA criteria.
Cii	Site contains regionally threatened or restricted habitat/ vegetation type	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥5% of the national resource (area) of the threatened habitat type OR site is among the best quality examples required to collectively prioritise 20-60% of the national resource OR the 5 “best sites” nationally, whichever is the most appropriate	(1) C(ii) restricted or threatened habitats or vegetation types are taken from a regionally recognised list. This list can be developed, peer-reviewed and published as part of the IPA identification process if neighbouring countries are involved. (2) Notes (2) and (3) for sub-criterion C(i) equally apply here.
Ciii	Site contains nationally threatened or restricted habitat/vegetation type, AND/OR habitats that have severely declined in extent nationally	Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥10% of the national resource (area) of the threatened habitat type OR site is among the best quality examples required to collectively prioritise up to 20% of the national resource OR the 5 ‘‘best sites’’ for that habitat nationally, whichever is most appropriate	(1) C(iii) restricted or threatened habitats or vegetation types are taken from a nationally recognised list. This list can be developed, published and peer reviewed as part of the IPA identification process. A good example of this is the nationally threatened habitat list of Armenia (Asatryan and Fayvush 2013). (2) Habitats that have ‘‘severely declined in extent’’ are defined as those that have declined in extent by 50% or more nationally since 1900. (3) This sub-criterion will capture the most intact examples of those habitats that are threatened or highly restricted or severely declining within the country (and potentially more widely). It can also capture those habitats that have a nationally restricted range, even though they are more common elsewhere, if they are an important national resource and/or they are important as ‘edge of range’ examples. (4) This sub-criterion is more appropriate to use in larger and/or data poor countries where data are held at a national level—in time it will help countries obtain a greater understanding of threatened/restricted habitats in their countries and how they relate to the wider regional and/or global picture. (5) Note (3) of sub-criterion C(i) equally applies here.

Criterion

Description

Threshold

Notes

Site contains globally threatened or restricted habitat/ vegetation type

Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥5% of the national resource (area) of the threatened habitat type

OR site is among the best quality examples required to collectively prioritise 20-60% of the national resource

OR the 5 “best sites” for that habitat nationally, whichever is the most appropriate.

(1) C(i) threatened or restricted habitat/vegetation types are taken from a globally recognised list, potentially following the categories and criteria of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Ecosystems (Bland et al. 2015). This list does not exist at present but may do in future so is included to ‘future-proof’ the criteria.

(2) The 20–60% threshold is derived from the EU Habitats Directive for priority threatened habitats and so may not be appropriate for use outside Europe, where the C5% threshold may be more appropriate.

(3) Wherever possible, the national importance of the site should be documented by applying the threshold for the % of the national resource; the selection of ‘‘best sites’’ should only be applied where quantitative data are not available and cannot be inferred.

(4) In addition to meeting the national thresholds, if the site is known or inferred to contain C5% of the global extent of a globally Endangered or Critically Endangered habitat/vegetation type, C10% of the global extent of a globally Vulnerable habitat/ vegetation type, or C20% of the global extent of a geographically-restricted habitat/vegetation type regardless of threat status, then this should be recorded in the site documentation to assist with alignment to KBA criteria.

Cii

Site contains regionally threatened or restricted habitat/ vegetation type

Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥5% of the national resource (area) of the threatened habitat type

OR site is among the best quality examples required to collectively prioritise 20-60% of the national resource

OR the 5 “best sites” nationally, whichever is the most appropriate

(1) C(ii) restricted or threatened habitats or vegetation types are taken from a regionally recognised list. This list can be developed, peer-reviewed and published as part of the IPA identification process if neighbouring countries are involved.

(2) Notes (2) and (3) for sub-criterion C(i) equally apply here.

Ciii

Site contains nationally threatened or restricted habitat/vegetation type, AND/OR habitats that have severely declined in extent nationally

Site known, thought or inferred to contain ≥10% of the national resource (area) of the threatened habitat type

OR site is among the best quality examples required to collectively prioritise up to 20% of the national resource

OR the 5 ‘‘best sites’’ for that habitat nationally, whichever is most appropriate

(1) C(iii) restricted or threatened habitats or vegetation types are taken from a nationally recognised list. This list can be developed, published and peer reviewed as part of the IPA identification process. A good example of this is the nationally threatened habitat list of Armenia (Asatryan and Fayvush 2013).

(2) Habitats that have ‘‘severely declined in extent’’ are defined as those that have declined in extent by 50% or more nationally since 1900.

(3) This sub-criterion will capture the most intact examples of those habitats that are threatened or highly restricted or severely declining within the country (and potentially more widely). It can also capture those habitats that have a nationally restricted range, even though they are more common elsewhere, if they are an important national resource and/or they are important as ‘edge of range’ examples.

(4) This sub-criterion is more appropriate to use in larger and/or data poor countries where data are held at a national level—in time it will help countries obtain a greater understanding of threatened/restricted habitats in their countries and how they relate to the wider regional and/or global picture.

(5) Note (3) of sub-criterion C(i) equally applies here.