Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation

1
Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in
Dynamic Ecosystems (RUBICODE) Integrating
ecosystem services into habitat management and
biodiversity policy in Europe For further
information contact John Haslett (email
john.haslett_at_sbg.ac.at) or Rob Jongman (email
rob.jongman_at_wur.nl)
Funded under the European Commission Sixth
Framework Programme Contract Number 036890
2
Presentation outline

• Present conservation strategies Protected Areas
  and networks.
• The importance of non-protected areas Ecosystem
  service provision and the wider landscape.
• The example of agriculture and the Common
  Agricultural Policy (CAP).
• An in-depth analysis of conservation policy the
  views of stakeholders in France, Germany and
  Hungary.
• General limitations of present conservation
  strategies.
• A new framework for conservation in Europe
  encompassing ecosystem dynamics and ecosystem
  service provision.
• Some gaps in present knowledge that still require
  attention.

3
Present conservation strategies

• Habitat protection is now recognised as a
  prerequisite for species survival.
• As a result, a continuous, overlapping spectrum
  of valid conservation strategies, encompassing
  species and their habitats, is covered by present
  legislation, e.g. Bern Convention (CoE), Habitats
  Directive (EU) others.

4
The established approach relies on Protected Area
(PA) management

• Protected Areas play a central role in
  conservation strategies and policy many
  different instruments covering all levels.
• Six IUCN categories of Protected Areas with a
  gradient of management intervention to meet
  different needs in different situations.
• European Protected Areas are no longer very
  efficient interests and emphasis have changed
  from PA design and inventorying to management for
  sustainable development.

5
The Emerald and Natura 2000 network

• The EU Natura 2000 network of Protected Areas
  forms part of the wider Emerald Network of the
  Bern Convention. Areas are identified by the
  individual Member States.
• The Natura 2000 network is comprised of Special
  Bird Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of
  Conservation (SAC) and Marine Protected Areas
  (MPA).
• Numbers and sizes of the designated PAs differs
  greatly between Member States.
• Integration of the Emerald and Natura 2000 areas
  into the wider landscape has not been realised.

6
The density of Natura 2000 sites differs in
France and Germany
7
Non-protected areas

• Most land in Europe is not protected and much
  biodiversity is outside Protected Areas.
• Organisms disperse naturally across landscapes
  the resulting distribution patterns are important
  for species heterogeneity and ecosystem function.

• Large scale management
• of non-PAs may be
• helped through the
• Landscape Convention.
• Ecological linkages
• between PAs are essential,
• but not enough by
• themselves.

8
Biodiversity within and outside PAs also delivers
ecosystem services
Ecosystem services need to be protected together
with species and habitats because

• They are essential for human well-being
• They are a currency to value ecosystems and
  promote their sustainable use
• They offer a value-added strategy to supplement
  presently established biodiversity conservation.

9
Biodiversity conservation outside PAs
Agriculture and the CAP

• Within RUBICODE, CAP analysed in 7 case studies
  selected based on the following criteria
• the approval of the RDPs
• availability of an English translation
• maximum diversity (geographical, social and
  economical).
• Selected countries and regions
• Hungary
• Ireland
• Italy- Veneto
• Lithuania
• the Netherlands
• Sweden
• UK- England.

10
Agriculture and biodiversity

• Many Red List species depend on grassland.
• Several priority habitats depend on farming.
• High Nature Value (HNV) farmland varies between
  states up to 25 in Ireland.
• Less Favourable Areas (LFAs) vary greatly
• Ireland 75
• Sweden 50
• Veneto 46
• Lithuania 43.5
• England 24
• Hungary, the Netherlands lt 10.
• Natura 2000 areas can also contain farmland
• Sweden 110,000 hectares in LFAs designated as
  Natura 2000
• 40 of the English LFA is within National Park
  boundaries.

11
No standardisation between member states

• No commonly agreed definition for rural.
• EC commission uses the OECD definition.
• According to OECD standards Sweden is 99 rural,
  the Netherlands 0.
• Most national Rural Development Programmes (RDPs)
  provide definitions that suit the national
  circumstances and are not comparable.
• HNV is used but a definition is rarely provided
  nor statistics addressing HNV farmland.

12
Second pillar of the CAP is the basis for RDPs

• The second Pillar consists of four axes, namely
• Axis 1 improving the competitiveness of the
  agricultural and forestry sector
• Axis 2 improving the environment and the
  countryside
• Axis 3 the quality of life in rural areas and
  diversification of the rural economy
• Axis 4 Leader, building local capacity for
  employment and diversification (EC 1698/2005).

13
Threats for farmland biodiversity
14
In-depth Analysis of Nature Conservation Policies

• 3 countries analysed France, Germany and
  Hungary.
• Semi-structured interviews undertaken with key
  national stakeholders.
• Analysis of key policy documents.
• Country reports.

15
Results from the interviews

• Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services
• Ecosystem services is an important concept to
  convince people about the necessity of nature
  conservation.
• However, it is hard to get ecosystem service
  ideas accepted.
• Attributing an economic value to natural
  biological resources is a good idea.
• Traditional concepts of conservation have a
  limited perspective. There is a need for
  approaches with a wider spectrum, including
  temporal and spatial dynamics.

16
Results from the interviews

• Public Participation in Biodiversity
  Conservation
• Public participation is recognised as of
  increasing importance NGOs and also companies,
  local governments and professional groups in
  direct contact with nature (such as farmers,
  fishers) as well as the general public have to be
  more involved if we want to change gear.
• There is an increasing participatory role of
  NGOs.

17
Results from the interviews

• General priorities
• To improve the efficiency of bridging scientific
  knowledge and policies
• To set more quantitative targets for nature
  conservation (such as for climate change or
  pesticide reduction)
• To integrate biodiversity conservation into other
  policy fields
• To promote the importance of soil and water
  protection as well as species and biotope
  protection.

18
Limitations of current conservation strategies

• Reasons for conservation have been largely
  aesthetic only just starting to include
  socio-economic aspects.
• Most institutions and instruments assume
  spatially and temporally static situations.
• Conservation is considered primarily at human
  scales, involving simple spatial habitat
  mosaics.
• Conservation relies heavily on PAs and networks,
  even though ecological corridor functioning is
  still unclear.
• Invertebrates under-represented at all levels.

19
Framework for integrating ecosystem services into
conservation (part 1)
Species/habitat protection
Human aesthetic, cultural and moral values
Conservation policy and management strategy
Static site-based PAs networks
20
ES conservation framework (part 2)
Ecosystem service provision
Societal needs
Species/habitat protection
Human aesthetic, cultural and moral values
Conservation policy and management strategy
Sectoral policy and management
Ecosystem sustainability and integrity
Static site-based PAs networks
Management for sustainable ecosystem services
Conservation within socio-ecological systems
21
Gaps in knowledge and practice that require
attention (I)

• A more dynamic approach that takes account of
  ecosystem dynamics.
• Managing spatial mosaic heterogeneity must be
  bound to temporal change, recognising climate and
  land use change.
• Nested spatial scales View habitat mosaics from
  the organism point of view in addition to human
  landscape perspectives.
• Inclusion of invertebrates in habitat management
  decisions and legislation these animals form
  most biodiversity and have many essential
  ecosystem functions and services across a wide
  range of scales.

22
Gaps in knowledge and practice that require
attention (II)

• Integration of conservation strategies and policy
  with other sectors agriculture, transport,
  industry, etc.
• Knowledge on balancing the conflicts between
  economic service provision and biodiversity
  conservation.
• Inclusion of the sustainable provision of
  ecosystem services within the bounds of
  management for conservation would be one way to
  add value to present conservation management
  strategies.