Many protected
areas are badly suited to overcome climate change–induced shifts in species’
geographic ranges. Studies show that protected areas “have not been designed
for efficient (or even complete) representation of species” (Hannah et al. 2007). Fixed protected areas
alone will not be sufficient to safeguard biodiversity from the impacts of
climate change. Hannah et al. show
that between 6% and 22% of species in their analysis failed to meet
representation targets for future ranges that take into account the impact of
climate change, with a further increase expected under more severe climate
change scenarios. Connectivity measures, such as the creation of corridors or
stepping stones compensate for such losses. This is also reflected in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment: “[c]orridors and other habitat design aspects to give
flexibility to protected areas are effective precautionary strategies. Improved
management of habitat corridors and production ecosystems between protected
areas will help biodiversity adapt to changing conditions” (MEA 2005). A
combination of several measures (enlarging areas, securing robust large areas,
securing ecological connections between areas, and establishing real ecological
networks) therefore seems to be the best approach to maximize the ability of
nature to cope with the pressure of climate change on biodiversity.
The IUCN recently published a two volume publication titled ‘The
Legal Aspects of Connectivity Conservation’ (IUCN 2013). Volume 1 gives a broad
overview of current insights and understanding of connectivity conservation and
explains through which legal mechanisms connectivity conservation can be
achieved, taking examples from around the world, and focusing on land use
planning law, development control law, voluntary conservation agreements and
economic and market-based instruments. Volume 2 has a wealth of case studies of
connectivity projects around the world. These projects range from local or
regional projects, to nationwide or even continent wide connectivity projects.
Examples of these are the nationwide ecological network in the Netherlands, the
3600km long corridor of the Great Eastern Ranges in Australia, the EU’s Natura
2000 network (including domestic projects in France, Germany, Spain, the UK,
Finland and Slovakia) and corridors in Brazil, such as the Central Amazon
Corridor.
Connectivity conservation and the management of connectivity
conservation areas are emerging fields of scientific study and conservation
management practice within the broader subject of nature conservation. In the
most basic terms, connectivity conservation is a conservation measure in
natural areas that are interconnected and in environments that are degraded or
fragmented by human impacts and development where the aim is to maintain or
restore the integrity of the affected natural ecosystems, linkages between
critical habitats for wildlife, and ecological processes important for the
goods and services they provide to nature and people. In fragmented ecosystems,
wildlife corridors and other natural linkages such as green belts and large
wildlife corridors have been common representations of connectivity
conservation. The scientific emphasis takes into account connectivity needs
across landscapes and seascapes, and in some cases even across continents,
where necessary to maintain or restore specific linkages for habitat or species
populations, or to maintain or restore important ecosystem processes.
Scientific study and conservation practice have made important strides in
understanding and applying connectivity conservation across a range of scales
and functions.
The overarching conclusion from the research and analyses
undertaken for this project as presented in Volume 1 of the report is the need
for countries to become increasingly alert to their connectivity conservation
needs, undertake connectivity planning, and initiate actions using existing
mechanisms and opportunities as much as possible to negotiate and protect
critical connectivity areas before they are lost to development. To support
this process, a related conclusion is that a wide array of different legal
instruments and tools already exist in many legal systems to begin to promote
and implement science-based connectivity actions in priority
landscapes/seascapes and local sites. Countries should start with these tools,
using the best scientific information available, before development pressures
make conservation or restoration no longer economically or political feasible.
As experience is gained working with communities and landholders, and managing
for connectivity conservation, a foundation of knowledge and support can be
built for amending or enacting new legislation, as needed, to strengthen and
integrate connectivity conservation authority into legal frameworks.
Opportunities to use existing law and policy instruments should not be delayed
by those efforts. It also is important to recognize that the law, by its nature
and function, aims for clarity, certainty, and clearly defined processes and
criteria for achieving specific goals and objectives. These features are essential
for societies to have orderly interactions and effective future planning. In
contrast, connectivity conservation is a tool for adapting to change due to
dynamic factors related to current and new threats to protected areas,
biodiversity and ecosystems, and to global change including climate change. Bringing
the law and connectivity together requires that the law incorporate some
flexibility in order for management to be able to respond to changing
connectivity conservation needs and that connectivity conservation actions be
based on the best available scientific information (in both the natural and social
sciences) so that management actions and commitments are well founded for the
foreseeable future. Law has several mechanisms that can provide flexibility.
These include requirements for periodic review and revision of management
plans, regular monitoring based on ecological criteria, the development of
performance measures to help assess and evaluate whether management plans are
achieving their intended purposes, and decision-making mechanisms to monitor
and incorporate new scientific information relevant for connectivity
conservation management as it becomes available.
For Europe, it is clear that Natura 2000 alone does not
constitute a coherent network in the sense of truly interconnected protected
areas throughout an entire country or throughout the whole of the EU.
Additional, domestic instruments, mainly in the field of nature conservation
law and spatial planning law are needed to create connectivity between the
Natura 2000 sites. Even in case domestic instruments are applied, in addition
to the EU’s Natura 2000 legal framework, to achieve connectivity, we still
cannot be certain that the network remains just an ecological network on paper.
Much depends on the actual application of all the laws and policies on
activities within the areas that constitute the network. Farmers and other
local landowners have to refrain from harmful activities, and/or have to
actively manage the area to support the area’s connectivity function. Financial
incentives are needed to make this happen. Fortunately, we can observe that EU
Member States increasingly do apply such domestic instruments in order to
achieve connectivity. Domestic policies in various Member States, such as the
Netherlands and the UK, provide for additional connectivity instruments that
add to the Natura 2000 network. Domestic subsidy schemes across the EU exist as
well, and the EU’s LIFE+ scheme provide important financial incentives for
connectivity. This, however, is largely due to national policy initiatives, and
based upon national law instruments. At the EU level, there seems to be a slow
movement towards accepting that connectivity measures are legally required by
the current texts of the Birds and Habitats Directive. The Alto Sil judgment of
the EU Court of Justice (Case C-404/09 European Commission v Spain), as well as
a range of policy documents go into that direction. In my view, however, there
is much to say for more explicit regulating connectivity (and restoration)
requirements in binding legal instruments, such as the EU Habitats Directive.
There is a fear that altering the current text of the Habitats Directive will
open Pandora’s Box, leading to a decline of the impact of this Directive on
nature conservation in Europe. Fear, however, generally is a bad advisor. The
Habitats Directive is getting outdated, caught up by climate change and by
large scale landscape fragmentation in Europe.
Posts
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten